froogy: chatgpt generated mapping of our favorites to deleuzian analogues

Here’s a collated set of answers covering your questions about Deleuze, Zazen, McLuhan, Ashby, Hofstadter, and how they relate to each other and ideas like poker, game theory, and Markov chains.

1. What are sitting Zazen benefits with respect to learning Deleuzian thinking?

Zazen (Zen meditation) helps cultivate a fluid, non-linear awareness and an openness to becoming. In the context of Deleuze’s philosophy, sitting zazen can support the embodiment of concepts like desire, becoming, and rhizomatic connections. Through Zazen, you learn to step outside of rigid identities, allowing you to connect with the Deleuzian idea that identity is not fixed but always in flux.
Becoming is central in Deleuze, and zazen helps you develop the mental and emotional flexibility to understand that thoughts, like the body, are always in the process of becoming. It encourages a non-hierarchical mode of thinking where thoughts and experiences are allowed to interact and flow freely, without a centralized, controlling subject — much like Deleuze’s rhizomes, where connections emerge dynamically and without preordained paths.

2. Explain McLuhan's media philosophy in Deleuzian terms.

McLuhan’s core idea, "the medium is the message", suggests that media reshape society and consciousness by extending human senses. In Deleuzian terms, media are assemblages of desire and flows of information that connect individuals and transform social structures. Media do not simply carry content; they reshape the very structures of interaction, becoming part of rhizomatic networks that evolve constantly.
Media, like technologies, create feedback loops — they adapt and transform individuals and collectives in ways that Deleuze would describe as becoming and self-organization. The emergence of new behaviors or thought patterns (a central Deleuzian theme) through media interactions is a manifestation of emergent systems that evolve dynamically and unpredictably.
Media can be seen as desire flows that push individuals into new territories of thought and action, creating new assemblages of connections, much like the rhizomatic way Deleuze and Guattari describe how knowledge and power spread and transform through multiple channels.

3. Explain Ashby’s cybernetics in Deleuzian terms.

Ashby’s cybernetics emphasizes how systems maintain stability through feedback loops — the more complex the environment, the more adaptive the system needs to be. In Deleuzian terms, this can be described as an assemblage of components that form dynamic feedback loops to maintain homeostasis or emergence.
Deleuze would frame Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety (which states that the system must have as much variety internally as the environment does externally to adapt) as a way of understanding how systems evolve and adapt to new conditions, much like becoming — where the system grows, transforms, and organizes itself based on its own internal dynamics and feedback.
Ashby’s focus on feedback systems directly correlates with Deleuze’s non-linear, self-organizing systems — systems are not static but always shifting through constant interaction with external forces and internal feedback loops.
Wiener (cybernetics) is aligned with this idea as he also focused on feedback systems in control and communication. In Deleuze’s view, both cyberneticians and philosophers are exploring how systems are always in the process of becoming, regulated by feedback, but never settling into a final state of stability.

4. Explain Hofstadter’s strange loop in Deleuzian terms.

Hofstadter’s strange loop refers to a recursive feedback loop that creates self-reference and self-awareness. In Deleuzian terms, a strange loop embodies the rhizomatic nature of identity and becoming. Just as Deleuze describes desire flows and assemblages of forces interacting, the strange loop reflects how the system folds back on itself, creating feedback that influences its own evolution.
The recursive process of Hofstadter’s loop is analogous to becoming-other in Deleuze. The system does not have a fixed identity but is in a continuous state of flux — identity emerges from the dynamic interplay of its components, and these components feed back to shape future iterations. This mirrors Deleuze’s view that identity is not static but constantly shifting in response to external and internal flows.
In essence, Hofstadter’s strange loop becomes a Deleuzian assemblage, a non-linear process of self-organization where the system creates itself through recursive feedback.

5. Where does poker, game theory (von Neumann, Morgenstern), and Markov (chains, processes) tie in?

Poker and game theory can be understood through a Deleuzian lens as strategic assemblages where agents (players) are in constant interaction, forming emergent behaviors that lead to unexpected outcomes. Deleuze would frame this as a system of desire flows where players' actions form a dynamic network of choices and counterchoices, creating non-linear pathways that emerge from each interaction.
Game theory, especially the minimax strategy, ties in with Deleuze’s idea of competing forces or desires within a system. In a non-zero-sum game, strategies evolve based on feedback from opponents, much like the self-organizing flows of desire and interaction in an assemblage. Emergent strategies from game theory could be viewed as becomings, as players adapt and change based on the flow of the game.
Markov chains and processes can be understood through Deleuze as processes of stochastic becoming. Each state transition represents an emergent state in a complex system where the system evolves over time, but the future states are contingent upon the present state in a non-deterministic way. This mirrors Deleuze’s concept of becoming, where future states emerge not from a fixed origin but from ongoing flows of interaction that are non-linear and contingent on past and present feedback.
Markov processes and poker both represent complex systems of decisions, where every action and state transition is shaped by the feedback of the preceding elements — just like rhizomatic networks, where the system evolves dynamically based on constantly changing interactions.

Conclusion:

By understanding Deleuze’s philosophy, you can frame all these systems (cybernetics, feedback loops, strange loops, game theory, Markov processes) as non-hierarchical, emergent, and fluid systems. Each system involves desire flows, interactions, and feedback loops that self-organize, shift, and evolve. Whether you are examining the feedback dynamics of cybernetics, the recursive self-reference in Hofstadter’s loops, or the strategic interactions in poker and game theory, Deleuze’s philosophy offers a unified framework to understand non-linear systems that are always in the process of becoming.