Gilles Deleuze

[Emanuel]

Because pictures are not only made of technology... Who from here has any interest on his lessons?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze

You need to provide the necessary deterritorialization from your own being to be able to see better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterritorialization

To come out from your shell, the need of a neutral point of view, dissociated from your own experience and passions.

Take a look on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhizome_(philosophy)

You're ready to be naked by the eyes of anyone even in the way you choose your clothes. The root-tree system who charts you is a bitch.

E : -)

 

[webrunner5]

There isn't going to be a test on this I hope! ?

[Andrew Reid]

Posts like this are how I can tell Emmanuel is French

[Geoff_L]

Yes, we are proud of our Gilles ?

Not directly related, but we have got a Sci-fi author called Alain Damasio, who wrote absolutely mind blowing books, tinted with a big Deleuze inspiration. And, whoa (oh, by the way, as I am not really armed for English conversations - no, do not relate this to the fact I am French ! -,  I just discovered the correct spelling of "whoa" : https://writingexplained.org/whoa-or-woah-difference ; anyway, nobody cares, sorry), what an experience !

End of off-topic !

[webrunner5]

3 hours ago, Geoff_L said:

Yes, we are proud of our Gilles ?

Not directly related, but we have got a Sci-fi author called Alain Damasio, who wrote absolutely mind blowing books, tinted with a big Deleuze inspiration. And, whoa (oh, by the way, as I am not really armed for English conversations - no, do not relate this to the fact I am French ! -,  I just discovered the correct spelling of "whoa" : https://writingexplained.org/whoa-or-woah-difference ; anyway, nobody cares, sorry), what an experience !

End of off-topic !

That break down suggests you Have to remember stuff lol. Uh what else was I going to write, Whoa, or was it Woah. I can't remember.  ☹️

[bigp]

Great stuff, just giving his books Cinema 1 & 2 a go... here is a nice podcast with intro to his work:

There are nice essays in this book relating to film philosophy:

https://www.amazon.com/Afterimages-Gilles-Deleuzes-Film-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B004445HMO/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=afterimage+deleuze&qid=1562263076&s=gateway&sr=8-1

 

A Thousand Platueas is fairly wild philosophy 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Thousand_Plateaus

 

P

[tupp]

11 hours ago, Emanuel said:

You need to provide the necessary deterritorialization from your own being to be able to see better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterritorialization

To come out from your shell, the need of a neutral point of view, dissociated from your own experience and passions.

The reclusive American philosopher Joseph Sixpac had this thought on deterritorialization:

 

 

[Emanuel]

One of the criticism made over Deleuze is exactly the fact he was used to explain maths and science concepts with no much care if Mr. and Mrs. Sixpac had effectively any idea about them. The criticism over the critics resides essentially in the lack of two Aristotle mutual concepts: memory and whole, ignoring the wide contributions of Deleuze such as deconstruction, as for instance. So crucial to filmmaking in any of its several departments to join the parts and make some sense, if any, to the piece when together... ; -)

http://maddalo.blogspot.com/2009/12/derrida-and-deleuze-differences-of.html

 

The proof is the way his rhizome spreads in so many influences suffered by us, our contemporary counterparts. Here is merely the fine crocodile example over yours -- I'm sorry if I'll sound too unfair now! LOL : )

https://thoughtleader.co.za/bertolivier/2015/06/15/what-is-a-rhizome-in-deleuze-and-guattaris-thinking/

I invite you all to read the entire article, however here is an excerpt recalled by your post ; )

"In Deleuze and Guattari’s work “rhizome” is roughly the philosophical counterpart of the botanical term, suggesting that many things in the world — to be consistent, if one follows the direction of their thinking, “all things” in the world — are rhizomes, or rhizomatically interconnected, although such connections are not always (in fact, seldom) visible. Animals or insects that live symbiotically appear to be an obvious example, such as the little birds that clean crocodiles’ teeth when these reptiles bask in the sun with their huge jaws open: instead of eating the birds, the crocodiles let them feed on the bits of meat, etc, between their teeth — their teeth are cleaned, and the birds are fed, in this way forming a rhizome. After all, when one sees them separately, few people would guess that their species-economy is rhizomatically conjoined.

Another way of expressing this in Deleuze and Guattari’s language is to see the birds and the crocodiles as an “assemblage”, which forms part of a larger assemblage or rhizome, ordinarily referred to as an ecology, or (biologically) interconnected totality of heterogeneous entities or, more precisely, processes “differing in rhythm and speed”. Bees and the plants whose flowers they visit to gather pollen comprise a rhizome, or an assemblage, just as a book does, according to Deleuze and Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus (p. 4). In short, the rhizome or assemblage is a model that functions as a “crystal” of sorts regarding Deleuze and Guattari’s ontology. Insofar as, petrologically speaking, a crystal concentrates in itself layers upon layers of a mineral, metaphorically stated, the rhizome (or an assemblage) denotes the layers upon layers (“laminations”, perhaps) of the relationally interconnected, dynamically and quantitatively as well as qualitatively differentiated constituents of rhizomorphic reality.

To comprehend their use of “rhizome” Deleuze and Guattari enumerate some of its characteristics, as distinguishable from an obsolete way of thinking in terms of “arboreal” metaphors like “root”. As far as “principles of connection and heterogeneity” go, it means that anything can be connected to any other thing at any point (p. 7), unlike what “arboreal” root-discourse presumes, which is the foundation of binary thinking.

Then, regarding the principle of “multiplicity”, it has to be thought of “substantively”, as that which has ontological primacy, not merely as “the multiple” (p. 8). Whether we like it or not, we live within multiplicity. In this regard Deleuze and Guattari observe (p. 8): “A multiplicity has neither subject nor object, only determinations, magnitudes, and dimensions that cannot increase in number without the multiplicity changing, in nature (the laws of combination therefore increase in number as the multiplicity grows).”

It seems to me that what follows is the increasing complexification of the world, as more people are born (than those who die), and as more ontological levels of multiplicity emerge, which necessarily interact with others. Think of everything that one encounters in “virtual reality” or “cyberspace”, and the impact that these phenomena have on concrete social reality. Since the advent of the internet, the complexification of the world through increased multiplicity has accelerated."

CONT'D

 

On Gilles Deleuze, we can invariably say too little in the teeth of his contribution when not only key for modern cinema and media, as well, the digital revolution, but crossing the most various zones of the man of nowadays. If someone thought the modern man of XXI century, this man was/is (his legacy didn't die in that autumn day) the most important thinker of half-century before. In a very personal Joe's line of my own still puzzled two decades later: what a feat!

E : -)

[Jimmy G]

Hi Emanuel,

Making no pretense in being familiar with Deleuze my take on (what I'll refer to as) the "grand philosophers" is that, in my experience, there has been an absence of conciliation with (what I'll describe as) the philosophies of the individual person. "Grand philosophy", in my opinion, is itself an art form that can be best appreciated and explored when there exists an abundance of leisure time and where there is interest for the individual. Lengthy tomes and their critiques require the time to consume. Wherein, most persons are engaged in the daily basics of survival (maintaining food and shelter) it has been my observation that in what small snippets exist of leisure time throughout their days each individual creates and adopts their own personal philosophies based on their life's experiences (whether they are cognizant of this fact, or not).

Tying this into filmmaking I am hard-pressed to think of many films that have dealt with the subject matter of the, um, grander philosophies of human existence. Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Stranglove comes immediately to mind as a "dark comedy" narrative dealing with the then-new existential threat of global self-annihilation on a sunny afternoon...

Dr Strangelove - Official Trailer [1964] HD Remaster - YouTube:

 

Whereas, again in my own observations, most folks are interested and concerned with (and put aside the time for) the enjoyment of films which deal with the more-immediately-relatable-situations-to-their-own-lives philosophical and emotional interactions between individuals. "Shooting a fish in a barrel" for an example here, Shawn Levy's This is Where I Leave You provides a comedic take on the philosophical and emotional intricacies surrounding the lives of various family members while sitting Shiva for their late father/husband using an ensemble cast...

This is Where I Leave You - Trailer - Official Warner Bros. UK - YouTube:

 

To use your above quote...

<<

It seems to me that what follows is the increasing complexification of the world, as more people are born (than those who die), and as more ontological levels of multiplicity emerge, which necessarily interact with others. Think of everything that one encounters in “virtual reality” or “cyberspace”, and the impact that these phenomena have on concrete social reality. Since the advent of the internet, the complexification of the world through increased multiplicity has accelerated."

>>

...I take the contrarian view (>cough<, critique) that we humans (globally) are, due to these very technological "complexifications", engaged in a grand distillation of philosophies (both grand and personal) with this global dialogue. It's not just a philosophical conversation about one's own daily struggles to maintain food and shelter just to survive,, it's also the philosophical discussion about how everyone can survive, and, ultimately, the philosophical discourse about how all creatures sharing the ecosphere this planet provides can survive. I find these to be both perilous and very exciting times, indeed.

My own imaging interests are mainly to document the lifeforms and environment I encounter, I am not a storyteller as my intention, so my lurkings here on this forum are mostly as a gearhead. My attendance in your thread (this) is merely as a lover of the conversations that surround this medium...and, well, as a life-long observer of personal philosophies. Thanks for putting Deleuze under my nose, I'll return the favor with my favorite philosopher...

<<

I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion.

Excerpt from Henry David Thoreau's Walden.

>>

Best, :)

Jimmy G

[Emanuel]

Jimmy,

Nice to see and read your post. Reason for this thread is people like you : )

Modern cinema is only part of the equation, postmodern cinema is yet more influenced by his contribution, I can't abstain to point out by the way. But what most impresses me is the whole induction on the contemporary man.

E : -)

[webrunner5]

I think what is unfortunate about the film industry is how Few females are involved in it. Most men have this Caveman attitude, it has to be written in stone. And If I'll don't like shit I'll just chuck it all and go live by a pond. Silly ass stuff. Selfish as hell stuff.

There is a different perspective and if there hadn't been we would have all been tits up a Long time ago. And it is hardly shown in Movies and TV. And no Lifetime Movie Network doesn't count. Yeah teenage girls are pretty silly, but they grow up to be a powerhouse.

 

[Kisaha]

"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth. I sat at a table where were rich food and wine in abundance, and obsequious attendance, but sincerity and truth were not; and I went away hungry from the inhospitable board."

—Henry David Thoreau, Walden (1854)

One of the biggest influences in my life.

[Sage]

On 7/4/2019 at 1:58 PM, bigp said:

Great stuff, just giving his books Cinema 1 & 2 a go... here is a nice podcast with intro to his work:

 

I was going to mention exactly this, with the recent episodes on Giles;

This is probably my favorite podcast, I've listened to almost every episode

[Sage]

Excellent new episode this week: