Mind and Body
HomeUsergroupsRegisterFAQLog in

Share | 

 Delauze Studies: w/ and w/out Guattarri:

Go down 

Posts : 18
Join date : 2015-03-31

PostSubject: Delauze Studies: w/ and w/out Guattarri:   Sun Apr 19, 2015 2:55 pm

"Here we can see two of the three characteristics of 'repetition' that Deleuze outlined in the introduction taking shape: repetition is unconscious; it unfolds in a latent subject; and repetition is before the law, essentially transgressive: it is not a rule-governed synthesis. As Heidegger puts it, synthesis 'underlies' the categories." -Joe Hughes, Deleuze's Difference and Repetition, pg. 97

What I mainly want to focus on here is the second proposition and how it relates to a point made in Difference and Repetition concerning Kant’s Categorical Imperative. As Kant sees it, Repetition is the desired order and therefore given privilege over Difference. And we can see in this the classicist leaning that Deleuze might have found distasteful in Kant: the desire to create an ethical system that can be perfectly repeated.  Consequently, we can see the profound nature of the way that Deleuze follows by working to show how it is actually Difference that must be given privilege and how Repetition could not possibly serve Kant’s de-ontic appeal to duty (that is based on a revision of Kant’s model of the three syntheses by which we come to know an object : that which gives the needs of the community privilege over the needs of the individual. I would point again to Deleuze’s analytic metaphysic as I understand it:

A Repetition, at its purest, can only be different instances of the same thing at different points in time.

This, of course, hints at Deleuze’s understanding of time and the present that can never truly be present, only a vague transitional point that is always in the past while being equally in the future.
I suppose this particular rhizome may be greatly influenced by an interview I was listening to on public radio in which a gay man was talking about his past as an advocate for family values and the importance of a father in a child’s life. Kind of hard to disagree with. But stranger still, for me, was how compelling I found his argument that when two people get married, they’re not just making a pact with each other, they’re making a pact with their community. Fair enough. It does appeal to my own point concerning the competitive model of the relationship between the base of the brain and its higher cognitive functions and the cooperative one.

(And this may well point to an internal conflict and contradiction as concerns my agenda as concerns the competitive/cooperative model –something I will have to get to before someone uses it as a gotcha moment.)

But from that point on, it was a backslide into my own natural aversion to convention and dogma. My Marxist instincts kicked in first. This individual kept emphasizing statistics that pointed to the negative effects of not having two parents on children. But what he completely neglected was the statistics that clearly show the effect that poverty has on them as well. Nor did he seem to give any consideration to the negative effects of our present economy on marriage. The last I heard, statistics show that the biggest reason for conflict in a marriage is finances.

But the deeper implication and indictment comes from my session at the “library” which resulted in the above point on Deleuze and the recognition of the interviewee’s de-ontic appeal to duty which puts the interests of the “community” above the interests of the individual, perhaps even if it comes at the expense of the individual’s misery. And how could we possibly expect an individual to forbear misery for the sake of the higher principle of community?

Here the Deleuze/Kant conflict becomes personal.
Back to top Go down

Posts : 18
Join date : 2015-03-31

PostSubject: Re: Delauze Studies: w/ and w/out Guattarri:   Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:49 pm

“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.
Back to top Go down
Delauze Studies: w/ and w/out Guattarri:
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Academia :: φιλοσοφία-
Jump to: