229

This is a pretty good some up of the difference between things as they appear to be and things as they really are. (hexbear.net)

submitted 1 year ago by Frank@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

113 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I suspect a lot of people have difficulty recognizing that what they believe about the world may not be representative of how the world actually behaves. I certainly do, frequently.

Like with politics, people think they need to go vote and march and stuff to effect change, but if you're willing to accept the idea that there are limits to your ability to perceive the world and your perceptions are misleading, you can pretty reliably go and see that isn't true.

You can also decipher deeper realities like you can basically put whatever you want on flat bread, or that you dadskf;'akse'wfaegqrwt;'lj'a fuck my brain. I'm asd I'm not sure what I was trying to say.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] ChaosMaterialist@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago

The Israeli Defense Force has used this in the past, including reading Deleuze's and Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus, as a theoretical reorganization of battle

In the interview, I asked Naveh: “Why Deleuze and Guattari?” He replied that: “Several of the concepts in A Thousand Plateaus became instrumental for us […] allowing us to explain contemporary situations in a way that we could not have otherwise explained. It problematized our own paradigms. […] Most important was the distinction they have pointed out between the concepts of ‘smooth’ and ‘striated’ space […] [which accordingly reflect] the organizational concepts of the ‘war machine’ and the ‘state apparatus.’ […] In the IDF we now often use the term ‘to smooth out space’ when we want to refer to operation in a space as if it had no borders. We try to produce the operational space in such a manner that borders do not affect us. Palestinian areas could indeed be thought of as ‘striated,’ in the sense that they are enclosed by fences, walls, ditches, roadblocks and so on. […] We want to confront the ‘striated’ space of traditional, old-fashioned military practice [the way most military units presently operate] with smoothness that allows for movement through space that crosses any borders and barriers. Rather than contain and organize our forces according to existing borders, we want to move through them.”

Naveh has recently completed the translation into Hebrew of some of the chapters in Bernard Tschumi’s Architecture and Disjunction. In addition to these theoretical positions, Naveh references such canonical elements of urban theory as the Situationist practices of dérive and détournement. These ideas were conceived as part of a general approach meant to challenge the built hierarchy of the capitalist city. They aimed to break down distinctions between private and public, inside and outside, use and function, to replace private space with a “borderless” public surface. Naveh made references to the work of Georges Bataille as well, who also spoke of a desire to attack architecture: his call to arms was meant to dismantle the rigid rationalism of a postwar order, to escape “the architectural straitjacket,” and to liberate repressed human desires.

https://transversal.at/transversal/0507/weizman/en

[-] StalinForTime@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago

All time classic. Even greater than the CIA repping for Foucault over Marxism in France.

Who would have thought that reactionary mysticism based on elaborate (but only superficially Marxist) radical idealism, would not only never have provided successful means of concrete class struggle, but appealed above all to petit-boug intellectuals?