cyberrose

cyberrose wrote

Reply to comment by ChaosAnarchy in by ChaosAnarchy

Stimmt schon, wobei sich vll auch ne Mail lohnen könnte. Hätte in der Situation wirklich nicht gewusst an wen mensch sich sonst hätte wenden können. Ansonsten muss man halt mal seine lokalen Strukturen befragen ob die einen weiterleiten können. Ich wüsste auch nicht wo ich auf dem Land anfragen sollte und würde deshalb erst mal aus der Ferne bei Bundesorgas fragen oder eben im Lokalen sozialen Zentrum aufschlagen und gucken ob es was ähnliches gibt.

1

cyberrose wrote

Reply to by ChaosAnarchy

Würde bei der FAU nachfragen. Die haben Erfahrung mit dem Amt.

Zu deiner Situation kann ich nicht viel sagen; lässt sich aus der ferne schlecht einschätzen.

3

cyberrose wrote

First of all: I agree to a lot of points.

So then I had to read this winding diatribe about the several different definitions and their nuances then put them into context and try to figure out which deleuze means.

And you think this is really that important? When I read this stuff I rather do it to understand the content overall not in detail. I mean when you really want to understand every single sentence you have to go down a never ending rabbit whole. How do you want to understand Deleuze and Guattari without understanding Marx ( -> Hegel), Stirner ( -> Hegel), Spinoza, ... ? Understanding every single sentence as you explained is in my opinion not possible. So I'm fine to read it from my perspective and be fine to get some things "wrong" as long as I have the feeling to get a grip of the overall philosophy. (In the end I do not read this stuff to reproduce every single bit someone else said but include the stuff I find valuable in my own world-view)

Can you imagine what reading this shit would be like for someone who rarely reads or someone with dislexia or a learning disability. Honestly it would be such a undertaking.

I didn't want to say it's easy. Sorry if it sounded like this. I rather wanted to say it's not harder than other philosophical/political texts for people reading those for fun. I didn't want to sound like an asshole, sorry. (I mean there are a lot of philosophical memes saying deleuze is hard) [And I'd like to add that I have dyslexia as well and it takes a lot of time for me reading such stuff]

Philosophers just love wasting people time writing in the least acessible way possible for their own amusement.

I really don't think thats the point with Deleuze and Guattari, as some other person wrote refering the repetition book: The style they write is analogue to the content. It sounds hard to suck you in the thinking they want to transfer. And this makes Deleuze/Guattari more accessible to me.

Sorry I have to stop here. Have a nice day.

3

cyberrose wrote

normally I dismiss philosophers who can't explain their ideas simply

Really not know why everybody is saying such things when talking about Deleuze and Guattari. Maybe I just don't get them to the fullest extend but reading Anti-Ödipus I would not say I'm not understanding what they say. But maybe other people read books differently; I'm not interested to get every reference, this would hardly be possible, I'm rather interested in getting an Idea about how they think and how their world functions. And this is completely feasible if you allow your thinking adapt to the written word.

But as I said maybe that's not what people mean when they say they want to understand Deleuze.

2

cyberrose wrote

Reply to Panopticon by kinshavo

Sometimes I think "how obvious does the shit have to be before people realize there is quite a bit wrong with the society". Then you see a cop on a lifeguard chair and you realize people won't realize it or give a shit about it.

3

cyberrose wrote

What's your definition of both terms?

For me liberalism is about the individual and it's freedom but mediated through the state and thus some kind of collective. This means capitalism and nationalism is part of liberalism and builds a complex. Leftism (not sure what that means; here "the left" exists but no such thing as leftism) on the other hand is, for me, a broad term gathering different types of collectivisms. The focus for me is not solely on the individual but on some dialectic between individual and collective. This means there are forms of leftisms where the collective dictates what the individual should do but this does not have to be the case; there may also be collectives which aim to extend individual freedom through the freedom of the collective. So for me it does not have to be hierarchical by definition and is neither bound to economics or state or nation. Also the theoretical foundation took different parts and originated in a critique of liberalism. Not sure why one may want to use them inter-changeable.

3

cyberrose wrote (edited )

Looks like a good resource for every person involved.

This MappingOurMadness workbook looks good. I like this introspection and bringing down thoughts/feelings/stuff to paper. Would be interesting to see if one looks into it in case of a crisis.

Anyways... thanks for sharing!

Edit: "Crisis As an Opportunity for Growth and Change – Shery Mead" has a great perspective. I find that really valuable. But I'd like to add that if you participate such partnerships/friendships you always should also reflect this relationship since it sometimes tends to lean to one side. It's not good for your own psych if you are always the helper, you may find yourself in a position where you are no longer able to share your complicated state of mind 'cause you think this could worsen the state of the other person (or stuff like that).

7

cyberrose wrote

Reply to comment by subrosa in Microdosing by kinshavo

One day on work I suddenly felt dazed and confused. I wondered if I got ill and should rather go home. Took me quite a while to realize I actually did "not microdose".

7

cyberrose wrote

Reply to by MaoistLandlord

Not sure. Not too long ago my emotional reaction was kinda analogous to yours. To that time I had similar questions in my head. Nevertheless my reaction towards people where different; I was (often) able to mimic the reaction people desired. Not caus' I felt it was right but caus' I thought it would maybe help them. After some mental problems and psychotherapy I was able to feel more emotions than anger or hate. I managed to sometimes really mean what I said. I was able to feel a connection between me and the other person. You questioned if all the people you know from your past where really close to you. For me it was the case. I really learned to feel the connection I already had towards them. So for me the key was to feel anything other than "negative" emotions. I managed to do so by reflecting my past and where these originated. And also why they still persist today (the society has something to do with it; from my perspective at least). Funny thing: After that I also managed to give a shit about bad stuff sometimes. I do not try to mimic interests so often anymore. (But this has also more than one reason)

Not sure if this helps you in some way. Have a nice day and wish you luck!

3

cyberrose wrote

Reply to many in one by Epicalyx

Haha sure they would look like that because of their believes and not because they don't have an Idea what assemblage de/re-territorialization and other stuff means without giving them multiple lectures explaining it to them. ^^

4

cyberrose wrote

(Advice upcoming, if you are annoyed by strangers giving an advice just skip the message :)) Stroking your ego seems not the right way for me. Why should you do that? To feel more "normal"? Reflecting your believes may also ground you a little but with the benefit of learning where you had stupid images of yourself and not just making fun of you. Being just sarcastic can of cause solve a quite similar purpose but with the drawback that it may not last longer time it may bot give you the insights which may be useful in similar situations in the future. Try not to be stuck in a stupid circle where you perform the same pattern over and over again.

3