“Could someone help me articulate the exact difference between "sense" and "language" in The Logic of Sense? Deleuze seems to be saying that both operate at the boundary between proposition and thing, so could you almost say that sense is another word for language itself? Thanks” –Ed Graham: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2232336063/
“No. Language depends on the circular interaction of denotation (reference), manifestation (situation in relation to the speaker) and signification (position of words in relation to one another). These three dimensions of language are imbued with the fourth dimension of sense which breaks the circle.” Wayne Brooks: Ibid
“If I've understood it correctly I think nonsense is co-present with and produces sense inside of language?” –Ed Graham
Yeah, Wayne, that was the sense (excuse the pun (I got from Jame's Williams' book on Logic of Sense. It is also brought up in terms of impossible objects (ex. "round square") which still manage to have a sense or even meaning even though such a thing could not possibly exist. Kind of goes with your point, Ed.
I also believe that sense may hover above and within the relationship between series: the connection between singularities, events: the changes or becomings that occur between them, and individuation: that which extracts (via a kind of focus (import from the multiplicity of the infinite. It may be that sense is the resonance that results from the gravitational pull of the infinite on the finite instance of any given individuation.I gather this from multiple references, throughout my reading of and about Deleuze, to infinite regress which involves the fact (and may the wrath of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (that the meaning we get from any given thing always involves or refers to an infinite chain of other meaning instances -kind of like Derrida's Differance.
And Deleuze being the kind of guy who follows the writer's motto of: show, don't tell: seems to encourage us (via free indirect discourse (to settle for a sense of him as compared to a direct exchange of meaning. That, as I understand it, was the point of writing Logic of Sense in a series of series which the reader is invited to read through however fancy directs them and find their own individuation through those events that happen to occur. It was pretty much the approach he and Guattarri encouraged with A Thousand Plateaus.
*
And, BTW, has anyone noticed that after a while of getting into Deleuze, you start to write like someone who has spent too much time in a sensory deprivation tank taking psychedelics? I still say my fixation with Deleuze (and philosophy in general (is a throwback to the good drugs we had back in the 70's.
*
“I’ve also came to a Taoist realization with my studies of Deleuze. Given that there is no possibility of me truly knowing Deleuze (or a lot of other philosophers for that matter (there comes a point at which I need to show a little more confidence in my own process. But in order to do that, I need to let go of the hope that I will know another philosopher enough (that is even though I consider myself more of a writer writing about his experiences with philosophy (to feel confident enough (that is based on my understanding of that philosopher (to just strike out on my own.
Still, Raan: there’s my ego chirping away. And no matter what I do, I will always be that guy staring at his own reflection in a pool of water until it kills him. But I love my life and see no reason to change it. I just hope you won’t hold that against me. I just hope we can remain friends despite our different dispositions.” –me: https://www.facebook.com/groups/alt.philosophy.zen/
Once again, Deleuze is like some hot French Mademoiselle who will come off as approachable but, the minute you think you are almost there, walk away. At the same time, it plays with your ego in such a way that you find it hard to move on to other things that you should be doing. It never allows you to say you have done what you came to do.
Therefore, the only thing you can do is take the Taoist approach of letting go and living to fight, or interpret, another day.