Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Tequilx_Wolf OP wrote

Reply to comment by AnarchoDoom in Pure Black by Tequilx_Wolf

but a "dividual" refers to an entity which can be divided (or is divisible) as well

Yes.

So it is ideologically-charged.

I wasn't sure what you meant about this, but there is a kind of philosophy that tries to systematise a kind of anti-ideological view, to be grounded in groundlessness. In a sense that's an ideology, but I'm fine with that. My issue is when constructs like 'individual' and 'collective' are imposed upon us and delimit our possibilities for life. Multiplicities generally won't because of how they contain movement/becoming in them.

I'd rather concur that "individual" is still the proper term for referring to a unique being, yet I get it is not a notion purified of its liberal ideological background.

You're welcome to; I'm not trying to convince you of anything. On my end, I think that uniques are preindividual.

4

AnarchoDoom wrote

I think the Deleuzian-Guattari view of the "dividual" made sense in the way that they saw people as territorialized through different disconnected divisions, therefore being turned schizophrenic by default. Tho it's causing a problem when applied through group dynamics, as since the individual no longer exists, you can only be a singularity within a bigger whole, and not a standalone entity.

I thought it was understood by Deleuzians that gender is one of these territorializations, hence the importance for a queer critic of ID politics (not in support of it).

3