re, Co-author ... would have been 91 and


  it's not dying or dead or could have would have  as that'd also mean or refer to Having and philosophy's not Having anything

           it's not about Having it's about mooring and moving and thinking for yourself somewhere else to go

 R  Co-author Co-Author Co-Author Co-Author of Anti-Oedipus, would have been 91 and

_________________So Mona heard the moon and start of shrouded tent rivers beckoning her song of love and health




.. Craving... caring .. repressing...A comically (FUn!) succinct view of Felix Guattari and Gilles D's first co-authored book AntiOedipus................


                   Do We Crave Fascism? (Freud ......................SchiZoAnAYsIs... Psychoanalysis) – 8-Bit Philosophy

Join Wisecrack! ►►'
We're Wisecrack, a media collective run by comedians, academics, filmmakers, and artists who are endlessly curious about the world around us. Our channel explores great topics in amazing and unexpected ways to make them fun and engaging. There's a lot of variety on our channel, but trust us: if you SUBSCRIBE, you won't regret it!

Press Start for "Do We Crave Fascism?" by 8-Bit Philosophy, where classic video games introduce famous thinkers, problems, and concepts with quotes, teachings, and more. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------- thank you GillesDeleuzeVK for------------

Difference engineer professor Keith Ansell Pearson - Self-Cultivation as an Ethics of Resistance



Gilles Deleuze, Co-author Co-Author Co-Author Co-Author of Anti-Oedipus, would have been 91 and

 because a thinker's born many times/ he's born in the work of other people/ and sometimes centuries apart

 But philosophers are not born but reborn . See Plato: the philosopher's soul is reborn every ten thousand years. Which is why Plato could have read Deleuze reading Hegel .  Simultaneous Karmic incarnation?

Gilles Deleuze, CoCOCOCCOCOCCOCauthor of Anti-Oedipus, would have been 91. 


_________However it's a fun idea it does not add up as Philosophers can never 'could have .' 


  Philosophers are always 

  • ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||\

     think of the platonic vaccum ___ versus the cave?


    _________________and you see Sartre talked about philsophical epochs and that one could not think outside of those epochs and that if you tried you'd only be going backwards or end up repeating what's been said/

    Interesting don't you think? so what Epoch's Deleuze ....hahhaha O yes hands fluttering in the air oh yeah there's that funny  it's  a reference ot that funny remark about our this century (which was t he 20) (now over) being a Deleuzian one

     that's  a referral to a kind of epoch or a proper name as guattari and deleuze like to call it
      but epoch says more and less
       and it hints at the word Epoke  which I believe is  term in Husserl but how it's used I am not familiar with but

     I betcha it has something to do with time       and the phenomena of time's multiple eclipse

       riff riff  but here the epoch is what then ? what episteme are we locking into or reckoned by?
      as it s   a kind of velocity machine a clock and some thing like a flow all at the same time

    A  geology machine you see and a liquid form of the full body of the earth? that ever creating self creating mass of rotund being and becoming?

      well thinking's always made at the time it's made and it's whereabouts in that sense are never known but always to

    found or explained and explained in the best sense as revealing or opening hidden edifices in our brain which 
      block us from seeing and thinking new ideas and perceptions and awarenesses and consciousnesses

    and then there's all these dictators of deleuze's ideas going around commanding attention hither and yon

                      and some are authentic and breaking new ground but others are just boring and at times perpertrared by paranoiacs who really know nothing about thought and have not disciplined themselves
    or studied in any way   but are carving niches?

    I'm not sure really but they're not throwing lassoes out to new ideas I mean new thought

     BUt back to this idea that Deleuze would have been 91 etcetera 

                    It's not true and it's not likely for one he was very sick and had to die when he did
     the person the body died   yes and is what it was at the time

                       But for thought Deleuze never died Nor did he He just Jumped on the boat
                                        getting to the other side continuing his ideas 
                                                  in what soever immanent fold of  things 
                                      that suited him

                                                    and there were others there to greet him 
                                                                                     probably Spinoza at the window

                                                                                 and Guattari at         the       Door

                               So Deleuze  never died        




    if it were Hegel it was Deleuze


    if it's Hegel reading Deleuze and D. (as in Deterritorialization) reading the first (H)

    which comes first then? if
    after is the beginning of the nothing that might be the void? and if the repetition of the difference is the

                         leaping in the present _rather along the Kierkegaardian ( there's a phrase I can't ... it's not remembering itself to me )

     notion of  the different different (the eternal return of the variation) ,  at this junction then then then then then then  then is Hegel seeing Deleuze's seeing seeing seeing seeing seeing seeing Seen Seen Seen

                                                     eyes through the text of its partial totality or its near incomplete totality?

    __________________ questions to be resumed ________as We and They continue our research

    our intuitive grasping of the general beyond beginning 

                                  the fireworks of the dialectic? Is it Socrates returned to spite Nietzsche whose own frustrated readings of

    Plato/Socrates led him to false conclusions and polemics  .

    Such as Socrates being ugly had to do with the dialectic than Xanthippe had taught him?

    and wherefore Nietzsche's hatred of ugliness?

    He stands the high ground so called of what he presupposed was the hatred of Athenians to the Socratic dialectic because of his ugliness

     Strange salad Nietzsche concocts! that Sartre laughs off! as he too was an 'ugly' man with a wandering
      eye (in more ways than one) and yet riveted the world with
                                          his existential glance   .

       O my Nietzsche
    O My Hegel who he hated

    O my Deleuze searching for the difference   undermining the dialectic in the Spinoza? whirlpool?

    Let's not get the numbers down reducing one to the other.

    _____________________ S(if)O  were Deleuze reading (RT DT?) Hegel and it hits with a flash! the Zzzt!

    ________________________________________________ Bingo pang_____________________

                 to  continue

                                                                                          indeed it must be   .
         it's flawed    

    _________________what if philosophy went on strike?

                   And Sartre taught it was notions    and not concepts that constituted the philosophical creation.

    So if we were to construct philosophy of the kind that interests us

      in a  sort of schema

      there would be

    dating back to Kant

     Hegel            Nietzsche

    and the several lines which follow from those two:

       Mona once knew it was the existential-phenomenological versus the let's say on the other corner

     the thinkers    of becoming   (which in a sense goes back to Heraclitus ) 
                                                                                            and flux

    (So Badiou hails from the line of Parmenides and his opposites)

                                                                                                              from our friend Heraclitus

    _____________  Nota bene : deterritorialization is not identical to deconstruction. The latter is mostly one philosophical moment where as a deterritorialization is always accompanied by a reterritorilization .



    thee ... democracy





    is dial ...a


      Is dialectics then of the centaur?

               or the beast of three backs?


    1.  And one can ponder the distinction between Notions and Concepts. Sartre believes that concepts are scientific and that philosophicalideas are notions.
    3. A different view eh! Monsieur Deleuze and yr Deleuzian hordes with their infinite tractable apparatus
    Mona kills-herself with ! Holy Joy existential glory!
    Mona believes ideas are fictional fictives erratums of loneley patchs pulled by glue and matter
    spelling mistake s included
     the true dicohotomy and discovery of modern 20th century thought was the MISTAKE.
    that was goldmine pouring sun onto the keg of wine what dined on the food of the gods.

    re did


    ______________It was Hegel re did
                                                                           Did a s the first time farce is tragedy's comedy?

    this it

    it becomes Hegel with the face of Deleuze
     the latter with the facing of Sameness totality transcendence

    versus it's immanent and eminent sister

    Deleuze with the repeating face of Hegel's latter day saint.?

    _________ broadcast s.vous.plait.



    An American in Utopia ...__Listening


     army as parallel state functioning beside the actual state__________ interesting ideass!

    ___________Listening with more attention to detail . with closer attention to his ideas. ____________



    ..... is .


     Deleuze was Hegel's returning difference. of course I speak after  (all) the wars have been fought, were fought and are over.

      as D     pointed out in Negotiations .. that

    'philosophy  may have its great internal battles (between idealism and realism, and so on), but they're mock battles.

    Not being a power, philosophy can't battle with the powers that be,

     but it fights a war without battles, a guerrilla campaign against them."


    "It can't converse with them, it's got nothing to tell them, nothing to communicate,

    and  can only negotiate."

    Since the powers aren't just external things, but permeate each of us,

                                  philosophy throws all of us into constant negotiations with, 

                             and a  guerrilla campaign against, ourselves  . '

    One might say something similar happens in the mock battles or the ghost battles of poetry. The skirmishes, where Orpheus' head is torn off in one

                            poem moment

                                               yet in the next is replaced with a new one.

    Perhaps the new one is a female head, maybe Sappho's or some other lesser known

    poetess dancing her heart out.

     Aye Plato bore it in mind and Socrates took it to heart.

    A little apocryphal tale.  for two.

    for too.

    for too to to say.

     Homer horrahaed! blew his horn 

    across the millenia

    breaking through the molecules

    up popped t he resurrecting multiple Christs of the whole-part earth

    the fuller body of the earth   chaos' lover and friend.


    what doubles and giants swam then? doubles across and then over the multiple of time, its quantum leap before the vast matter of its bearing.

     A quantum has been created . And it creates . where none and many were before.