It feels, Obe, almost as if you are playing with the terminology to figure out what you are saying.
And I’m not saying that as a cutdown. In the context of Deleuze, it makes perfect sense to me.
It could work in the same sense a child learns language by parodizing the speech mannerisms of the adults around them.
I mean it would be reasonable to argue that we learn through parody.
Jam on, brother!
It just seems to me that Trolls, Flamers, hecklers, and wannabe gurus can only act as stops to the flow of energies: a petty attempt to territorialize the true value of The Board.
I made, in the context of Deleuze, a major mistake here. Given the study, I cannot argue that there is any “TRUE” value of the board. Ultimately, it all contributes to the continuation of energy. However, at the same time, so does the function of the moderators: as much as they shut down flows of energy, they facilitate a situation in which energy can flow. One only need look at the failed experiments of MySpace and Yahoo to see that.
As a cut-off, a parody suffers the indescency of irreducebility. It is a pure, naivete to beleive that a re-construction may be made to fit anything but the approximation of it's original intent.
You seem to have made a mistake? In what? In not seeing naivete for what it is? Or disbeliving it? And what of belief? Between truth and illusion?
Is the value of a forum dependent on how the word is used/misused, rather than it may or may not be parodied?
Maybe this is an attempt to to reconstruct borders with only too obvioius perimeters?
I don’t know, but in any case, it’s not intentional.
Voltaire: if you want to talk to me, define your terms.
I get that it’s not intentional. The problem for us is that we are always depending on terms that are fully dependent on Derrida’s concept of differance. Any term we use is dependent on a whole system of other terms and concepts that define it.
For instance, if we were to use the term Solipsism, we might, on one hand, use it as it was applied to Berkley’s Idealism: the notion that all there is is the perceptions of the individual. Now this, to me, would only have an application to madmen and episodes of The Twilight Zone. On the other hand, if you look at it as Sartre applied it in Being and Nothingness , you see it as a state that reduces the other to an object that happens to be occupying your space.
Yet, two people could easily talk past each other by using the same term in different ways.
That said, Deleuze seems to embrace the dynamic shift of meaning when it comes to words. He defies Voltaire in this sense.
Rousseau seems, got himself into trouble with the French Academy precisely because of a similar ambiguity between naivete and a seemingly intentional use of parody?
Rousseau, it seems, got himself into trouble with the French Academy precisely because of a similar ambiguity between naivete and a seemingly intentional use of parody?
Steal from me if you want, Obe. I encourage you to do so. But don’t make me correct your compositional mistakes. I no more want to be your editor than I want to be your guru.
I agree. The question mark was an after thought.-bearing on too quick of a reduction, ....but like You, beer and french phil make an unesay ingredient: missing-and wife is beeping me outside.
Tomorrow then. And forgiveness for the brusqueness of my leave. Lot to think about.
As long as you know I was just jacking with you.
I don’t know how many times I’ve seen compositional mistakes and felt an overwhelming desire to correct them. I think I’m developing a writer’s form of OCD. I see myself becoming like a combination of Bill Strunk and Monk as I get older:
Right there! There should be a comma right there.
[quote=“d63”]
As long as you know I was just jacking with you.
I don’t know how many times I’ve seen compositional mistakes and felt an overwhelming desire to correct them. I think I’m developing a writer’s form of OCD. I see myself becoming like a combination of Bill Strunk and Monk as I get older:
Right there! There should be a comma right there.[/quote
If the implication is that capitalism can be derivative in a schizo analysis, it seems that an argument can be made as far as limiting of a corresponding phenomenological groundlessness in existentialism.
An impasse—which----the ideological crisis of the 19th and 20th centuries have brought about.
But isn’t philosophy, per se, really, essentially an attempt to accommodate the ideal with the real? It has been scripted as a causitive agent, as if, hegel’s dialectic leading to marx’s dialectical materialism “caused” the schizophrenia in two fronts 1 hegel lead to both the embodiment of the dialectic, at the same time it’s negation and reverse dialectic , as in Nietzche. The result of transvaluation was an act of not of the existential leap which came after the great debacle of WW2, but a reversal into a world of the genesis of the ideals. So hegel seems both an intentional dialectic where the intentional objects are not yet representations , and neither are they post representational, they are pure intentional objects .
Hegel is at once a pre logical structural understanding, and a pure object of understanding.
Between these are sandwiched the existential now of lebensweld . This Lebensweld is what we can’t yet understand, we are just formulating its facticity, where the object’s apprehension as representation is still objective, albeit intentional, but not yet of the pure object of the understanding qua “consciousness”.
The implications for schizoanalysis here is obvious. If the object is an intentional representation of the object, the corresponding phenomenological level remains on a material/objective level of understanding. The correspondence in a psychological format, is one of a literal, regressive conscious apprehension.
Here, hegel’s spiritual synthesis gets bogged down in the materialistic fusion of Marxism. Marxism is the literal interpretation of the dialectic, inasmuch as in a schizophrenic the literal-conceptual makeup does not differentiate the ego from the I’d. Marx and hegel are also correspond to a lack of differentiation between a materialistic and spiritual anomalies. The transcendental connection is mystified on one hand (Nietzche) and simplified on the other (Marx)
Where does Capital come in? Since capital is based on the idea of surplus value, the mechanism used to attune to its opposite is devaluation. The surplus de values the product. The product is devalued, so that the profit can be made. The product/producer is again an anomalies, hence the devaluation of the producer. How so? So that the trader can be overvalued. It’s an anti-ideological mechanism. Capitalism is an anti ideological function(the body as machine) as it creates balance between the producer/product, and the exchange (between over and under valuation.
The same process occurs in schizoanalysis. There is an anomalies of the primary and secondary functions, so that the evaluation (reality testing) becomes a matter of literal interpretation of a very figuative-intentional object .(Albeit representational)
Is there a causitive connection in this correspondence? No, according to Polanyi, there is a tacit understanding. This like Heidegger’s Lebenswelt or being in the world, posits a primal unity, which has become divided through the subject/object division. This tacit understanding is similar to the basic anomaly between the subject/object of naïve objects (see my earlier blog), the schizophrenic regression in this view, may not even be a regression, it may be a bypass of the newer structures coming up in social consciousness. This is where the analysis starts, and this is what freud failed to see, but Jung probably overshot, with his types, as categories
Where capitalism comes in, is where the surplus value comes in as exchange, de valuing those elements which didn’t afford exchanges without it. The history of materialism can be seen in this light, but a directly derive causitive capitalism as schizoanalysis is absolutely not causitive in this sense.
Again,it’s not a sort of facade I am trying to create, bit its rather a search for meaning that words are not able to desribe, because the objects (ideas) of apprehension suffer the same kind of ambiguity between the literal and the figurative. It begs itself, as does analysis(analytical interpretations, because it’s objects are anomalious but not hybrids.
I decided on the last study like this, Obe, to commit to those responding to the extent of worrying about responding to their points before getting to my own points. And as luck would have it, much of what you post is obscure enough to leave me little to respond to while giving me something I can. You’re kind of giving me the best of both worlds.
But as I always like to say: show; don’t tell:
And once again, this seems perfectly appropriate given the context. If I get Colebrook right, Deleuze recognizes that we move from sound to sense. Dennett, more or less, recognized the same thing in Consciousness Explained . At the beginning of the book, Dennett goes a long way towards explaining the psychedelic experience in the way it complements the physiological infrastructure of the brain by starting with patterns that work their way into fuller images and narratives. Later in the book, he applies the same paradigm to language in that it starts with a sense of the music of language that zeroes in on what it means.
So, yeah, there is every reason for you to take the approach you are. I use to do as much when I was writing music or poetry. Back when I was writing music, I use to fumble around on my guitar until I found a rhythm I liked and the changes it would go through. Once I did that, it was a process of of singing utter nonsense over it until I figured out what it was I actually wanted to say. That became the lyrics. When I moved on to poetry, that was a matter of running the music of language through my head, a kind of sophisticated mothernese, until I found the right words to attach to it. To this day, when I’m in a writing cycle, I spend a lot of time running nonsense lines through my head, purely for the music of it, in the hope the words that make sense will attach to it.
You’re on the right track, Obe.
From the moment that Socrates proclaimed that he knew nothing (perhaps from the very beginning of the universe (the nihilistic perspective has always been there, doing nothing. That’s all it had to do because the history of philosophy was destine to move towards it. It was there when romanticism broke from Plato’s hierarchy of reason based on the superiority of civilization over the muck of the primal. And it was there when existentialism hijacked phenomenology and recognized an underlying nothingness to consciousness. And it is there as Capitalism claims the same divine right that monarchs did centuries ago.
The 19th and 20th centuries have brought about an impasse. Nietzsche has brought about an impasse in his tight fisted disciples who live on the fancy of the Overman, yet bow to the Social Darwinism of Capitalism. They want to be players just like Ayn Rand was. They want the very apocalypse that Capitalism represents because they fancy themselves ready to stand up to it.
I think, Obe, our main difference lies in the poetry of it:
you want a poetry similar to that of Deleuze’s
:I want a more blue collar poetry:
I am blue collar
I want to be like Sisyphus:
a god (or genius:
someone who wants to bring fire to the people(
but a god like Sisyphus nevertheless.
At the same time, I get the sublime you are going after:
that subtle thing that glances the corner of the eye
:but then isn’t that what fire is:
philosophy.
I keep thinking I should get back to poetry.
But philosophy has become my poetry.
It's a bittersweat refrain, Your poetry, seves as a reminder, of the circle of fire, as in Gotterdamerung, the Valkir is protected by! But what protection at what a price!
But sweet refrain do not leave at any cost, which may condemn an eternal slumber, lest per chance never to be awakened.
Whether it be the right track, it sure to be the less traveled. Indulge , yet moderately, you , kind
Of
Sorry, Obe. I got my quotes backward.
To define the aim of my participation: (since aimlessness brings on various types of impressions like fumbling around, let’s go from Deleuze in: can it be, his territorialization, fetish ism, dehumanization, due to the fact that he sees himself as an object being controlled, is not a critique of a behavioral model? It seems an indication that his existence, existentially suspended (bracketed) encloses his subjectivity within non evaluating contexts, can only revert to an objective evaluation (interpretation) of. A multitude of phenomenologically suspended situations? As such his objective self" becomes a matter of contentious multivariate, interpretive object body as a functional machine? This is what I think his implications are.
(We can only speculate about what his implications were, brother(
It is in this sense that you see a connection between Deleuze and Rorty in that they both seem to be engaged in a kind of agnostic materialism. It’s not they are arguing that humans are basically meat-bots as the eliminative materialists would have us believe. It’s more as if they consign themselves to materialism for practical effects. In Rorty’s case, it’s a matter of encouraging us to quit wasting time worrying about what the nature of true knowledge is and to start focusing on the more pragmatic matter of how that knowledge can make people’s lives better. In Deleuze’s case, it’s an equally pragmatic matter of focusing on the pursuit of understanding, of pushing the mind and brain to its fullest potential, to a level that can justify a point A to point B. It’s always about breaking through the next creative hymen.
Now this is what I’m talking about. It’s what the anti-continentals fail to see: the worth of poetic speculation. They’re too stuck on the transcendent: Reason, Logic, Nature, and Human Nature. They’re so stuck on the holy grail of “the Truth”, that they’re incapable of recognizing how similar their appeals to such things are little different than a religious fanatic’s appeal to God. They scoff at the notion of seduction and resonance while failing to recognize the resonance and seduction that the analytic must hold for the anal retentive, how resonate that sense of order must seem to someone who fears chaos, and how seductive the notion of arriving at the beyond-contestation. How obsessed would a person have to be to go to the length of asserting something they cannot demonstrate in such a way that it was almost as if they were standing beside you and pointing at it? This, of course, is usually the result of mistaking a clever language game for reality itself. And how could such people, who seem so seduced by brute facts, make such a mistake?
How could people in such a process as philosophy be so seduced by an end?
Another way we could go about The Plane of Immanence is recognizing that our intellectual constructs (our concepts) are always a system interacting with many other systems.
To accept the notion that poetic speculation could arrive at a good idea would mean that someone could do so without the resources to go to college. What a threat that would seem in a Capitalistic culture.
?: what could all talk of Reason, Objectivity, and Truth be but a re-territorialization?
What could random talk be but nomadic flight: de-territorialization?
We fumble through language to find what we mean. We keep pushing to push through the next creative hymen.
We keep pushing to the nth power while the banal and mundane:
What else could work to shut down the flows of energy that constitute the jam of the board?
One of the main issues I’m running into with Deleuze is his unquestioning embrace of the virtual. For instance, he encourages us to rid ourselves of our nostalgia for the good old days when things were “more real”, nostalgia he deems misguided since we have always lived with the virtual –that is since things are always in a state of becoming. And one could agree with this to the extent that his framing seems reasonable. But then framing is a funny thing in that it can refer to reality but is still a product of language: ultimately, all it can offer us is a possibility. I would further add the virtual effect that Dennett’s multiple draft model of mind and brain, the spatio-temporal smear, could create for us.
However, we live in an age where, thanks to Capitalism, the pace of change is such that our sense of detachment from reality is growing at alarming (neurotic to, possibly, schizophrenic) levels with some alarming consequences. First of all, it has reached point that many are falling into despair and Marxian alienation from their own choices. It is this constant effort to keep up with change, the constant updating to maintain previous levels of expectation, and the virtual that is leading to what is popularly called “consumer burnout”. On top of that, we now, at our personal micro-level, can support this lifestyle through finances that, due to the availability of credit, have absorbed the same kind of dynamics that characterized the macro-economy. It is no longer a matter of having a certain amount of money in our pockets on payday and once it is gone…. Well, that’s it: there is nothing more to spend. Nor can you just balance your checkbook anymore; you have to analyze it much as economists do the general economy. This, in turn, has created a virtual wage pull based not just on what people have to spend, but equally on how much credit they have and how much that credit they can be enticed to use –that is with no consideration as to whether they’ll actually be able to pay it off.
Furthermore, as James Burke points out: technology is developing at a rate similar to Galileo’s Law of Falling Bodies: at a constant rate of acceleration. The problem with this, as Burke points out, is that people tend to develop a taste for novelty, or we should say: a taste for novelty at the expense of substance of quality. At the same time, we have the point made by Baudrillard that there is nothing new left to be done, that all we can do is play with the fragments of history. And we see this in the way our culture just seems to be pumping out quality stuff that is, at heart, undifferentiated. You enjoy it all; but nothing seems to stand out.
And given our situation, you have to wonder how much appeal Deleuze’s embrace of the virtual would have to people who are experiencing despair due to that virtual. And as if that wasn’t enough, Deleuze seems to want to accelerate the virtual effect. And it would seem understandable, given the day and age he was working from when things were perhaps moving too slow. I, myself, have embraced it in the rhizomatic network and approach to understanding. But I embraced it because I wanted to, because it resonated with me, and not because circumstances dictated it.
And that, to me, makes it more of a prescriptive philosophy than a descriptive one. But is it a pill that people really want to take at this point?
As concerns my issue with Deleuze’s embrace of the virtual, it just seems to me that there is nothing wrong with seeking out, as Frost says of poetry, a momentary stay against confusion. It’s not like Deleuze didn’t in his writing and the terms he uses like The Body Without Organs among others.
He is also quoted as believing, in a complimentary manner to his philosophy, that the best method is no method at all. And I would agree with this to the extent that one must resist the bad faith of thinking they’ll find an all-purpose method. However, we all need our Einstein’s Wardrobes. We all need regularities that circumvent the angst and energy expended on trying to figure out what to do next. I, myself, find myself to be most productive when I have found a systematic approach to my philosophical activities that are working for the time to achieve a specific goal. If I were to merely wander around randomly in my studies, there would be no way I could reach any intensity at the nth degree.
Which brings up another issue I have: In the Wikipedia article on him he has been quoted as justifying his tendency towards privacy, and the cold, impersonal nature of his work by arguing that concepts based on personal experience are:
…bad and reactionary arguments.
Now while I would agree that such arguments can drift into opinion (something else he rails against) as compared to philosophy, I would also argue that any philosophy that can’t be applied to personal experience is useless. And how else do we arrive at concepts but through personal experience –even if that experience consists of reading one of Deleuze’s books? And doesn’t this seem a little contradictory given his embrace of a univocal plane of being?
He courts a similar contradiction in his implied distinction between high and pop art as concerns movies. He discredits popular art forms as that which plays on pre-packaged notions and does nothing to contribute to the propagation of events, or of different types of events –which seems strangely un-postmodern of him. The problem is that we’re talking about a thinker who seems to want to democratize philosophy through his propensity to writerly text and his emphasis on a univocal plane of being. He wants us to read it and take what we will. But based on what? Personal experience perhaps? And as it has been said: even the act of making a sandwich implies the question whether life is worth going on with. So why wouldn’t the attraction of a mainstream pop movie have philosophical implications as well? It just seems to me that, by looking at popular culture, we, as the intellectual curious, have an opportunity to know the general human condition through their archetypes and mythologies.
It’s almost as if Deleuze is torn between his Marxist/democratic impulses and his esoteric/elitist impulses.
*
Anyway, tried approaching Difference and Repetition and came up against the same wall I did when I first started this. But I just ordered a cheater: Joe Hughes reader guide to the book. I just think I’m going to have to work my way to it and The Logic of Sense .
However, in my defense, according to Brian Massumi’s reader guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Deleuze later disclaimed the “ponderous academic apparatus” still at work in those books. Rorty had a similar experience with Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature which he claimed to have written for other philosophers. But even Rorty’s book is like scratching at packed dirt as compared Deleuze’s which is the equivalent of scratching at titanium steel -or like scratching rust and dirt off a surface that is dotted with a lot of bolts and uneven surfaces: you can feel the nerves of your spine come unraveled (like a shard of rusted steel was ripping through them) as you work through it .
It’s no wonder the more analytic, like Kyle, hold such contempt for it.
For myself, I’m going to finish this with the reader’s guide. Then, when I come back to it, I think I’m going to focus that cycle on What is Philosophy? .
Those books were new toys that totally threw me off my game.