Latest / PlasticPills Critical Theory & Philosophy / Deleuze: An Introduction

Transcript

Deleuze: An Introduction · PlasticPills Critical Theory & Philosophy

0:09
All right, Hello, you are listening to the Pill Pod. I'm here
0:13
with Chris, who you might have heard from the previous Vitalism episode. And
0:18
today we're going to do a very broad introduction to Deluz and the reason for
0:24
that is later in the week we are going to be interviewing In Buchanan,
0:29
who is one of the foremost Deluze scholars in the English speaking world at least,
0:35
but probably the world in general. You think he's probably he's top five
0:39
for sure. You think I would think so for sure, at least in
0:43
Deluz studies and the whole. Yes, he's the editor and founder of the
0:48
Deluzen Guitari Studies Journal, so he has that to his name. But because
0:55
we don't know specifically how that conversation is going to go, and Deluz can
1:00
be very daunting if you kind of don't know what's going on. So I
1:04
wanted to do this with you, Chris, this uh less interview style,
1:10
but more let's talk about the significance of Deluxe and why it matters for sure.
1:15
So I am not a Doula's scholar whereas Chris you are, or what
1:22
it's in our area now, but you have I like I like I like
1:26
to say that I'm a recovering Delusium, and the distinct what we're distinguishing here
1:32
is you can read delus but to actually be a Della's scholar means that you're
1:37
also reading everybody else who reads Delluz. So I've read a fair share of
1:42
Deluze, but I don't know all the specific debates that are going on in
1:45
academia and all that stuff. Mm hmmm. So hopefully for the most part,
1:49
we can stay away from that, because this is more of an episode
1:53
of If you open up a Della's book, it's going to sound probably pretty
1:57
jarring, maybe pretty alienating, and you're not going to know what's going on.
2:00
So the idea here is to set the stage for that interview that we're
2:05
going to have, so that you know at least where we're coming from and
2:08
a little bit of what Dellaz slash Gatari in some cases is about. I
2:15
think that's very well said. So there's a Yeah. I was going to
2:19
do a whole introductory video on Deluz, but I don't really like doing introductory
2:23
videos because it kind of stops you from dealing with concepts. So I think
2:28
this is a better medium for explaining no, we can just tell we can
2:31
just tell our we can just tell our viewers that you know. Deliz was
2:35
born in nineteen twenty five in France and died in nineteen ninety five of suicide,
2:38
jumping from his window. He was dying of lung cancer. He had
2:45
his spring put into his lung at the age of forty five, and he
2:51
took his own life because he felt that we as humans need to own our
2:55
own death and that he felt that the cancer that was killing him was taking
3:00
more out of his own autonomy, so he took his own life. Yeah,
3:04
he didn't want to die in a hospital bed, which is actually pretty
3:07
reflective of his philosophical project. So to focus on his philosophical project, which
3:14
is vast, I have broken down this, Chris. You can push back
3:20
on any of these categories if you wish, but just for the sake of
3:23
clarity, I think the best way to deal with this is to talk about
3:27
four different Deluzes. Okay, do you want to hear though, sure?
3:32
Sure, Okay, I could love to hear them. You can push back,
3:36
but it basically divides his books into a few different categories. So first,
3:40
and probably the most well known is the Deluze who writes with Katari,
3:46
so dng Deluz. These are the books from Capitalism and Schizophrenia, including Thousand
3:52
Plateaus anti Oedipuss later on what is Philosophy, his book on Kaofka towards the
3:58
minor literature, literature book no medology. And I know I'm just saying a
4:02
bunch of words, but we're dividing up his books into his own sections.
4:06
Then we have Deluz the intellectual historian, many of which he wrote these books
4:13
by himself for the most part, but he writes on His first book was
4:17
on Hume, he wrote on Nietzsche, he wrote on Spinoza, he wrote
4:23
on Leibniz. And this is when Delluz is dealing very closely with these texts
4:29
and interpreting them very much for his own ends. In a way. He's
4:33
not trying to be you know, here's here's the story of this philosopher's life.
4:40
He's more interpreting, Oh, we could take this concept and develop it.
4:44
And he calls them conceptual persone. Mm hmm. That's it. That's
4:48
that's a good way to that's a good way to get into him. Yeah,
4:51
And I think these are these are kind of your favorite books, right,
4:56
Yes, I like his monographs on philosophers, and I also like how
5:01
if you're interested in Spinoza or Nietzsche or Bergsen or Kant or any one of
5:06
them, they're really good to pick up. And if you just jump into
5:12
What Is Philosophy, which he wrote with Watari, he reflects on these monographs,
5:16
right, like when he starts talking about concepts. So it's good if
5:19
you pick up one of his books, let's say the Spinoza book or the
5:23
Hume book, and then jump into the What Is Philosophy book. He reflects
5:28
on these and reflects on why these thinkers matter to his new canon, as
5:31
he calls them. And actually, if you've never read Deluz anything by Deluz
5:38
before, I think What Is Philosophy is actually a pretty good place to start
5:42
because he wrote it at the near the end of his life. I think
5:45
it was his one of his last books. Yeah, and he kind of
5:48
reflects on what he was doing the whole rest of the time. Yeah.
5:53
He says he could only write one of these books in old age, and
5:58
he tries to think of Kant writing the last book, The Critique of Judgment,
6:01
which is so completely different than the other books, but he says there's
6:04
something about this old age that makes him get to this kind of reflecting moment
6:10
on his entire ouvre or body of works. And it's not a difficult book,
6:15
so it might be a good place to start if you think, oh,
6:16
this is extremely interesting, but we'll see, Well, it depends on
6:21
the reader. That's just my opinion. Then okay, So we have the
6:28
dnng Dellas, then we have the intellectual historian monograph Deluz and then Della's the
6:33
metaphysician. And this is what Difference in repetition is called his opus because it's
6:40
his most personal intervention into the history of philosophy when he's saying, I'm going
6:46
to go in a whole new direction from philosophy since Plato right right'. It's
6:54
his It was his dissertation thesis. It also starts off his his work.
7:00
It puts him in line with Fucout as well, and it focuses on the
7:04
conception of difference, which he looks through the entire history of philosophy and targets
7:12
three main people Freud, Hegel and live in It's and he really goes into
7:19
these three and we'll talk about that later. And yeah, you mentioned Fuco,
7:25
so he was pretty tight with Fucout I guess in his seventies, and
7:29
then they had a little bit of a philosophy catfight, which philosophers are prone
7:32
to do. Mhm, I mean tongue in cheek. I define all of
7:38
nineteenth century philosophy as Kantians and hage Aliens calling each other idiots and insulting each
7:46
other. That's pretty Actually, if you look at any of Fikta's letters to
7:50
anybody, that's a perfect definition. He wrote scathing, scathing comments to Hegel
7:57
and Shelling, et cetera, et cetera, and they're quite personal. So
8:01
we think of these people as high minded intellectuals dealing with metaphysics, and then
8:05
they're just calling each other bitches, basically the proto Twitter. And then finally
8:13
there's the esthete de Luz, where he writes on film and he writes on
8:20
art and kind of cultural products as esthetics. And what's interesting, though,
8:26
is if you want to do something like film studies or like critical art studies,
8:31
don't read these because he only looks at movies and art so that he
8:37
can put his own ideas and say that this is what was happening all along.
8:41
He certainly doesn't like the He doesn't like the Classical age or the Renaissance
8:46
age of art, for sure. He does not like that at all.
8:48
And he's also not esthetically critical. He's just saying, oh, if you
8:52
read this my way, then here's all the stuff you can get out of
8:54
it. So time image. So he has two books on Cinema and Logic
9:01
of Sensibility, The Sensation A Sensation sorry, where he writes on art and
9:07
things like that. So to recap we have four Deluzes DG. Dells,
9:15
intellectual historian Delas, metaphysician Delas, and esthete Deluz. And whichever book you're
9:20
looking at is going to define the writing style that you're going to be looking
9:26
at. So I think probably a lot of delusions would hate that I'm breaking
9:31
it down that way, because they'll say, no, this is a combined
9:35
philosophical project. I'm pretty sure most delusions hate each other anyways, So does
9:39
it matter they're continuing the tradition of philosoph philosophical cat fights anyway. That's that's
9:48
the map that I have in my head when I'm opening up this text or
9:52
this text or this text. That's the personal map that I use. Whether
9:56
or not it's true or helpful or useful, that remains totally up to you.
10:01
So how do you want to start this, Chris? We we could
10:03
deal with a few different things, but do you give any ideas? Okay?
10:11
So, pretty much Whendilla's wrote his dissertation, he had written on difference
10:18
of repetition. He'd written his books on Hume and Spinoza, and he felt
10:24
that he was at kind of a roadblock because he'd written on so many,
10:28
so many concepts. Uh. And he was introduced actually to Guitari, and
10:35
apparently they spent the entire night talking about concepts and and they had a really
10:41
really good relationship right off the bat. By the way, all of this
10:43
information is from Francois Dossier's text Intersecting Lives. So and I want to interject
10:48
there just to say, what's what's he called himself or he was commenting on
10:56
his own work, and I think he called himself like a bureaucrat or an
10:58
academic bureaucrat or something disparaging like that. But meeting with meeting up with Guitari
11:05
and becoming friends changed the way that he wrote, and presumably the way that
11:11
he thought, obviously, we can't decide on that either way. But he
11:16
he re envisioned philosophy from having met Gaitari, and just a little bit of
11:20
background on Gatari. He was he was like a protesting academic. He was
11:28
like in the streets communist, and he studied psychoanalysis under Lacan. Lacan was
11:37
his analyst, and he kind of severed ties a little bit because he thought
11:43
Lacinian philosophy or the Lacan school of psychoanalysis was a little bit too cultish for
11:50
him. Yeah, he said this in an interview that I read two weeks
11:54
ago. Interestingly, when they met, Dillos gave his text The Logic of
12:01
Sense, which has a lot of psychoanalysis in it and the critiques there were
12:05
of Freud. So apparently during this era Lacan had asked delous To to sit
12:11
in on one of his lectures during the Logic of Sense time, roughly the
12:16
critique of Freud. So this is an interesting period of you know, intellectual
12:22
richness between two thinkers, you know, thinking out politics, how how these
12:26
concepts can go out in the street, how they can be taken to the
12:31
street. Actually, so that was a good point that you brought up about
12:33
his Gutari's Activism and the Anti Oedipist book, which is the first book they
12:39
wrote together. As far as I know, right, right, yep,
12:41
let's just assume. Let's just assume that I'm write about that. It was
12:45
very it was very much dealing with the problems raised in psychoanalysis, more Freudian
12:52
psychanalysis than than the con but it was arguing for a different sort of model.
12:58
Yes, yes, so it was definitely it was against the kind of
13:03
you know, the the oedipal complex, sorry, the kind of triangulation of
13:09
the mother, father, et cetera. Signifier. They were really trying to
13:13
target this, and they were looking at different organizations such as the state,
13:18
such as religion, the religious orders, as well as the media, et
13:22
cetera. And this brings up a central tenet that's going to define Delliz's entire
13:28
trajectory and his whole philosophical project, which is increasingly anti establishment in certain ways,
13:37
because you said this word the state, and the state is very much
13:39
a concern to them, in the same way that it's a concern to to
13:43
Fuco. Actually, but instead of having this state as an ultimate position,
13:50
they're kind they call it machines right. They try to figure out all the
13:54
different machines that make up the state instead of positing an err concept or a
14:00
hotalizing concept like power. Right. And this is one of the if you've
14:05
know anything about FUCO, you probably know the word power. But what's very
14:09
different from people who interpret FUCO and write about FUCO is they presume that power
14:18
is just this like miasma or this uh cloud that just exists everywhere in society.
14:24
Whereas if you actually read Fuquo the way he does his text in terms
14:30
of madness or in terms of hospitals or in prisons, it's always starts from
14:35
the details. It's a what would you call it, It's a inductive reasoning.
14:41
And he says, okay, here's how a prison works. Now,
14:43
let's establish power. And the conclusion of the book is power. Right.
14:50
And so Gwatari and Delluz maybe extend that concept of power and look at how
14:56
the flow of power, and they bring up these concepts of or or molecular
15:01
which is the free flowing uh concept of power, and the molecular, sorry,
15:07
the molar which is the constrictive and segmenting, segmenting and the enclosed kind
15:13
of aspect of power, that the contraction of power, the the seducing of
15:20
power, and then there'd be like the supple mole molecular, which is the
15:24
kind of free flowing, which is in a good way. It opens up
15:28
structures, but they also limit I'm going to interrupt you here because this is
15:33
the big problem that people have with really dellisent guitar is it gets very jargony,
15:39
and this crew is just meant to be an introduction, so right,
15:41
I'm sorry, yeah, no, don't be sorry. This is the way
15:45
delusions always talk. And I'm meant to be the the voice of the people
15:50
here, right, the vox populum. But if we talk about power,
15:56
we have hierarchies, right, and everyone can see hierarchies where if you look
16:00
if you look into schools, if you look into government, if you look
16:06
into you know, police versus civilian, there's always hierarchies of power. And
16:12
Deluzing Gatari investigate this a little bit more carefully, but they also look at
16:18
the history of philosophy in terms of hierarchy. So even going back to Plato,
16:25
he makes distinguished or a distinction between appearance and real, and the real
16:33
is the stable background to all appearances. And appearances are temporal, they're not
16:38
trustworthy. And then you get copies like artists copy appearances, which are copies
16:45
of the real. So it's this hierarchy where you have an invisible background that
16:52
is the true reality, right, and then everything beyond or everything that's lower
16:57
on the pole or lower on the tree. We can come back to that
17:03
lower on the tree is less real. So the most real is the best.
17:08
And this is they attack representation a lot, right, So representation when
17:15
you say one thing represents something else, then you're kind of saying that that
17:18
something else is better and that the thing that's copying it is worse, which
17:25
creates a hierarchy in thought. But they're also dealing with hierarchies of the state
17:29
and the family. As you said, Yeah, I like this idea of
17:33
the tree, because what is a tree. A tree is it's vertical,
17:38
it's standing up. It has one way of expressing itself, which are its
17:42
branches. It's branches can go on one direction and that's it. And this
17:47
is kind of brilliantly is leading us into the rhizome in a second. So
17:52
if we think of what I was saying before, like you know, religious
17:56
orders, the state, god et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
18:00
See this on the hierarchy of the tree, right, And so each level
18:03
of power, or each level from the state onward, is a kind of
18:07
a branch that is cutting off your ability to be a free, autonomous individual.
18:14
So Delizen Gwatari are trying to think of ways to what they would say,
18:21
I mean, I'm going to use the jargon, but I'll talk about
18:22
what it is to look about the way of overcoading or trying to make this
18:30
tree organism cut completely off or to flip it right on its head, right,
18:36
And we want to go why that is. Think of you have the
18:41
tree of knowledge, which is a metaphor and Western philosophy that at least philosophers
18:45
use because you know it makes them look the most important. But the roots
18:49
of knowledge are philosophy. And then once you go up the up the trunk,
18:56
then you have the trunk, which is I don't know science. So
19:03
the science is the solid center of knowledge. And then you have the branches.
19:07
And the branches are the most easily removed, so the least necessary,
19:11
and those are like the applied sciences. So when you do chemistry, you're
19:17
not doing pure science. You're doing applied science. So the whole point here,
19:21
I mean it's a kind of an inverse hierarchy, is to say what's
19:25
the most important thing, which is often you know, metaphysics, and then
19:30
as soon as you start applying stuff, and as soon as you become and
19:33
then the most the top most branches, the most useless branches are arts.
19:37
Right, yeah, so you have that right, so that this is right
19:41
out of Descartes. So you know, the empirical sciences, et cetera,
19:45
et cetera. But notice how there is no room for growth, There is
19:48
no room for any free creativity. What we have there is what is certain.
19:52
It's certain that the empirical sciences give us this, it's certain that the
19:59
arts will do this. It doesn't really give any room for novel creativity.
20:03
And this is where Deluze steps in. And this is why Deluz has a
20:07
different canon of thinkers, because he wants to hit Dela's and Guataria want to
20:11
investigate the history of philosophy and of psychoanalysis. I guess to see how they
20:18
can make these creative inversions on the history that has created this kind of tree
20:23
structure. So how can they do this and this is called major philosophy.
20:33
Yes, and major philosophy is their shit list. And I'm being reductive here
20:37
because they write on major philosophy, and anyone who studies major philosophy is gonna
20:44
be is probably going to object to this. But we have major philosophy and
20:48
then we have minor philosophy. So major philosophy is the people you read in
20:52
an undergraduate philosophy class. You start with Plato, you go to Aristotle,
20:59
then for whatever reason, skip two thousand or fifteen hundred years. Then you're
21:03
at Descartes, Then you have Kant, then you have Hegel and so on.
21:07
So this is major philosophy, and they want to distance themselves from that.
21:15
You know, for the most part, there's always exceptions. And then
21:18
they have a minor philosophy, which includes what you haven't heard of probably in
21:25
most philosophy classes, which is Spinosa bergsyn Nietzsche. You probably have, but
21:32
Nietzsche's in this train. So they want to have a parallel line of people
21:37
that were rejecting the norm. They were opposed to the norm in whatever way.
21:42
Sometimes they were opposed to the norm, sometimes they weren't. But deliz
21:45
In Gaitari or at least no, mostly Deluz, I think in this case,
21:49
right, yeah, Deliz, Yeah, for sure. These are his
21:52
monographs. So Deliz Delis gets these small ideas out of these thinkers and say
21:57
no, they're part of the philosophy, which in his mind is good.
22:02
It's better than major philosophy. Yeah, and it's it's as simple as someone
22:07
like Lucretius's clineman or the the atom swerve. He likes this idea of free
22:11
flowing activity, free creation, that that that can somehow be spontaneously, spontaneously
22:19
erupt. He likes this idea a rupture, something that's intensive. Right,
22:26
you see a lot of delusion articles. People talk about intensity. What is
22:30
intensity? So from Lucretius up to Spinosa, and what he loves about Spinosa
22:36
is this concept of imminence. He has a very strong, imminent, kind
22:41
of holistic model that he that grasps the creative structure of reality. So,
22:49
and I think he calls them orphans. But I'll give you the list listener,
22:52
just so you can have the list. I wrote it down as you
22:56
mentioned, Lucretius, Spinosa live, It's Hume, Nietzsche, Bergsen. Those
23:03
are the main the main list of minor philosophers, whereas most other people who
23:07
would call part of the majority philosophy view Hegel especially. I don't think they
23:12
have profound love for Hegel deserve because you know what our Hegelian, our Hegelian
23:18
friends are going to message me as soon as they hear this, I know,
23:22
but that he is the greatest. He is the greatest. Line he
23:25
says, one of the one of the one of the one of the most
23:29
disgusting things that he had ever ever seen come into existence was the dialectic and
23:33
Hegelian philosophy. Yeah, and you can kind of see the reason for this
23:37
is because Hegel's dialectic of history overall basically explains all of history. So it's
23:45
totalizing, and you know what, we're not going to do that on this
23:51
podcast. But we can push back on that and say no, like they're
23:52
spontaneity in Hegel There's there's there really is reason to believe that, But just
23:57
for the sake of this episode, we're gonna reduce it to a binary which
24:02
says Hegel's a bad philosopher because he doesn't allow for true spontaneity and true like
24:07
resistance. Because if history is all one process, then what is resistance,
24:15
for there could be no resistance. So Delus and Katari are very interested in
24:18
this concept of resistance and they give it a very physical form in terms of
24:26
becoming woman, becoming animal, becoming minor. The Kafka book was about Jews,
24:33
so Jews have to write in German in Germany, but they come at
24:37
it from an outside even though they're, you know, inside the German geist.
24:44
This is this is this is the This is the beautiful thing about the
24:48
Cofco book because he brings up the idea that Kafka is a is a a
24:52
progue Jew, he's from Prague, he's and what he likes about it is.
24:57
One of the first concepts Deluz really really works out is the stutterer and
25:03
what does a stutterer do. A stutterer takes Yiddish and applies it to the
25:07
major language, which is German, and the stutter adds a kind of intonation
25:12
to the language, to the word so it and then all of a sudden
25:17
you see the major people, the kind of bourgeois society, start using these
25:23
minor words, which brings out the minetarian politics, right. And if we
25:30
want to go into let's bring in identity politics. Here actually because it's quite
25:36
a useful application for Deluz to be a minority, and it doesn't have to
25:44
be a numerical minority, just like something outside the dominant discourse. So in
25:49
North American culture, it would be non white, non heterosexual, and non
25:59
male, and especially in terms of like transgressive gender identities. Right in terms
26:07
of non heteronormativity, these things are not something that you are because if you
26:12
are woman, black, minor, transgender, or whatever, then you're going
26:18
to be caught in the logic of the state. So this is his notion
26:22
of becoming minor, which is constantly reinventing that minority stance, and that minority
26:30
stance is actually where you get a form of power from. So I don't
26:33
know if you can think of examples. I think the first example that comes
26:37
to my mind is like New York hip hop in the in the early nineties,
26:44
where you get you get all these African symbols as a part of the
26:49
hip hop, you know, like Africa, Bombarda. But even even the
26:53
even the breakdancing scene where you where you see African American young African Americans breakdancing
26:59
in the sty it's you know, kind of taking back the space. Right,
27:03
Sorry to interrupt you. Oh, I mean that's a perfect example,
27:07
because you're not Your identity is not something that you are, it's something that
27:10
you create. And this philosophy of creativity is very important and it just doesn't
27:15
have to do with visible or political minorities either. Delis and Katari saw themselves
27:22
as a minority, a minority language within philosophy. So it's about everyone should
27:29
be doing this kind of resistance to the state and to totalizing categories. And
27:36
that looks different for every person. It looks different than artists, it looks
27:38
different for scientists, it looks different for philosophers, it looks different for you
27:42
know, visible minorities. Right, And this is this is what he this
27:45
is what gutaries say that creation is. Creation is a form of resistance,
27:51
a pure form of resistance. Actually, to create something in replace of something
27:56
stagnant or a static is a form of resistance. To read Spinoza instead of
28:04
Kant, or to like someone like Eric Sati in music over I don't know,
28:11
Britney Spears or something. To get into this kind of we can always
28:17
shoot on a Wagner safely because us an anti semi we could just do that
28:21
so when we are talking about hierarchy, where we have our image model of
28:26
the tree, which is vertical, some parts are above, some parts are
28:30
more important, some parts are lesser. And this is where they get the
28:33
concept of the rhizome from, which is one of the most oft quoted concepts.
28:40
And a rhizome is a plant like it's like grass or fungus, because
28:48
a fungus or grass there's no center, right, there's there's not a single
28:52
place where everything else comes from. There's no trunk to grass. So whny
28:56
times about the rhizome. It's what's the word. It's non hierarchical, but
29:00
it's flat, it's horizontal, so there's not a tozer structure where you have
29:06
one thing that's important and then everything else is less important, which is,
29:11
you know, the whole platonic thing. You have a real world, you
29:15
have the idea, and then you have all the applications to the idea which
29:18
are unnecessary. In a rhizome, there's no part that's more necessary to an
29:22
other, which is why it's non hierarchical. And this is why this quote
29:27
or this concept is so often redeployed. It's also you can see this in
29:32
animal life as well too. He brings up examples like wolf Wolf's the wolf
29:36
pack is a form of a rhizome. It's an expression of the entire,
29:41
the entire collective of all the wolves. He likes mice or rats, sorry,
29:45
the rat. He loves the idea of rats, and they're kind of
29:51
scurrying around as a kind of animal rhizome. Yeah, and you can think
29:55
of I don't know, an ants hills, termite colonies. They they have
30:00
sort of a center, but they're much less decentralized than excuse me, they're
30:07
much less decentralized than something like a human state, because the state is all
30:11
about these different organs. You have the legislators at the top, you have
30:18
your government officials at the top, then you have your bureaucrats, and then
30:22
you have like your classes. So he even comes against Marks a little bit
30:26
for considering power to stately like and then his criticism he criticizes Marx's criticism of
30:33
capitalism. Yeah, My favorite example from A Thousand Plateaus is when Dillo's talks
30:41
about a weed and what is a weed? A weed is something that's horizontal.
30:45
It's that moves horizontally and has an infinite amount of possibilities, expressions that
30:53
it can merge into as opposed to just growing, you know, like a
30:57
telos, like a teleology, growing into a plant being just like our structure,
31:03
we said, like the tree just being vertical and that's it in growing
31:06
branches and leaves, et cetera. This is a perfect example, right,
31:11
because the hierarchy the state is the garden and the garden what makes a garden
31:15
a garden? You plant things in horizontal rows. You're like envisioning what this
31:19
garden's gonna look like later. You have your nice plants up here, you
31:22
have your shade plants in the shade. So it's all organized in like a
31:27
grid like pattern to look good to a certain sort of mind. But then
31:33
the weed comes in and the weed disrupts this planned out representational organization of the
31:40
garden. That's perfect, thank you. Yeah, And it's funny too,
31:44
because let's lose let's use a little bit of jargon here. So one second,
31:48
let's two words here. So as as pills as plastic pills said so
31:53
perfectly, you had this grid like formation of the garden which is coded.
32:00
It's a code. You put this plant in, you put this seed in
32:02
a in a line. Now, what does the weed do. It overcodes
32:07
the code. It goes over that distinction, it goes over that structure.
32:10
Yeah, you could think of it like an invasive a virus, even virus.
32:19
I don't know if we wanted to bring up viruses in times like these,
32:22
but you know, they overcode the hierarchical grid like organization of things.
32:29
And he and for Delzen getarry, this is the goal is to be the
32:34
overcoders, be the subversives. And it doesn't mean like you can overthrow a
32:39
massive state, right, Like you're not going to overthrow the United States by
32:45
protesting in the street, But just the act of protesting in the street is
32:47
an important intensity that you can bring into politics. Right. And it's so
32:54
funny that we're going to have Ian Buchanan on here. I think it's next
33:00
week, because this week, hopefully this week, so I hope if I
33:05
can get it done, turnaround time. But yeah, Ian says something brilliant
33:09
and when his article on the Internet, he says that if Louz was if
33:13
Duluz was alive, the greatest rhizome that he would see come into power or
33:17
come into distance would be the Internet. You could open up you know the
33:22
screens that are popping up the I mean, you know this more than I
33:27
do. Pill Yeah, I think I think that dream is dead though,
33:30
Like this was the whole cyberpunk movement in the nineties was like, oh,
33:35
we have a free space. But now even the Internet has become like totalized,
33:42
totalized, categorized. It's extremely hierarchical. So I want to introduce one
33:47
term. We're not going to do heavy terms here, but we have the
33:51
RhI zome, which is this sort of free flowing there's no center, it
33:55
can pop up anywhere, versus the tree. And the word for the tree
34:00
hierarchy is the arborescent, so arbor in Latin means tree. So something that
34:07
is arborescent is hierarchicalized. Something that is rhizomatic is free. And you could
34:13
point to the Internet at least in the mid nineties as being a lot more
34:19
distributed than it is now, and you could still seizeon pawn those tendencies maybe,
34:23
but you know, the Internet becomes more and more hierarchicalized than monopolized.
34:30
So there's another term we could drop here that might help make sense, and
34:35
that's the nomad, because the nomad is someone without a territory or someone that
34:44
can cross freely between territories. And as soon as we're talking about the nomad,
34:47
then there's a whole bunch of terms that we can use that If you've
34:51
ever read to Liz, you've probably read before, so territorializing and deterritorializing,
35:00
and I think you could probably say that for Deluz becoming territorialized. It's not
35:07
like it's bad, right, But if you get stuck there, and you
35:09
get stuck in your ways and you never try to push against those limits,
35:19
then you're kind of not living a real life. And you you said this.
35:22
If you haven't listened to our vitalism episode yet, you should. But
35:27
this is kind of an area where Delliz is considered a vitalist. But it
35:30
can also be applied to politics. If you stay in your lane and you
35:34
stay in your box, that's your territory. It's not like it's morally objectionable.
35:40
But the purpose of like living things, of organic things like and even
35:45
including your mind, including your thought, you should be trying to deterritorialize yourself.
35:52
I think that that's perfect. And I like this example of the city
35:55
because what does a city do? A city is a terror toy. Right,
36:00
the street goes one way, buildings go up. You have certain places
36:06
that you can go to, certain places to eat, et cetera, places
36:09
you cannot, places you can't walk. Places you walk, you can walk,
36:14
places you can't walk. So it sits in a set of behaviors.
36:16
So this is re territorialization. It makes you, I'm going to use a
36:22
big word here, converge to that place of power. So it makes you
36:27
contract a certain habit. Word you could choose, but yeah, okay,
36:31
sorry, let's go on about Let's go on about the habit though. The
36:35
habit's really key here, yes, So, so De Liz will say that
36:37
you can tract a habit because of re territorialization, because you're forced to walk
36:43
a certain way, or to go to use certain washrooms, or to do
36:49
et cetera. You're supposed to do all of this behavior. You're contracting these
36:52
these passive habits in order because of the structure, because of the as Pills
36:59
said, the arborescent structure. So the structure of the tree. Now,
37:04
how can we how can we over or how can we yes, how can
37:08
we overcode this coded structure? Besides you know, just running into the street
37:14
and getting hit by a car, which is not the proposal here, but
37:19
but yeah, how do you how would you overcode the habit? Well,
37:24
let's let's give some political examples. I think they're I think these are fun.
37:30
So we brought up the example of African American African Americans in the eighties
37:35
and this idea of taking back the space. This is exactly a de territorialization,
37:39
I think. I think uh Dyliz brings this up and actually one of
37:45
his lectures, this idea of you know, even just expressing yourself within the
37:51
street, taking over that that that space, overcoding. The fact that you
37:55
are now on the sidewalk or in the middle of the street where cars are
37:59
supposed to be dry, and you've taken over that space. Right, this
38:02
is kind of showing the major. It's kind of trying to it's becoming and
38:09
it's trying to overcode or become over the major. And this is what protest
38:15
is, right, because you're entering the street, you take it over.
38:19
Cars can no longer drive. But as a rhizomatic entity, even these police
38:22
protests you could say is riizomatic in that sense, absolutely disrupts the code,
38:31
and the code is right cars can't drive here anymore, right. I was
38:37
also thinking of a Canadian example. I think in nineteen eighty six the indigenous
38:42
population took over the highway in Quebec, and Canada brought in the military,
38:46
I believe. And here we have a great example because you have a peep
38:52
a minority that's oppressed. Now there are taking to the streets. They're in
38:57
the middle of a highway. And what do you do in a highway?
39:00
Your speed right unless you're so they're they're taking over this space. They're overcoating
39:06
this specific space. They're expressing themselves. They are right there a line of
39:09
flight. They are a divergence jargon jargonops, jargon alert. Okay, just
39:16
explain line of flight. It's a perfect it's a great word for this.
39:20
So it's let's go a line. A line of flight here would now be
39:23
de territorialization. So it's an actualizing, it's it's a it's an expression of
39:30
breaking the structure, breaking that arborescent structure. So here you have an indigenous
39:35
population trying to uh fight. Let's go, let's go to what actually line
39:43
of flight means. Right, Because he uses the example of a bowman with
39:47
an arrow. This is what a line of flight is. So you not
39:52
your bow, you know, from whatever position you have, because no matter
39:55
who you are, you're in a territory. Know, a visible minority,
40:00
not a visible minority, You are in the territory. You shoot your bow.
40:07
And this is what the word line of flight comes from. You shoot
40:09
your bow, the arrow goes up and you're not gonna You're not sure where
40:15
it's gonna land. But it's your moral unction as a living person, as
40:19
a living being with you know, will to power, you have to shoot
40:24
your arrow just to see where it lands. And he gets he gets that
40:29
concept from Nietzsche. They both get it from Nietzsche, very Nietzschean throat.
40:32
But then you go find your arrow. Now you're stuck in a new territory,
40:37
So don't just stay there in your new territory. I mean, it's
40:40
it's not like this is good or bad, right, It's not like re
40:44
territorialization is always good and territorialize a territorializing is always bad. That's not at
40:50
all what's happening here. But the idea is, as a nomad, don't
40:54
stay in any place too long because then you're not acting out your your your
41:01
intensities, the intensities that exist in you as a living, thinking person.
41:08
I have I have a better example. There's a nineteen seventies pianist named Messien
41:15
and Messi in actually wanted to break away from the chord you know, three
41:22
chord chorus structure in music and decided to mimic bird sounds, and so he
41:28
wanted to play specific bird sounds. So what a perfect way, what a
41:34
perfect line of flight? Now you're gonna You're going to create a piece of
41:37
music that, at the same time is rizzomatic because it's joining human creativity with
41:45
animal creativity. We have two things together can joined as one one flowing line
41:52
of flight, an assemblage here assembling assemblaging assembling, an animal line of flight
42:01
and a human line of flight together. Man, you keep bleeding these concepts
42:06
so perfectly, because this is the body without organs, right, a body
42:09
with organs like you could think of your own body. It's a structure.
42:15
It has a certain amount of parts in it. Your heart, your lungs,
42:19
you're pancreas, your appendix. Some of those organs are important, Some
42:24
you can't live without, some you can. But there's even a hierarchy of
42:30
organs in this sense, so breaking even down that hierarchy is the body without
42:35
organs. It's just intense on its way to something, coming from something,
42:39
and it's not like, oh I don't have a body. That's not at
42:43
all what they're saying. The idea is, instead of thinking of your position
42:47
in the world as part of hierarchies, think of yourself as something on the
42:52
way to something else. You're a becoming, not a being. You're not
42:58
an identity. You're a becoming identity. So you're creating and then like,
43:02
it's not like you're going to finish creating your identity and then just be something.
43:07
As soon as you get there, then you should be thinking like what
43:08
else can be? And this is I guess the political dimension of Delisim Guitari,
43:15
which some people think that he's not political. But the whole idea is
43:20
just resist because resistance has a value in itself even if you don't accomplish anything.
43:25
Like the goal is not we need revolution. The goal is make sure
43:31
that you on your own, are not even on your own, but just
43:35
like as a collective or whatever part you are, you're not just a member
43:38
of a class and you're not just a member of a group. You're always
43:42
on your way to something, and if you think of yourself in this sense,
43:45
your life becomes a work of art, not a work of you know,
43:50
fitting yourself into a system, or fitting yourself as an organ into a
43:54
whole, into a totality. A state that was just beautifully well worded.
44:02
No, I went off, I went off a little bit. I don't
44:05
usually like to be didactic, but you know what, this is one of
44:09
my favorite philosophers for exactly this reason. It's like, no matter what you're
44:14
doing, you could be doing it more creatively. If you're a scientist,
44:20
you could be doing it better. Yeah, you could be. You could
44:23
be using science for life as opposed to life for science in a creative sense,
44:31
or science for death if you're working for fucking Haliburton or something like that.
44:37
Right, Yeah, very very very interesting. So there he You know,
44:47
there's great examples with music as well too. The great French singer Edith
44:53
pf She would sing normal, you know, verse, chorus, verse,
44:59
but she would sing a little off tune, and the off tune just the
45:05
thing, just the action of singing off tune. Della's loved her, loved
45:08
her, and he loved this idea that, Okay, you have someone that's
45:13
maintaining the same structure of songs like verse chorus, verse, but is overturning
45:19
that structure just by singing off and and her songs are brilliant anyways, Okay,
45:23
so I was going to try to keep this is a micro dose,
45:25
So I was going to try to keep it to about an hour. We
45:31
were we said we were going to talk about four different delizes, the DG.
45:35
Delas intellectual historian, delas metaphysician. Delis asked Delas, And we haven't
45:39
really talked about any of them specifically, but and we're not going to.
45:45
I don't think we don't have enough time. But in each case, when
45:47
he like when he's reading a philosopher, he's not trying to repeat to you
45:51
what that philosopher said, just like Baldly, it's not information transfer, it's
45:55
it's here's this interesting concept that we can get out of this philosopher, like
46:01
the mone Ad or or the assemblage or whatever it is. Deliz As a
46:08
metaphysician, tries to do this asthete Dellaz tries to do this like, let's
46:13
just read a movie and pretend that it's a Berkson documentary or something. But
46:16
you know what, you know what, we can still we can still adhere
46:20
to your four de louses by taking an example from each. Let's do that.
46:23
Here we go. Let's start off with the monograph delos for a second,
46:27
with something as easy as the concept. So Deliz believed that the history
46:31
of philosophy was about one thing, creation and he actually says this at the
46:37
end of What is Philosophy? I'm pretty sure he says that in the first
46:42
page of what his Philosophy? Oh yeah, creators, creators of the world
46:45
create. So what is what is the What could can philosophers do but create
46:52
the concept? So exactly what Pills said. So you take something like his
46:58
book on Spinoza, which is one of my favorites actually, and this book
47:01
is about Spinoza's philosophy, but it hinges on a line of flight in it
47:07
called expressionism. How can one express oneself infinitely? And this is also rhizomatic
47:15
because expression is infinite, it's never ending. You have an infinite amount of
47:22
possibilities to express oneself and either identity, behavior, action. Right, this
47:29
is a great way of overturning those passive habits. So this book focuses on
47:35
expressivity, expressivity in what he calls the conatus, which is a Spinoza's term
47:42
for a will, a striving, just like that that idea of the arrow
47:46
and shooting an arrow like a line of flight. This is how we're supposed
47:51
to look at a mode of creation, creation as a form of expression.
47:55
So there's a philosophical example, and it's also not just creation of I need
48:00
to sit down and write a book right just to summarize the rest of what
48:06
is philosophy. Scientists can either you know, be creative or not. Artists
48:12
can be creative or not. But being creative at every different moment means a
48:16
different thing, and that's kind of the crux. The center of dezes All
48:22
for Delluzes is that if you're stuck in one place, you're doing something less
48:28
than what you could be doing. So instead of being instead of identity in
48:36
a very broad sense, instead of things, you should think of things as
48:38
processes, as as movements on their way to something. And this is why
48:45
the line of flights so powerful, because you're on your way to something.
48:47
Instead of trying to establish what you are, establish futures, possibilities, even
48:54
if it's useless. Right. This is this is so important because if you're
49:00
reading the history of philosophy, everything's focused on space and time and here and
49:05
now and movement objects subject versus object, which is the subject which is the
49:09
object, you know, right, and movement, movement overcomes all of this
49:14
movement is this flux, right, and within this flux we have this great
49:17
capacity, this great potential for for creation, which is why he ultimately opts
49:22
one hundred percent for Bergson's understanding of time and to a lesser extent, Niches
49:28
understanding of time versus Kant or Hegel's sense of time, which is a fixed
49:34
space. Right, he says about Kant, one of the one of the
49:38
most ingenious but also maddening concepts is is this idea of taking time and making
49:46
it clock time, making it internal, making time a kind of circle,
49:52
he says says in the cont book, or being near right, because as
49:54
soon as you have a literarity between cause and effect, then you're doing tree
50:00
philosophy again. You're doing in philosophy instead of rhizome philosophy. Rhizome philosophy at
50:07
any moment has like twenty directions, and you have to choose which ones to
50:10
follow, and you have to choose well and intelligently, not just doing things
50:15
for no reason, but you know, taking taking your intensity in that moment
50:20
into account in your expressivity. But you see, you brought up something really
50:24
interesting. And I want to talk about art for one second, because I
50:29
was never an artist. I know you are, but I I came.
50:34
I became interested in art because of Delos and his book The Logic of Sensation,
50:38
which focuses on Francis Bacon, was my first real juncture into art.
50:44
And the one thing that I like about this is that you can really see
50:47
the creation in this. So there's a painting by Francis Bacon about Pope Pius
50:55
the sixth I believe, and it's and it's a pope screen and is half
51:00
of his face is melting off. We actually saw this in you and I
51:06
yeah, his face is melting off. And it's very gestural, it's very
51:09
impressionistic. It's not like a true to life portrait, although it is based
51:15
on a true the life portrait, right it is. It is based on
51:16
that. But what he does here is he he does not define the figures
51:22
of the body. The body is actually blurred because what is the body,
51:27
the body and Organs, et cetera is back to again this concept of the
51:30
tree. So he blurs the distinction. But what he does give you is
51:36
the voice. The mouth is open, so you can almost hear the virtual,
51:42
the virtual scream of this maddening pope. You can see his jaw extended,
51:46
the darkness inside his mouth. You can see this. And this is
51:52
what for for Dilla's is art art as a line of flight? Is this
51:58
this kind of raw create a potentiality that breaks open the same kind of blase
52:06
art. Yeah, our art without feeling kind of you know, giant balloon
52:13
dogs and giant lollipops or whatever the fuck they're doing now. But you know
52:19
he he actually loved Pollock too, because Pollock created what he called in any
52:22
space whatever, This free flowing Pollock's art is very non hierarchical because it's just
52:29
a splatter all over the entire thing. Right, Okay, So rapping up,
52:37
Chris, I think that you and I have to do another episode on
52:39
this because I only got through like two paragraphs of my notes. I think
52:45
no, no, But I think we okay, So we did the art.
52:47
We did the art delas the aesthetic art Delus. We did the philosophy
52:52
Deluz we did, Yeah, but create sortativity is kind of the center of
52:57
each of these things, right, So I would say we're going to talk
53:00
to Ian Buchanan. Ian Buchanan takes a little bit more of a political stance,
53:08
I would say on Deluz, he talks a little bit more about as
53:14
well as one of our teachers who we won't mention, but a political stance
53:19
to Delz because one of the accusations against the Liz not at all political or
53:23
is that he's anti political or something he wants to do like I don't know,
53:28
tree worshiping in a grove, or like going to your hut in the
53:32
woods or some ship like Heidiger. But no, especially he's very much about
53:39
like wherever you're at. I guess here's here's my attempt out a summary.
53:45
You should correct it if it's wrong. Wherever you're at, whatever you're doing,
53:47
if you're a musician, if you're an artist, if you're a political
53:51
subject, if you're a minority, if you're a reader, if you're a
53:53
writer, you could be changing the very definitions of what you're doing through your
54:01
work. So you shouldn't be something right, it's not about being something.
54:07
It's about you said the word the virtual, and I promised that we would
54:13
try not to be jargony. But the virtual, sorry, the virtual is
54:15
this field. It's a field of possibility, and you should be attentive to
54:22
that and in whatever way you are. And one of their critiques of the
54:27
way that we live today is that it's so statists that we can't really see
54:32
possibilities of action anymore because so many of these machines, you know, you
54:37
can talk about media schools, ideological state apparatuses might be a good fit in
54:44
here. So many of the machines that we have to live inside of capitalism
54:52
prevent that kind of seeing above or below. I think he says in Anti
54:57
Oedipus, the schizophrenic is capable of seeing above and below. And that's why
55:02
I the schizophrenic is the model for those two books, because they can see
55:07
past, and they can see as a multiple, not as a singular person,
55:12
but as a multiple person. And that's one of another key concepts,
55:16
multiplicity never thinking right, which which you know is in line with assemblages.
55:22
But a multiplicity is this, like you said, this, multiple expressions of
55:30
non actual of non actualized individuality, you are endless possibilities. Endless possibilities.
55:37
I mean mean it's quite literally. It's not like some self help shit that
55:40
says be whoever you want. No, it's like there are options here.
55:46
Again, he calls them larval selves. There are a little larval, little
55:51
larval selves inside you as these these you know, burgeoning, blossoming potentials,
55:58
you know they're ready to be actualized. Right, So I apologize for this,
56:02
but I think we got to start wrapping this up. If you want
56:07
another episode on this, I think we could probably two four, but I
56:13
want to keep them. I want to keep the microdoses to about an hour,
56:15
so just in conclusion, and I want to like this conclusion can last
56:21
for five ten minutes. But we're when we're talking about Delizian philosophy, it's
56:25
not like truth is not the center of it. It's more like possibility and
56:31
creation are the center of it. We're not to just find out what is,
56:37
because what is is what it is now. It's static. But if
56:40
you look at becoming what things could be, then your entire interpretation of the
56:46
world and the world around you is not going to look so static. So
56:51
he's yeah, he says this for every every different type of discipline is read
56:58
better, read new, read, create, make stuff. In the Nietzsche
57:02
book, he says that the powers of the false outweigh the powers of the
57:06
true. And what he means by that is is exactly what you're saying.
57:09
That sounds like Nietzsche said something pretty much in exactly those lines, didn't he?
57:15
I think so? Yes, So I kind of want to search it
57:20
yet because it's a freaking great quote. Well, it goes in line with
57:24
a lot of your videos, A lot of your a lot of your videos
57:28
on YouTube are very much on you know, sketching the surface of that.
57:34
It's a shame because I wanted to talk about university and the metaphysics of his
57:37
philosophy. But next time, next time. But yes, I definitely think
57:43
that he this is a philosopher that is an artist number one, uh and
57:49
and is creating a manifesto for other philosophers to not just be bureaucratic academics historians
57:58
working on you know, based ideas, but to be free flowing, experimenting
58:07
and investigating expressions of ideas. And you see this with everything they've done from
58:13
writing on literature and philosophy and poetry, art, everything, politics, everything,
58:21
I think. I remember the quote that I was thinking of. NASA
58:22
says the true or the true world? Wait, the false world was always
58:30
the true one, and the true one was only added by a lie.
58:36
And obviously that's a commentary on Plato, who believes that you know, everything
58:39
else is representation except the true world. But he said the false the world
58:43
of appearances is the one that's always real. And then trying to get out
58:49
of that real world to the double plus real world, you know, getting
58:53
out of the cave. That's the mistake. You should be looking at the
58:57
world as you're in it. And from your research in vitalism, this is
59:01
extremely important because when life is at its best, when life is living,
59:07
it's struggling against its conditions. It's extant conditions to create conditions in which it
59:15
could be more than it is evolve. I like that because Deliza's favorite example
59:24
of this is his example of the tick, and he loves the idea of
59:29
a tick because a tick can just sit there on a tall piece of grass,
59:32
you know, waiting for an animal to come just so it can drop
59:36
by. But all it's the only thing that it has to express itself is
59:39
it's it's olfactory senses, so it's sense of smell. Right, It's got
59:45
very poor vision, so it's just it's trying. It's using this to the
59:51
most. It's using every kind of feature of itself, you know. All
59:54
Right, Well, I guess just to summarise, like, no matter what
59:58
you're doing, be artist at it, I guess. And it doesn't have
1:00:04
to be to get to somewhere. It doesn't have to be to accomplish something
1:00:07
specific. But you're being more alive while you're doing that than when you're falling
1:00:13
into line. And this is this is the big point, especially when Dillis
1:00:16
is with Guitari, is resist for the sake of resistance, because that's that's
1:00:22
more in line with life. Can I, guys, can I just bring
1:00:27
up one shot and it's about it's about you? Unfortunately, Oh god,
1:00:30
I know you don't. I know you don't. Like you're gonna You're gonna
1:00:32
collapse my sense of distance here from the object that I'm discussing. Anyways,
1:00:42
I I saw your your recent video last night about how you make videos,
1:00:46
and I found it very delicion actually, because even the term plastic pills when
1:00:51
you just start describing the concept of pills, and then the concept of plasticity
1:00:58
plastic those two common create a multiplicity like this is a perfect example of Deluzian
1:01:04
philosophy, territorializing and territorializing in the same word, exactly. So you have
1:01:09
this plasticity of society, the plasticness of of of mundane existence. And then
1:01:15
you have pills, which are you know, the kind of binary of the
1:01:20
mind and the body right the pills, you know, you know, conquering
1:01:23
or how did you say? You said control? But I would love control,
1:01:27
would love it if you overinterpreted this, because I think when I had
1:01:30
made that stuff, I never read de Lozi yet, so just overinterpret it.
1:01:34
You can. You can publish a paper on by on by Larval Genius
1:01:38
that I didn't even know what I was doing. But this, but even
1:01:42
this, even this example, uh, and you and the funny thing is
1:01:45
what a great example. And I'm going to continue with this. And you're
1:01:49
not cutting this out because you used to paint pills as well too, like
1:01:53
you show in the video, you painting these pills, and you take this
1:01:58
possibility to becoming uncomfortable. You take this possibility and you actualize it into art.
1:02:05
And not only does it have an intensity meaning it's got this divergent line
1:02:10
of flight. Here, it's got this multiple meaning of plastic and the pill
1:02:16
and now it's an artwork. Now it's now it's an extensity. So it's
1:02:22
got the intensive, which is the the kind of pure overcoding, and it's
1:02:29
got the extensive, which is now the actualized line of flight. I could
1:02:35
I could do you one better. And it's what we're doing now, what
1:02:38
the channel is doing, what the rest of the podcast guys are doing.
1:02:43
We are trying to deterritorialize education from being a university pursuit because the university.
1:02:51
Yeah, let's just let's just go no, let's just go mum on that,
1:02:54
because the university is a terrible player. But we start, we're deed
1:03:00
territorializing education by doing this instead of doing that, and we're gonna go have
1:03:07
to we're gonna have to go back to doing that, presumably soon. But
1:03:13
this is better. This agree, This is this is prime deterritorializing of a
1:03:21
hierarchical structure, a stupid hierarchical structure. And I think, yeah, this
1:03:25
is a much better virtualizer what do we call it? Expression into the virtual
1:03:32
of making education free? And online. You were about to say great again.
1:03:38
Weren't you What's that I said? You were about to say make education
1:03:44
great again? Weren't you those words? Those words never crossed my mind.
1:03:49
I'm just kidding. I'm kidding, more like making free again. Yeah,
1:03:52
that's good. So more of the story, keep moving and keep creating.
1:03:59
I think I'll close it down on that. Thank you very much, Chris.
1:04:02
If you want more of this comment otherwise, we won't do it.
1:04:09
But you know what, we might do it anyways, because we got a
1:04:12
lot more to go through. If we're going to do an introduction to Delz
1:04:15
anyway, our next episode will be with esteemed top five worldwide researcher on Delz,
1:04:23
Ian Buchanan. I think we're gonna probably like, let's try to not
1:04:27
talk too much during that. I think, I mean, Ian's a chatty
1:04:30
guy. He'll probably have a lot to say anyway, but I think that'll
1:04:33
be mostly an interview style rather than a conversation if I if I get my
1:04:39
way, So, uh, stay tuned for that. It's gonna be awesome.
1:04:43
It's gonna be probably the best content I've ever produced, just because we
1:04:45
have an academic celebrity. So and thanks for having me on the podcast again.
1:04:55
This is a microdose, but we're gonna go do an overdose. We
1:04:59
got to keep on theme with the bills, right, all right, Chris,
1:05:03
great to have you, Thank you turning a C back on. Thank
1:05:08
you frecking dying in here, so you too. Peace, everyone,