Deleuze and Guattari; May ’68 Did Not Take Place + May 68 & Its Afterlives

BLACKOUT ((poetry & politics))


In historical phenomena such as the revolution of 1789, the Commune, the revolution of 1917, there is always one part of the event that is irreducible to any social determinism, or to causal chains. Historians are not very fond of this point: they restore causality after the fact. Yet the event itself is a splitting off from, a breaking with causality; it is a bifurcation, a lawless deviation, an unstable condition that opens up a new field of the possible. In physics, Ilya Prigogine spoke of states in which the slightest differences persist rather than cancel themselves out, and where independent phenomena inter-resonate. An event can be turned around, repressed, co-opted, betrayed, but still something survives that cannot be outdated. Only traitors could say it’s outdated. Even ancient, an event can never be outdated. It is an opening onto the possible. It enters as much into the interior of individuals…

View original post 942 more words

About dmf

alienist @ large, mostly on foot
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Deleuze and Guattari; May ’68 Did Not Take Place + May 68 & Its Afterlives

  1. landzek says:

    An event is always filled out and real. Particular , fantastic and delusional, filled with potential for transcendental power. Delueuzional. 😆

    The event is singular and defies metaphysical posture. It is the structure upon which imagination produces capital called regular events. It is utterly knowable but only communicable under condition.

    • dmf says:

      never sure the degree to which they were being prescriptive vs descriptive, something almost pleading in their work or maybe scolding?

      • landzek says:

        So true . I know it’s not PC, not yet, But I swear those guys took acid and then majored in philosophy or day at the same time .

        i’ve done my fair share psychedelics, and it’s one of those things it takes one to no one I think. I mean if you think about the 60s like when the merry pranksters started taking LSD and going around places, people didn’t know that they were on LSD they just thought they were a bunch of insane kids.

        But when you have a truly profound experience on LSD and you try to figure out what exactly is going on around the experience, to me D and G pretty much do it pretty good justice for at the western philosophical paradigm . But I would submit that that is the nature of the psychedelic experience, is to be able to speak in such a way that sounds convincing to people, Especially for those other people are high which probably so many people were in the universities at least in the art community is back in the 60s and 70s

        but what also happens is as you try to explain this thing that’s going on with you you can’t really help but have moments where you kind of realize that it’s really not that true and it’s probably that you’re just high.

        This is exactly the experience I get every time I read anything by those guys, that there either pleading or their scolding you put it so perfectly. In true psychedelic form, they are either pleading with everyone to see what they see, or they are scolding everyone because everyone else is ignorant.

        So anyways it’s definitely not fashionable to say that these guys took LSD it everyone that considers themselves and intellectual gets all offended.

        Lol. ..

      • dmf says:

        maybe they did can’t imagine it would be defining for them either way, I tend to see (broadly speaking) two character types when it comes to such trips, there is my tiny minority that has a visceral experience of how our everyday/straight consciousness is also composed of (in part) chemical interactions and then there are all those who think they have been given a window onto the Real. Obviously there are parallels in philosophy where some of us are aware that we are always already manipulating/assembling/instrumentalizing and then there are all those who feel they have some sort of privileged access to make discoveries from/thru, aspects of D&G can go either way.

      • landzek says:

        I can’t read that whole thing right now but I get the jest about a third of the way through I think.

        I’m kind of glad that I didn’t go right into university out of high school because I’m sure that I would’ve fallen into the Deluezian world. I’m kind of glad that I didn’t come upon him until way after he was already dead, through my own experience.

        I like their stuff DAnd G, but I don’t know if I’m fortunate or unfortunate in coming upon him so late in the way of of his ideas; because everything I read by them just seems so transparently obvious to me that I’m not sure what makes them so great.

        It seems to me like someone is just describing like they’re walking down our neighborhood and they’re describing the front doors in the colors of the houses and how the trees look and how the Cottonwood pollen falls from the sky and all this kind of regular Kinda every day stuff.

        I mean I don’t want to sound like I’m all pompous or I’m all intelligent or smart or anything because sure I am intelligent but I’m no genius or anything. Nevertheless, from the moment I picked up I think it was 1000 plateaus about six years ago it just read to me as like a children’s book almost. It just seemed very obvious on one hand, and then on the other hand it seemed really naïve, like a child making up a story about how he lost his shoe, because he didn’t want to tell his parents that he was stomping around in the rain puddles bare feet. And I think I had this impression because there was nothing that they were saying that I didn’t already know; it’s like they were just saying stuff and coming to conclusions that I already knew. But I didn’t get it from any other philosopher, I got it from my own experience of things and my own reflection upon existence and philosophy and such.

        i’m not into media and I’m not into film and so a lot of their stuff and a lot of their particular address in media and things like that I don’t really follow I think it’s just of a different sort of interest.

        post modernity in general I think is extremely full of itself, and I tend to fall on the side of the Sokal Hoax kind of view. To me the most simple explanation that takes a count of all the facts is most probably the true answer . And if I have to make up terms to describe what I’m thinking about, if I cannot use the language that already exists then chances are it’s nonsense.

        But that being said, it doesn’t mean that I can’t be a poet or I can’t go be a rockstar or I can’t be like Alice Cooper and just invent shit invent stories that never really happened, it doesn’t mean it’s not interesting, and it doesn’t mean that I can’t take these ideas and stuff in and use in my imagination in a certain type of consistency of logic and come up with more fantastic ideas.

        But it does mean that maybe I’m being a little bit dishonest with myself if I think that dragons and wizards and ethereal plains actually exist just because I can prove them along a certain consistency of logic, and that other people enjoy thinking in that fantasy land and so then somehow it makes it true.

        I think this is what we are finding out, this is what the realist turn is really saying to us: can we please get real? Can we please admit that certain types of subjectivity ground them selves in fantasy?


        Anyways, I’m rambling.

        I have two dogs to walk separately and so often and I have a lot of time to read and comment so forgive me if because it’s so long.



      • landzek says:

        Lol. The review is longer than the book itself. 😆

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s