u/arseecs

I struggle with belief in the theological concepts of Buddhism (like devas or the six realms), while I still do not want to adhere to “secular buddhism”; as I find it to be a belief system widely rooted in western imperialism. I am also raised in a Buddhist household so I think that I naturally rebel against my indoctrinated beliefs. This did however make me realize that the teachings of the Buddha which I actually adhere to, have I found through meditation. So perhaps I will find the theological teachings through meditation too. I do not know.

is art even radical anymore? Can art truly break the spectacle any longer? Has capital absorbed it so much and learned to adopt so well that even something as free as sexuality or art or poetry no longer can be outside the norm, and if it is, it still becomes bottled up eventually, or capital finds it way in? I feel so pessimistic; especially as an artist. Avant-garde or anti-art doesn’t even seem to have its place. What shall an artist do? What shall a person do? What shall the collective do? Everything is a mess.

Hello, I am an artist that has a strong interest towards the avant garde art and expressionism. I do not however like to keep myself within one field of creative work; I do painting, drypoint, sculpture, film, music, audio design, poetry, literature and performance. I am also very interested in post-structuralist philosophy and marxism.

With this said, I am searching for art schools/universities in Europe where I don’t have to work only within one domain, that has a bohemian and intellectual profile as well as study of critical theory (or the mix between critical theory and experimental art).

isn't rhizomatic creation also representational since nothing grows from nothing? Perhaps you make new connections and ideas out of the existing but nothing is ever not a continuation or mix of older concepts. Take Guy Debord for example. While the Society of Spectacle was revolutionary; the ideas proposed still grew out of Marx’s theories of alienation and commodity fetishism, Georg Lukàcs, Hegel, Dadaism and surrealism and seeing the growth of commodification and consumerism.

Is the premise about seeing life and ideas as rhizomes or that an idea can grow out of nothing? I must have understood something wrong so apologies, but I would be glad to get an answer.

Even with Deleuze characterizing himself as Marxist, this seems of fault. I understand that the critique of capital becomes more significant with anti oedipus, but how do you assess communism as the natural development of capitalism if society is not fixed but in motion, everything in a state of becoming?

Title

As I have interpreted it he believed that a revolution starts in changing desire and the way we think; that a revolution is useless if our deep psychological desires remain trapped by capitalist conditioning. That we must stop the capitalist desire. Is this not somewhat of an idealist positions? Are revolutions not born out of material conditions, and is that not what bring them forward according to Deleuze? (Please, correct me if i have understood something wrong).

Much of the book I found underwhelming and too fragmented, but when I reached the end I realized what the structure was conveying. "Beauty will be CONVULSIVE or will not be at all", is precisely the way the book is written– convulsively, that is. I found it to be hauntingly beautiful and odd, but difficult to grasp. I am not sure what to feel.

My assessment is this: Capitalism forces the woman to be commodified in the eyes of the man just like the commodity, when the family structure is no longer tied to economic strategy or gender roles, the relationship becomes only a form of love. Society is responsible for the child collectively and there are no separate spheres of labour. If the patriarchal family structure ends, work is collectivized, all capitalist relations are done away with and commodification ends, then it is well solved. Well, what remains of the womans struggle if all this is abolished? Do the thousands of years of women being regarded as the "other gender" dissapear?

My assessment is this: Capitalism forces the woman to be commodified in the eyes of the man just like the commodity, when the family structure is no longer tied to economic strategy or gender roles, the relationship becomes only a form of love. Society is responsible for the child collectively and there are no separate spheres of labour. If the patriarchal family structure ends, work is collectivized, all capitalist relations are done away with and commodification ends, then it is well solved. Well, what remains of the womans struggle if all this is abolished? Do the thousands of years of women being regarded as the "other gender" dissapear?

Sure his musical talent may be good but he does nothing original and nothing fun, and everything is rehearsed and well-planned but he acts as if it‘s ”made up on the spot”. He pisses me off.

Why should you not communize society immediately? To me it seems like the most effective way to oppress the bourgeoisie.

https://preview.redd.it/844f6yl01z0h1.jpg?width=368&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a2992001a269dcf639e98462f8c9c933fca1913d

in the communist manifesto, it says "centralization of credit in the hands of the state by means of national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly" and "extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the state" , does this then mean of the class as a whole (workers democracy) or of a temporary state capitalist monopoly? Because earlier it says: "to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class".

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/1949/existentialism.htm

As I remember it, in Mahayana a bodhisattva is a person who has attained enlightenment but delays nirvana. In Theravada, bodhisattva is primarily used to refer to Siddharta Gautama before he became enlightened. Maybe I am remembering incorrectly but i would like if someone explained it to me.