Thank you. It was a project outside of my ability. I would re-record every sentence about three or four times. I would then listen to the end of the last recorded bit to match the beginning of the new bit. I would not want to do it again, though I should because it's a constructive hobby. It really helped me hear what the book was saying and I want to see better quality discourse out there so I made some. It can all be done with AI now, or very soon. Including the illustrations. Matter of fact, I should complete the book with AI.
Thank you so much for this -- really helped me appreciate the ideas in D&G that I found difficult on page, but this also gives a strong impression of how beautiful their ideas are.
You're welcome. Words that don't normally go together that I use to describe D&G are exquisite and heavy. Marc Ngui will illustrate the entire book if we send him whatever money we can spare. See his crowd funder in the description.
@@austinmackell9286 (*edited for nice formatting) This is a good question. So good I couldn’t stop writing the reply, apologies for the long text but here goes. The question makes me think of others: Do we need to take anything practical from this? What matters for me is that it is inspiring and beautiful, but possibly not much beyond this, not earth-shaking. Despite being a tangle of concepts, in many passages it’s very accessible and even heartwarming - the manner is of casual conversation-making over drinks. A sense of awe is consistent, making it seem to me awe-struck, but not devotional, and I think that’s a curious difference in why it feels so unsatisfying and non-committal to me. **Please don’t let what I’m saying make anyone feel small for really enjoying and finding meaning in ATP. What I want to express is pretty damning… but it’s my honest response. I’m not a complete relativist but I appreciate this isn’t to my tastes but I still find a great deal curious in ATP and it is thought-provoking even when I dislike it. But… I find it to be mere peacock philosophy, little gleams of colourful truths shine through. Or another image: it’s like someone flicking torchlight in your eyes, momentarily dazzling but utterly futile and un-nourishing. Austin, your question: “expressible or applicable” - first with ‘expressible’, for me to bring something into the world of words, sincerely spoken , is already great in itself, a triumph over confusion, labyrinths of existential alienation. ‘Applicable’ - yes, I think so, particularly the quote (minute 58): “There is no universal capitalism, there is no capitalism in itself. Capitalism is at the crossroads of all kinds of formations. It is neo-capitalist by nature.” “Keep everything in sight at the same time” is stated at some point. I feel D&G confuse humans with animals possessing eyes on the side of the head, yet humans do not have binocular vision. The use of rhizomes appears limited because it tries to encompass everything. A narrower vision would be more liberating. There is a space opened up here which I find mystical. It feels slightly similar to the alchemist or Surrealist territory, but somehow nihilistic at heart, which stops it having a committed and humbled orientation. I feel I’m being vague here, but it is not devotional because of its decadence and love of spinning its own tail/tale. D&G perhaps should have just been novelists, as they have neither the rigour nor the sincerity to have undertaken serious philosophy. Being totally afraid of reduction, they end up as simple addicts of movement. I find myself astonished that people take this extremely seriously and sweat over its every sentence, but then I shouldn’t be surprised. To me it’s a sign that I had forgot realised the (a)moral listlessness of the 20th century, increasingly distracted and non-committal because of media and technological saturation. Would like to read your opinions from both sides. I’m so grateful for Varuna for uploading and it’s made me want to do the same for other books that aren’t available on RUclips in English (Blaise Pascal’s Pensées, Barthes’ Empire of Signs, pretty much all of George Bataille) but I am worried about copyright infringement with the more recent authors. But as I wrote here 4 years ago, it’s so helpful to hear these texts, and not just read. It brings us towards a culture that is remembering its oral background. Only recently we became so obsessed with the written word, and we should become more involved with reading circles and lectures in informal settings. Thanks again Varuna, what an effort! And kudos for anyone who got this far in these rambling notes, phew!
@@pascalansellful Dear Pascal, D&G were not set to write a self help book of prescriptions for a sedentary bourgeois subject (_Twelve Rules for Life_ , sic!), but a book-machine for visionary nomadic subjects, one that compels them to think. ATP is that volcano from Rossellini's _Europa '51_ (_Stromboli_) in front of which's eruption heroine's sensory-motor perception system crumbles. And when sensory-motor system crumbles, one is supposed start thinking ("out of the box", or "image" as you call it). And don't think that you are Ingrid Bergman, no..., you are that peacock from your comment; "...they have neither the rigour nor the sincerity to have undertaken serious philosophy", and that coming from a rigorous commentator who, just a paragraph or two earlier, writes: "...humans do not have binocular vision", no, humans are cyclopes, and I don't know why they invented binoculars!? My dear Pascal, D&G's philosophy is so imPLIcitly technical (machinic) and scientific, because they inherited it, in a large part, from Simondon, that one could call it "the philosophy of technicity", and, in so far the philosophical rigour, Deleuze, as a leading French expert for the history of philosophy, can certainly vouch for it. But I will not go further because "a narrower vision" is for you "more liberating", still, I'm open for a polemic, in this "time of cholera"...
Amazing! I'm listening to these on repeat, occasionally observing the illustrations. This is a great teaching tool for learning the philosophic idiom of Deleuze and Guittari.
1:07:03 "... All we know are assemblages. And the only assemblages are machinic assemblages of desire and collective assemblages of enunciation... all signifying desire is associated with dominated subjects..."
@@Throwingness don't feel bad... i am from Brasil and i also read texts out loud, and we are not perfect... Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari made such an inspiring book ^^
Benjamin Hennessy funny you say that; in the Intro, D&G say that you should treat it more like a record than a book - you don’t necessarily have to read it from beginning to end, and you can/should go back and revisit chapters you like as one would songs on an album :)
I think the whole point of making a philosophical work that is really a poem is a philosophical statement about philosophy. Kind of a mind fuck. Academics take this book pretty seriously, I've found.
+the motor city cobra yes! like the strain the lung-sick chain-smoker gilles deleuze put on his lungs, but there is also something of the carefree way in which the smoker lights a new cigarette in it. which, as you say, makes for a truly exquisite combination
i think people have trouble understanding this because they still think linearly/structurally. if you aren't familiar with occultism or works like those of RAW and Timothy Leary you will probably have trouble understanding this. basically they argue that identities, systems, and structures are not fixed or static but are fluid, consisting of multiple, interconnected elements. this idea opposes the traditional views of fixed and singular identities or structures like how you are taught in western schools. (hierarchical tree-like structures) the “rhizome,” is a metaphor derived from botany, representing a network-like form of organization that is non-hierarchical and open-ended, unlike traditional structures which are linear and hierarchical. deterritorialization refers to the breaking down of boundaries and structures, while reterritorialization is the process of creating new ones. these concepts are used to understand how social, cultural, and political changes occur offering a new perspective on how to understand the world in a non-linear, interconnected way. it’s a challenging read, as it requires the reader to think beyond conventional categories and linear progressions, embracing a more complex and dynamic view of reality.
I listened to it in a car ride the time I listen without looking at the photos. A sensory deprivation setting like a highway drive really helps the focus.
I take Kaspa here kaspa:qqeps6qmnn9uv0f33gm2v74gxwxf2vrks7pu63k632rx0gw6valsygqqkkhh6 You should probably learn some and you will probably thank me in a few years if you buy and hold. (You can buy it on the exchange xeggex. Also, someone can now use a text to image AI to create the illustrations and text to speech to
ALL MULTIPLICITIES ARE FLAT - IN THE SENSE THAT THEY FILL OR OCCUPY ALL THEIR DIMENSIONS. - we are not outside looking in - nature is not out there , we are in it .. we ARE it thanks very much for the recording Varuna : )
lol. If you're interested in the material I put all a newb needs to know in the description. You start with traditional philosophy to Heidegger's vocabulary then to D&G's vocabulary. The more to the point chapters in this book are 5, and 11. I haven't anonymously narrated them yet.
@@Throwingness I think when reading it, we lose the conversational tone. I always get bogged down trying to make sure I know what every word means and get distracted, and then the flow is destroyed. Listening to it read to me, I think I grasp the argument much more cohesively in general, and I could dig deeper later. Listening to this while driving is a great idea, because I always feel so alert and active when driving on the highway.
The alligator doesn't 'reproduce' the tree trunk and more than the chameleon doesn't 'reproduces' it's color. The pink panther imitates nothing. It reproduces nothing. It paints the world it's color. Pink on pink.
@@Throwingness I think it is a cop out for a text to rely on people having read other texts. I also think the "if you don't understand this, I can't explain it to you, you have to go prepare your mind by reading all these other things then come back", in the context of philosophy, is pure physics envy and pretentious garbage. You don't understand this text any better than us, you just have an experience of feeling smart as the language centre in your brain fires at maximum capacity. Then, when the text isn't actually in front of your eyes, you have nothing to say, but calling people "newborn" and typing "lol", you huge phony.
"I think it is a cop out for a text to rely on people having read other texts." At the same time, you can't ask well read writers to somehow unread all things they're familiar with before writing their own books.
one problem i have with the lexicon of this book is the heavily machine-related terminology. There has yet to be a machine without a creator yet they find themselves as passive materialists... The body without organs seems to be a way to try to escape the question of human essence and the soul. let me know though guys.
From what I've read they don't really take a side on the modern atheist vs theist debate. To me it seems like the media started promoting that rhetoric after the US tried to modernize the Middle East as part of a bundle of other myths. Mel Gibson's Passion seeded to cause a lot of Dawkins types to be deployed too. But, getting back to D&G and context of what they are talking about exactly, I see them as continuing Heidegger's Critique of Descartes. The West's tradition in Philosophy was around the 'Subject' and the 'Object'. "I think therefor I am". Are you a brain inside a body navigating an XYZ space? Heidegger dismantled these assumptions and D&G continue Metaphysics with his critique taken into consideration. Listen to some Hubert Dreyfus if you're interested.
thank you! it would be great to hear the book in it's entirety. how much would it cost for you to record the entire book and possibly the Anti Oedipus or his books on cinema?
Cost? Hmm. I don’t know if I could. I think part one only turned out well because I was very into the work at the time. By chapter three you can hear I’m straining to string the words together because that section is so dense. OLEASE PLEASE hire a professional actor who understands philosophy to narrate. And while you’re in the paying mood donate to the illustrator Marc N
@@uziao Would be great to hear this in Portuguese, it would be really beautiful... and bloody hard to translate, never mind enunciate -- I'd like to have a crack at Part 3 in English, just wondering about the copyright... Any ideas?
that first image is simply what Stravinsky addressed in The Poetics of Music. That does not mean shit can be posted on youtube without reproach. Are you kidding the world. You think so. Awesome.
what a random comment. The first page is Sylvano's Bussoti's piece dedicated to David Tudor, a performer who collaborated extensively with John Cage and was very much connected with the idea of "open works", graphic scores, multiple possibilities, etc. The image is just to illustrate this vast world of possibilities, topics and subtopics that are about to the addressed by Guattari and Deleuze in the book. There is ZERO connection to Stravinsky's criticism on setting rules and narrowing the possibilities. It is completely unrelated. But thanks for letting us know that you've read Stravinsky's book.
I don't think it was a stupid comment, I think just very honest. Theory like this is hard for everybody - it is very dense and operates at the edge of understanding. Even with study aides it is very difficult. The point is, one engages where they can - in other words rather than trying to understand all of it, you enter a spectrum of understanding and get what you can and with repeated reading / listening and the help of other's notes the material becomes more and more transparent over time. Even high level theorists have to wrestle with the theory they themselves read, for example somebody like Deleuze or Zizek does not understand every word of Lacan or Hegel, they just have got good at grappling with it.
I'm pretty sure I'm all of the 58k views this has and I almost understand it
So you too just play this over and over?
It's not that hard
I think you do a very good job reading this. Your tone is relatable, better than professional.
Thank you. It was a project outside of my ability. I would re-record every sentence about three or four times. I would then listen to the end of the last recorded bit to match the beginning of the new bit. I would not want to do it again, though I should because it's a constructive hobby. It really helped me hear what the book was saying and I want to see better quality discourse out there so I made some.
It can all be done with AI now, or very soon. Including the illustrations. Matter of fact, I should complete the book with AI.
Such a kind gift to the world. Thank you so much. I’m relishing listening to your recordings. Deeply appreciated 🙏🏾
this is terrifying im so high
MikleShnikle cultshitboii
j O.O in
I love weed and this book
heck yea hail s8n dude
the weed is rank growth my dude
Thank you so much for this -- really helped me appreciate the ideas in D&G that I found difficult on page, but this also gives a strong impression of how beautiful their ideas are.
You're welcome. Words that don't normally go together that I use to describe D&G are exquisite and heavy.
Marc Ngui will illustrate the entire book if we send him whatever money we can spare. See his crowd funder in the description.
Is it a purely aesthetic experience for you? Or is there some kind of expressible or applicable insight that you find here?
@@austinmackell9286 (*edited for nice formatting)
This is a good question. So good I couldn’t stop writing the reply, apologies for the long text but here goes.
The question makes me think of others: Do we need to take anything practical from this?
What matters for me is that it is inspiring and beautiful, but possibly not much beyond this, not earth-shaking. Despite being a tangle of concepts, in many passages it’s very accessible and even heartwarming - the manner is of casual conversation-making over drinks. A sense of awe is consistent, making it seem to me awe-struck, but not devotional, and I think that’s a curious difference in why it feels so unsatisfying and non-committal to me.
**Please don’t let what I’m saying make anyone feel small for really enjoying and finding meaning in ATP. What I want to express is pretty damning… but it’s my honest response. I’m not a complete relativist but I appreciate this isn’t to my tastes but I still find a great deal curious in ATP and it is thought-provoking even when I dislike it. But…
I find it to be mere peacock philosophy, little gleams of colourful truths shine through. Or another image: it’s like someone flicking torchlight in your eyes, momentarily dazzling but utterly futile and un-nourishing.
Austin, your question: “expressible or applicable” - first with ‘expressible’, for me to bring something into the world of words, sincerely spoken , is already great in itself, a triumph over confusion, labyrinths of existential alienation. ‘Applicable’ - yes, I think so, particularly the quote (minute 58): “There is no universal capitalism, there is no capitalism in itself. Capitalism is at the crossroads of all kinds of formations. It is neo-capitalist by nature.”
“Keep everything in sight at the same time” is stated at some point. I feel D&G confuse humans with animals possessing eyes on the side of the head, yet humans do not have binocular vision. The use of rhizomes appears limited because it tries to encompass everything. A narrower vision would be more liberating.
There is a space opened up here which I find mystical. It feels slightly similar to the alchemist or Surrealist territory, but somehow nihilistic at heart, which stops it having a committed and humbled orientation. I feel I’m being vague here, but it is not devotional because of its decadence and love of spinning its own tail/tale. D&G perhaps should have just been novelists, as they have neither the rigour nor the sincerity to have undertaken serious philosophy. Being totally afraid of reduction, they end up as simple addicts of movement.
I find myself astonished that people take this extremely seriously and sweat over its every sentence, but then I shouldn’t be surprised. To me it’s a sign that I had forgot realised the (a)moral listlessness of the 20th century, increasingly distracted and non-committal because of media and technological saturation.
Would like to read your opinions from both sides. I’m so grateful for Varuna for uploading and it’s made me want to do the same for other books that aren’t available on RUclips in English (Blaise Pascal’s Pensées, Barthes’ Empire of Signs, pretty much all of George Bataille) but I am worried about copyright infringement with the more recent authors. But as I wrote here 4 years ago, it’s so helpful to hear these texts, and not just read. It brings us towards a culture that is remembering its oral background. Only recently we became so obsessed with the written word, and we should become more involved with reading circles and lectures in informal settings. Thanks again Varuna, what an effort! And kudos for anyone who got this far in these rambling notes, phew!
@@pascalansellful Dear Pascal, D&G were not set to write a self help book of prescriptions for a sedentary bourgeois subject (_Twelve Rules for Life_ , sic!), but a book-machine for visionary nomadic subjects, one that compels them to think. ATP is that volcano from Rossellini's _Europa '51_ (_Stromboli_) in front of which's eruption heroine's sensory-motor perception system crumbles. And when sensory-motor system crumbles, one is supposed start thinking ("out of the box", or "image" as you call it).
And don't think that you are Ingrid Bergman, no..., you are that peacock from your comment; "...they have neither the rigour nor the sincerity to have undertaken serious philosophy", and that coming from a rigorous commentator who, just a paragraph or two earlier, writes: "...humans do not have binocular vision", no, humans are cyclopes, and I don't know why they invented binoculars!?
My dear Pascal, D&G's philosophy is so imPLIcitly technical (machinic) and scientific, because they inherited it, in a large part, from Simondon, that one could call it "the philosophy of technicity", and, in so far the philosophical rigour, Deleuze, as a leading French expert for the history of philosophy, can certainly vouch for it.
But I will not go further because "a narrower vision" is for you "more liberating", still, I'm open for a polemic, in this "time of cholera"...
Sorry but I find this philosophy the most dangerous of all possible philosophies.
Amazing! I'm listening to these on repeat, occasionally observing the illustrations. This is a great teaching tool for learning the philosophic idiom of Deleuze and Guittari.
1:07:03 "... All we know are assemblages. And the only assemblages are machinic assemblages of desire and collective assemblages of enunciation... all signifying desire is associated with dominated subjects..."
This is almost more of a poem than a philosophical treaty.
Part three is berserk
Update. I took part three down. I sounded to miserable reading it, and I was.
@@Throwingness don't feel bad... i am from Brasil and i also read texts out loud, and we are not perfect... Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari made such an inspiring book ^^
Benjamin Hennessy funny you say that; in the Intro, D&G say that you should treat it more like a record than a book - you don’t necessarily have to read it from beginning to end, and you can/should go back and revisit chapters you like as one would songs on an album :)
I think the whole point of making a philosophical work that is really a poem is a philosophical statement about philosophy. Kind of a mind fuck. Academics take this book pretty seriously, I've found.
thanks so much for doing this! listening to someone read it was immensely helpful in trying to understand the work.
Especially with images too!
my professional recommendation is to put a dark jazz playlist quietly behind this
Nice. Where is your school? You mean your 'professor'?
this book is beautiful. thank you for elucidating it further!
+simplythrilled
Exquisite and heavyweight are words I thought described it well. Lung stunning.
+the motor city cobra yes! like the strain the lung-sick chain-smoker gilles deleuze put on his lungs, but there is also something of the carefree way in which the smoker lights a new cigarette in it. which, as you say, makes for a truly exquisite combination
You're romanticizing a process of killing yourself? Please stop trying to force complexity into everything to sound intellectual like these authors.
i fell asleep to this and had one of the strangest dreams i've ever had. excellent. thank you
thank you so much for this!!
When I listen to this I find it both beautiful and fascinating and also hilarious in its pretentious and almost nonsensical web of allusion
I listened again. It is pretty pretentious in parts. One of the rare cases where the self generated hype and convolution is real.
Did you mean to type 'illusion' instead of 'allusion'?
I think you did.
@@Throwingness i think he meant the allusions they make are SO pretentious they almost sound like nonsense
This series is beautiful, thank you so much for making it available
Absolutely wonderful. Thankyou for this. I think I prefer this text performed in this way.
I feel a seizure coming upon me as I try to make sense of this book.
This is three levels above Normie understanding of reality. Check the description material.
Thank you so much for the hard work! Could you do Derrida's Of Grammatology? 😊
Thank you, and no. Maybe I'll do part 5 and 11 of this book later on.
"thanks for the hours of work, appreciate that you provide it for free. can I make an additional request though ;3" ppl 2021 lol
i think people have trouble understanding this because they still think linearly/structurally. if you aren't familiar with occultism or works like those of RAW and Timothy Leary you will probably have trouble understanding this.
basically they argue that identities, systems, and structures are not fixed or static but are fluid, consisting of multiple, interconnected elements. this idea opposes the traditional views of fixed and singular identities or structures like how you are taught in western schools. (hierarchical tree-like structures)
the “rhizome,” is a metaphor derived from botany, representing a network-like form of organization that is non-hierarchical and open-ended, unlike traditional structures which are linear and hierarchical.
deterritorialization refers to the breaking down of boundaries and structures, while reterritorialization is the process of creating new ones. these concepts are used to understand how social, cultural, and political changes occur offering a new perspective on how to understand the world in a non-linear, interconnected way. it’s a challenging read, as it requires the reader to think beyond conventional categories and linear progressions, embracing a more complex and dynamic view of reality.
cheers! I really enjoyed listening to this reading. I didn't try the pictures, maybe another time. De & Gua rock
I listened to it in a car ride the time I listen without looking at the photos.
A sensory deprivation setting like a highway drive really helps the focus.
Varuna I had to stop trying and instead I just sat and listened and the images began to marry up to some extent with a growing understanding
thankyou very much for uploading this.
so thank you
You are a hero!
This is great. Any chance there is a video for chapter 10: Becoming Intense Becoming Animal?
No. I should when the AI video is good enough and cheap enough.
Magnificent!
Dear friend. I would have paid decent money for an audiobook even half as good as this. Do you have a patreon? Id love to contribute
I take Kaspa here kaspa:qqeps6qmnn9uv0f33gm2v74gxwxf2vrks7pu63k632rx0gw6valsygqqkkhh6
You should probably learn some and you will probably thank me in a few years if you buy and hold. (You can buy it on the exchange xeggex.
Also, someone can now use a text to image AI to create the illustrations and text to speech to
UNITY ALWAYS OPERATES IN A SEPARATE DIMENSION SUPPLEMENTARY TO THAT OF THE SYSTEM CONSIDERED
ALL MULTIPLICITIES ARE FLAT - IN THE SENSE THAT THEY FILL OR OCCUPY ALL THEIR DIMENSIONS. - we are not outside looking in - nature is not out there , we are in it .. we ARE it
thanks very much for the recording Varuna : )
Even with sincere effort, I get nothing out of this at all.
Go watch TV
@@Throwingness sure thing, poser.
lol. If you're interested in the material I put all a newb needs to know in the description. You start with traditional philosophy to Heidegger's vocabulary then to D&G's vocabulary. The more to the point chapters in this book are 5, and 11. I haven't anonymously narrated them yet.
@@Throwingness I have a philosophy degree.
Keep writing pointless non sequiturs. People who made things for free on the internet want to hear them.
I feel like I'm on acid listening to this.
Uno de los grandes libros de filosofía del siglo XX.
You should divide it into rizomes not pages. Are you trying to striate smooth space or what??
it's interesting that this is easier to understand when listening, rather than reading. at least for me lol
I found it easier to focus on while driving on the highway.
@@Throwingness I think when reading it, we lose the conversational tone. I always get bogged down trying to make sure I know what every word means and get distracted, and then the flow is destroyed. Listening to it read to me, I think I grasp the argument much more cohesively in general, and I could dig deeper later. Listening to this while driving is a great idea, because I always feel so alert and active when driving on the highway.
thank you
am doing a research on cultural formation hoping this will help. any other suggestions?
Yogurt
I suggest you check out Manuel DeLanda, he takes Deleuze and Guattari and really does good work with them.
Wonderful. The ants will be in the ash of the house fire.
The alligator doesn't 'reproduce' the tree trunk and more than the chameleon doesn't 'reproduces' it's color. The pink panther imitates nothing. It reproduces nothing. It paints the world it's color. Pink on pink.
very nice books!
I have never been more confused in my life
It's based on a lot that has to learned.
Start from the materials in the description.
the motor city cobra wow! Thanks
@@Throwingness I think it is a cop out for a text to rely on people having read other texts. I also think the "if you don't understand this, I can't explain it to you, you have to go prepare your mind by reading all these other things then come back", in the context of philosophy, is pure physics envy and pretentious garbage. You don't understand this text any better than us, you just have an experience of feeling smart as the language centre in your brain fires at maximum capacity. Then, when the text isn't actually in front of your eyes, you have nothing to say, but calling people "newborn" and typing "lol", you huge phony.
Yes! I love this feeling that this book give us :)
"I think it is a cop out for a text to rely on people having read other texts." At the same time, you can't ask well read writers to somehow unread all things they're familiar with before writing their own books.
one problem i have with the lexicon of this book is the heavily machine-related terminology. There has yet to be a machine without a creator yet they find themselves as passive materialists... The body without organs seems to be a way to try to escape the question of human essence and the soul. let me know though guys.
From what I've read they don't really take a side on the modern atheist vs theist debate. To me it seems like the media started promoting that rhetoric after the US tried to modernize the Middle East as part of a bundle of other myths. Mel Gibson's Passion seeded to cause a lot of Dawkins types to be deployed too. But, getting back to D&G and context of what they are talking about exactly, I see them as continuing Heidegger's Critique of Descartes. The West's tradition in Philosophy was around the 'Subject' and the 'Object'. "I think therefor I am". Are you a brain inside a body navigating an XYZ space? Heidegger dismantled these assumptions and D&G continue Metaphysics with his critique taken into consideration. Listen to some Hubert Dreyfus if you're interested.
@@Throwingness thank you.
omfg it feels like im at gare d'avignon tgv
thank you! it would be great to hear the book in it's entirety. how much would it cost for you to record the entire book and possibly the Anti Oedipus or his books on cinema?
Cost? Hmm. I don’t know if I could. I think part one only turned out well because I was very into the work at the time. By chapter three you can hear I’m straining to string the words together because that section is so dense. OLEASE PLEASE hire a professional actor who understands philosophy to narrate. And while you’re in the paying mood donate to the illustrator Marc N
Hire me, i can do it in portuguese! Lol
I imagine the reading of the plateau about the Body Without Organs xD
@@uziao Would be great to hear this in Portuguese, it would be really beautiful... and bloody hard to translate, never mind enunciate -- I'd like to have a crack at Part 3 in English, just wondering about the copyright... Any ideas?
@@pascalansellful this book have already been translated into portuguese ^.^ sorry, i have not understood your question about the part 3 :B
@@pascalansellful podes me escrever em portuguẽs ^.^ nasci no Brasil e essa e a minha língua materna :)
that first image is simply what Stravinsky addressed in The Poetics of Music. That does not mean shit can be posted on youtube without reproach. Are you kidding the world. You think so. Awesome.
what a random comment. The first page is Sylvano's Bussoti's piece dedicated to David Tudor, a performer who collaborated extensively with John Cage and was very much connected with the idea of "open works", graphic scores, multiple possibilities, etc. The image is just to illustrate this vast world of possibilities, topics and subtopics that are about to the addressed by Guattari and Deleuze in the book. There is ZERO connection to Stravinsky's criticism on setting rules and narrowing the possibilities. It is completely unrelated. But thanks for letting us know that you've read Stravinsky's book.
Man, I don't understand anything. How can I make sense of this?
There are plenty of links to acclimate yourself in the description.
How did you find this video?
Sorry, it was a stupid comment by me. I will check out your links now. thanks
phi h np
I don't think it was a stupid comment, I think just very honest. Theory like this is hard for everybody - it is very dense and operates at the edge of understanding. Even with study aides it is very difficult. The point is, one engages where they can - in other words rather than trying to understand all of it, you enter a spectrum of understanding and get what you can and with repeated reading / listening and the help of other's notes the material becomes more and more transparent over time. Even high level theorists have to wrestle with the theory they themselves read, for example somebody like Deleuze or Zizek does not understand every word of Lacan or Hegel, they just have got good at grappling with it.
jesse michaels
Thanks for those words!
Who made these illustrations?
They look like Marc Ngui’s. He does a lot of D&G diagrams.
What does it say shortly on music*
Art is encoding for control. Territory. All about territory.
Sweet! Do these 3 parts comprise the whole book?
+Eivind Dahl Oh! It's not, I found my answer.
The artist is planning to complete the book. If you'd like to help, and speed up the process he has a crowd funding campaign for the project.
+the motor city cobra Yeah thanks! I already chipped in :) Are you the one reading?
Eivind Dahl Yes
+the motor city cobra Nice work! Thank you very much. Even beginning to dig into this text would have been unfeasible without these videos.
Hi, is there a text available for this reading?
In the description
How did i get here...?
Throwingness
四年前就已经这么普及的说明，就没人翻译一下吗？国内到处找不到中文版的，国外也找不到，中国的学术就这水平。
12:23
ignore
Sorry I can’t do that
Hatred of the Orient is not as easy
William Burrows, indeed
blah blah blah, nothing is ever actually said.
Too fast. Heck, I can read it myself.
There’s a playback speed control in the lower right, buddy.