chufffedlittlemuffaletta:

fucktheory:

It’s The Economy, Stupid
(click)
I find OKCupid’s statistical analyses of cyber-sexual behavior consistently fascinating and a useful organization of data that would otherwise just sit there.  I also find the phrase “gay sexual recklessness” extremely, unfortunately moralizing.  There’s a big difference between being sexually promiscuous and being sexually reckless, and it’s precisely the conflation of absolute quantity with immanent significance which distinguishes morality from ethics.  In other words, having “reckless” sex with one partner can fuck you up a lot more than having “careful” sex with lots of partners, and that’s something each and every one of us would do well to keep in mind.
(for numbers on wealth distribution in the US, see E.N. Wolff, “Recent trends in household wealth in the United States,” 2007 & 2010).

Can someone explain this to me? I feel stupid because 14 people (so far) apparently understand this and I do not. I just don’t get the relationship between the two statistics and how that relationship shows that sexuality is a superstructural elaboration of capitalism. “Capitalism is the accumulation of value,” I get. But i don’t get the analogy between amount of sex someone has and wealth. What’s being accumulated? Pleasure? Notches in bedposts? If that’s the case, then this is a critique of treating pleasure (or partners) as if it’s capital or a commodity, right? Which, OK, but I can imagine a noncapitalist system in which huge sluts still exist. So sluttiness would have a different meaning in that noncapitalist system is the point?
I mean, I get that there can be different libidinal economies and shit, but… I still don’t get it.
Probably this post exposes me as a hugely unsophisticated thinker. Or someone who has not read enough Deleuze.
(And this post is not addressed to fucktheory bc I have never seen him respond to anyone, but if you’re out there, fucktheory, feel free to holler at me.)

<3
i have read a fair amount of deleuze and this still escapes me

chufffedlittlemuffaletta:

fucktheory:

It’s The Economy, Stupid

(click)

I find OKCupid’s statistical analyses of cyber-sexual behavior consistently fascinating and a useful organization of data that would otherwise just sit there.  I also find the phrase “gay sexual recklessness” extremely, unfortunately moralizing.  There’s a big difference between being sexually promiscuous and being sexually reckless, and it’s precisely the conflation of absolute quantity with immanent significance which distinguishes morality from ethics.  In other words, having “reckless” sex with one partner can fuck you up a lot more than having “careful” sex with lots of partners, and that’s something each and every one of us would do well to keep in mind.

(for numbers on wealth distribution in the US, see E.N. Wolff, “Recent trends in household wealth in the United States,” 2007 & 2010).

Can someone explain this to me? I feel stupid because 14 people (so far) apparently understand this and I do not. I just don’t get the relationship between the two statistics and how that relationship shows that sexuality is a superstructural elaboration of capitalism. “Capitalism is the accumulation of value,” I get. But i don’t get the analogy between amount of sex someone has and wealth. What’s being accumulated? Pleasure? Notches in bedposts? If that’s the case, then this is a critique of treating pleasure (or partners) as if it’s capital or a commodity, right? Which, OK, but I can imagine a noncapitalist system in which huge sluts still exist. So sluttiness would have a different meaning in that noncapitalist system is the point?

I mean, I get that there can be different libidinal economies and shit, but… I still don’t get it.

Probably this post exposes me as a hugely unsophisticated thinker. Or someone who has not read enough Deleuze.

(And this post is not addressed to fucktheory bc I have never seen him respond to anyone, but if you’re out there, fucktheory, feel free to holler at me.)

<3

i have read a fair amount of deleuze and this still escapes me

from ch-ch-chuffed
@start-anywhere

i just realized that your tumblr username is probably a deleuze reference, too

i like it, at any rate

that is all

start-anywhere:

defy-gravity:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil

that’s arborescence for ya

reblogged because policing of reproductivity is scary and ongoing, and because deleuze references are lovely

start-anywhere:

defy-gravity:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil

that’s arborescence for ya

reblogged because policing of reproductivity is scary and ongoing, and because deleuze references are lovely

(Source: undercoverflowers)

from start-anywhere
jaw wagging

maybe ‘rhizomatic socialism’ is a phrase that needs to come into usage, for a while

it’s like ‘radical socialism’ but deleuzian etc

y’see? - not (only) a radix, a root

i like it

i will post more again when finals are gone

popnihilism:

La descripción de Guattari y El Anti-Edipo parece una poca extraña en el español, pero no se una otra manera para decirla.  Haz de clic en el foto para la toda entrevista en forma de .pdf.
The characterization of Guattari and Anti-Oedipus sounds so strange in Spanish, as does the entire interview.  But I can’t think of a better way to put it.  Click picture for pdf interview. 

popnihilism:

La descripción de Guattari y El Anti-Edipo parece una poca extraña en el español, pero no se una otra manera para decirla.  Haz de clic en el foto para la toda entrevista en forma de .pdf.

The characterization of Guattari and Anti-Oedipus sounds so strange in Spanish, as does the entire interview.  But I can’t think of a better way to put it.  Click picture for pdf interview. 

from popnihilism
The idea of feeling guilty is, for me, just as repugnant as being someone else’s guilty conscience. - Gilles Deleuze - from Letter to a Harsh Critic (via popnihilism)
from popnihilism
from once more &#8230;   with feeling
made while thinking about some stuff i want to write for my deleuze &amp; guattari directed reading; specifically i&#8217;m thinking through the uses of ch. 7 - year zero: faciality from &#8220;a thousand plateaus&#8221; for trans / sex / gender stuff, and i was reminded of this quote, which i like very much

from once more …   with feeling

made while thinking about some stuff i want to write for my deleuze & guattari directed reading; specifically i’m thinking through the uses of ch. 7 - year zero: faciality from “a thousand plateaus” for trans / sex / gender stuff, and i was reminded of this quote, which i like very much

beetx:

petroleusepress:

Lines of flight or of deterritorialization, becoming-wolf, becoming-inhuman, deterritorialized intensities: that is what multiplicity is. To become wolf or to become hole is to deterritorialize oneself following distinct but entangled lines. A hole is no more negative than a wolf. Castration, lack, substitution: a tale told by an overconscious idiot who has no understanding of multiplicities as formations of the unconscious. A wolf is a hole, they are both particles of the unconscious, nothing but particles, productions of particles, particulate paths, as elements of molecular multiplicities. It is not even sufficient to say that intense and moving particles pass through holes; a hole is just as much a particle as what passes through it. Physicists say that holes are not the absence of particles but particles traveling faster than the speed of light. Flying anuses, speeding vaginas, there is no castration.

beetx:

petroleusepress:

Lines of flight or of deterritorialization, becoming-wolf, becoming-inhuman, deterritorialized intensities: that is what multiplicity is. To become wolf or to become hole is to deterritorialize oneself following distinct but entangled lines. A hole is no more negative than a wolf. Castration, lack, substitution: a tale told by an overconscious idiot who has no understanding of multiplicities as formations of the unconscious. A wolf is a hole, they are both particles of the unconscious, nothing but particles, productions of particles, particulate paths, as elements of molecular multiplicities. It is not even sufficient to say that intense and moving particles pass through holes; a hole is just as much a particle as what passes through it. Physicists say that holes are not the absence of particles but particles traveling faster than the speed of light. Flying anuses, speeding vaginas, there is no castration.

from shoulders
Eugene Thacker […] is Associate Professor in the School of Literature Communication and Culture at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His forthcoming book is entitled “After Life,” and he is the author of two books on the life sciences […] Thacker is currently visiting scholar at Miskatonic University’s Colloquy for Inexistent Cryptobiology. -

Object-Oriented Ontology Symposium - Georgia Tech, April 23, 2010

hott lovecraft reference!

dunno if i’ll get to go to this symposium; i’d like to, but that’s pushing the end of the semester, so i may not have time

not sure what i think of object oriented ontology stuff yet; at the moment it kind of seems like an ontology that takes deleuze’s plane of consistency as a setting for theorizing

which seems really interesting to do and makes a lot of sense to me intuitively, but i feel that i’ve not yet read enough ooo (or enough deleuze) to feel like i have smart things to say about it yet

[…] [A]n organ has “a thousand vicissitudes,” […] it is “difficult to localize, difficult to identify, it is in turn a bone, an engine, excrement, the baby, a hand, daddy’s heart …” This is not at all because the organ is experienced as a part-object. It is because the organ is exactly what its elements make in according to their relation of movement or rest, and the way in which this relation combines with or splits off from that of neighboring elements. - deleuze and guattari, a thousand plateaus
The drawings below are a methodical interpretation of the first two chapters of        A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schzophrenia ( via Marc Ngui | Drawing - Art )

The drawings below are a methodical interpretation of the first two chapters of A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schzophrenia ( via Marc Ngui | Drawing - Art )

The Pink Panther imitates nothing, it reproduces nothing, it paints the world its color, pink on pink; this is its becoming-world, carried out in such a way that it becomes imperceptible itself, asignifying, makes its rupture, its own line of flight, follows its “aparallel evolution” through to the end. -

from a thousand plateaus by deleuze and guattari

for une-mort-existentielle