Tell me about it. Sometimes i just leave it going on and i am suddenly completly lost. I go to the computer to check and it went back to episode, lets say, eleven (?. I think there is no such thing as an algorithm involved here hahaha
@@BRockandriffs Haven't found anything notable yet myself. Only a JSTOR abstract describing flows as a concept used by anthropologists in discussions of globalization. Wish it was free though..
Petros PK Public libraries sometimes give access to studies if you have an account. The same may be true if you are studying at a university or at a work place that has access. If you send an email to the lead author of a study explaining your interest in their work they will often send you a copy themselves as they don’t make money from the paywalled studies and are usually happy to share knowledge. However, there are also places like scihub online that give free access to studies. I’m not endorsing this as the legality is dubious depending on where you live, but I’m just making you aware of its existence.
I agree with the statement that the search of "identities" is one of the main ingridents in this uncomprehension of existence that's been dominanting the world for a loooong time. But i fail to see how this machines mecanism denies the idea of an individual. Individual is not a sinonim of identical. One can be on that continuos flow, flowing and changing with it. The individual is the atom of the social construct, wich could be seen as a rizomatic venture. That individual can relate with many other individuals, in different directions and ways, wich will definitly change through time and, by changing, will change the individual. How is this "machine" theory any different from any sociologic analisis of the world? It has been long know that society is dinamic, that relations between individuals mutate and adapt, that ideologies and politic stands change: even though some people are inmensly averse to change, they are in that "flow" wether they like ir or not. So: whats the novelty here? i fail to grasp it.
I think "individual" here is used in the modern sense of a free, rational agent who is independent of the greater world. Whereas, postmodern theory says no, who we are is contingent upon, and in fact constituted by, the greater world. That's what Deleuze and Guattari meant when they said that they are many: they didn't come up with their ideas out of thin air but were influenced (there's a relation to the concept of flow in that very word) by other philosophers and by the culture they came out of. Even ideas that seem original... I was not aware panpsychism was a thing, and yet, it's something I came up with as a possible theory of mind. However, that didn't come out of nothing but out of considering the possibilities logically: I already knew dualism was unpopular, and the idea that mind is secondary to the material seemed logically unjustifiable because the two are qualitatively different. These thoughts came about because I live in and observe the world and live in a culture that values logic as a principle way of knowing. If I came out of a more animistic culture, I might not have been concerned with theory of mind at all, but might have been more focused on intuition and mystic experience (which, incidentally, knowledge of those experiences led me to the belief that logic recognizes its own limitation: to think that I can know for certain what these experiences are through logic is not logical at all). In short, it's like saying that the self is does not constitute the self, but is an intersection of many different forces.
Thank you for your dedication in the face of intense adversity.
16:48 just wonderful! so refreshing!
A great first-step introduction to A Thousand Plateaus!
I'll watch this later but my like is always yours! Keep doing great job!
Love the show, bingeing at work last few weeks
Flow theory + river analogy. This Heraclito's reminiscence gave me an extra life. Thx.
Bro, I just thought the same and saw your comment.
Hope you are okay now.Bless you .
This episode is epic
Wait three episodes 😱😱😱
This theory seems like common sense packaged in new terms and one very long metaphor.
RUclips autoplayed 5 after 3. Smart algorithms.
Tell me about it. Sometimes i just leave it going on and i am suddenly completly lost. I go to the computer to check and it went back to episode, lets say, eleven (?. I think there is no such thing as an algorithm involved here hahaha
@@rodrigodiazcasas384 ... damned rhizome!!
Is there a new audio setup this episode?
At 15:45, which antgropologists are you taking about? I'd be very interested in their work. Thank you for this show.
Same here. Could you also send me through the names if you find them?
@@BRockandriffs Haven't found anything notable yet myself. Only a JSTOR abstract describing flows as a concept used by anthropologists in discussions of globalization. Wish it was free though..
Petros PK
Public libraries sometimes give access to studies if you have an account. The same may be true if you are studying at a university or at a work place that has access.
If you send an email to the lead author of a study explaining your interest in their work they will often send you a copy themselves as they don’t make money from the paywalled studies and are usually happy to share knowledge.
However, there are also places like scihub online that give free access to studies. I’m not endorsing this as the legality is dubious depending on where you live, but I’m just making you aware of its existence.
@@BRockandriffs Many thanks friend, I appreciate the info. I'll let you know if I find anything noteworthy on the subject!
@@BRockandriffs Here's the DOI of the article I'm referring to, by the way: 10.1086/660912
this wasn't about deleuze?
Patreon
I really dont see how this differs from basic systemic thinking about any subject. How is that a new thought?
4:50 can someone spell Daniel Ont Tee AY ?
Antier
I agree with the statement that the search of "identities" is one of the main ingridents in this uncomprehension of existence that's been dominanting the world for a loooong time. But i fail to see how this machines mecanism denies the idea of an individual. Individual is not a sinonim of identical. One can be on that continuos flow, flowing and changing with it. The individual is the atom of the social construct, wich could be seen as a rizomatic venture. That individual can relate with many other individuals, in different directions and ways, wich will definitly change through time and, by changing, will change the individual. How is this "machine" theory any different from any sociologic analisis of the world? It has been long know that society is dinamic, that relations between individuals mutate and adapt, that ideologies and politic stands change: even though some people are inmensly averse to change, they are in that "flow" wether they like ir or not. So: whats the novelty here? i fail to grasp it.
I think "individual" here is used in the modern sense of a free, rational agent who is independent of the greater world. Whereas, postmodern theory says no, who we are is contingent upon, and in fact constituted by, the greater world. That's what Deleuze and Guattari meant when they said that they are many: they didn't come up with their ideas out of thin air but were influenced (there's a relation to the concept of flow in that very word) by other philosophers and by the culture they came out of. Even ideas that seem original... I was not aware panpsychism was a thing, and yet, it's something I came up with as a possible theory of mind. However, that didn't come out of nothing but out of considering the possibilities logically: I already knew dualism was unpopular, and the idea that mind is secondary to the material seemed logically unjustifiable because the two are qualitatively different. These thoughts came about because I live in and observe the world and live in a culture that values logic as a principle way of knowing. If I came out of a more animistic culture, I might not have been concerned with theory of mind at all, but might have been more focused on intuition and mystic experience (which, incidentally, knowledge of those experiences led me to the belief that logic recognizes its own limitation: to think that I can know for certain what these experiences are through logic is not logical at all). In short, it's like saying that the self is does not constitute the self, but is an intersection of many different forces.
Gel deylooze