Following @sedimentedgeist.bsky.social, here are putatively the 9 games that have most influenced me
Anatarah عنترة
@damashummus.bsky.social
469 followers 250 following 1.3K posts
Scientist/Engineer/bum. Very much form-determined. Editor @crittheoryworkgrp.bsky.social. he/him. *All typos are my own*. CTWGwebsite.github.io
![Highlighted section: “Rather, "having history" means being interwoven in the dialectic, in the subject-object relationship. In other words, history consists in the fact that the life of the human being is not simply "his own," but constituted through the extra-human and alienated. To put it more simply: history is not a distinguishing quality of the human being, but rather the epitome of all suffering. True, the human being is conscious of history, as you go on to say, and it would be foolish to deny the distinction therein. But the human being cannot be spun from this knowledge, nor from "having history" as such. Knowing history and having history are not the same, and to date knowledge has changed little enough of what's decisive for history, suffering. On the other hand, however, "having history" extends far beyond consciousness; all of nature, as suffering, has infinite share in it. The proposition that "[i]n knowing history man is above history, although, on the other hand, he is in history," 48 is, in this form, illusory. The assertion that "man is free... from history in so far as he knows history" 49 cannot be maintained, at least not without mediation.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:3ciyhaqbbis5j5ieuheilzsh/bafkreig52w5rmatdk26kly5wd3p4lcynhj2odlcpqwx7e5vmuxpwnxjqum)
![Deleuze: The Party's? No, it never concerned me, something else that saved me, you understand...The discussions about Stalin, what they've discovered recently, the horrors committed by Stalin, I mean, everyone has known this for quite a while. And about the revolution going wrong, [Deleuze laughs] that makes me laugh because, really, who are they trying to kid? (de qui on se moque?) When the "New Philosophers" (nouveaux philosophes) discovered that the revolution turned out badly, you really have to be a bit dimwitted (débile), since we discovered that with Stalin. So henceforth, the road was open, everyone discovered it, for example, quite recently, about the Algerian revolution - "Hey, it turned out badly" because they fired on students!' Who ever thought that a revolution would go well?
Who? Who? People say the English could not have a revolution, but that's absolutely false.
I mean all that... Today we live with such a mystification... The English had a revolution, they killed their king, etc., and who did they get? They got Cromwell. And English Romanticism, what is it? It's a long meditation on the failure of the revolution. They didn't wait for [André] Glucksmann to reflect on the failure of the Stalinian revolution. They had one, really, they had one. And the Americans never get discussed, but the Americans blew their revolution, as badly as if not worse than the Bolsheviks. Let's not kid about it! People never talk about the Americans when they... even before the War of Independence - and "independence," I say --, they presented themselves worse than... or better than a new nation, they went beyond nations exactly like Marx spoke later of the proletariat: they went beyond nations, nations are finished! They bring forth a new people, they have a true revolution. Just as the Marxists count on universal proletariatization, the Americans counted on universal…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:3ciyhaqbbis5j5ieuheilzsh/bafkreidzk52qqmyhaejg6lro4rr7poj6qyg6lgdlyaoftksqafexgut2li)
![That revolution failed (a foiré), all revolutions fail, everybody knows this, and now people are pretending to "rediscover" that. They really have to be dimwitted. As a result, everyone is getting lost in this, this contemporary revisionism. There is [François] Furet who discovered that the French Revolution wasn't as great as had been thought. Well, sure, fine, it failed too, everybody knows that.
The French Revolution gave us Napoleon! People are making "discoveries" that to me are not very impressive in their novelty (on fait des découvertes qui ne sont pas très émouvantes par leur nouveauté). The British Revolution resulted in Cromwell, the American Revolution's results were worse, the political parties, Reagan, which does not seem any better to me.
So, people are in such a state of confusion... Even if revolutions fail, go badly, that still never stopped people or prevented people from becoming revolutionary. They are confusing two absolutely different things: the situations in which the only outcome for man is to become revolutionary... And yet again, we have been talking about that from the start: it's the confusion between becoming and history, and if people become revolutionary.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:3ciyhaqbbis5j5ieuheilzsh/bafkreiduh37iv3bhcd3qje3phat6jsemp345xq2b3xfqkf6wbhvb7dj3lm)
![hommes), it's in situations of tyranny, of oppression, effectively it's to enter into becomings-revolutionary because there is nothing else to be done. And when someone tells us afterwards, "oh, it's not working out," we aren't talking about the same thing, it's as if we were speaking two different languages - the future of history and the current becomings of people (les devenirs actuels des gens) are not at all the same things.
Parnet: And this respect for the "rights of man" (les droits de l'homme) which is so fashionable these days, but it is not becoming-revolutionary, quite the opposite.
Deleuze [wearily]: Listen, this respect for the "rights of man" - this really makes me want to say, almost to make some odious statements. It belongs so much to this weak thinking (pensée molle) of the empty intellectual period that we discussed earlier under "C as in Culture".? It's purely abstract, these "rights of man." What is this? It's purely abstract, completely empty. It's exactly like what I was saying earlier about desire, what I tried to say about desire: desire does not consist of erecting an object, of saying I desire this... We don't desire, for example, freedom, etc. It's zero. Rather, we desire... we find ourselves in situations.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:3ciyhaqbbis5j5ieuheilzsh/bafkreibgjfauhwzne555t7bhpd3ddn3otyeu7ryutcg6iygox2on4ayzre)
![The key point, then, is that the organism brings forth and specifies its own domain of problems and actions to be "solved"; this cognitive domain does not exist "out there" in an environment that acts as a landing pad for organisms that somehow drops or is parachuted into the world. Instead, living beings and their worlds of meaning stand in relation to each other through mutual specification or co-determination. Thus what we describe as significant environmental regularities are not external features that have been internalized, as the dominant representationalist tradition in cognitive science
-and adaptationism in evolutionary biology -assumes. Environmental regularities are the result of a conjoint history, a congruence which unfolds from a long history of co-determination. In Lewontin's [73] words, the organism is both the subject and the object of evolution.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:3ciyhaqbbis5j5ieuheilzsh/bafkreidbf4zasz5cjjl5sy65umtttygkit6bsiq2kxc5277d64yzrtq2ra)
