I, myself, find I’m drawn to French concepts while being equally drawn to the American method of exposition.
Well, I was just in the middle of trying to understand your reply to kyle, so again let's start by omitting that part.
Simply put, the path of schizoanalysis, and I feel I am compressing a lot in this, creates an anti anomalies, as with schizophrenic/hebrephrenia, the affect is an anomaly between affect and cognitive structures. An anti anomalies, (and I am not too familiar with Binswanger's works), there is a correlation between an eidectic reductive pehenomological "bracketing"(no judgment ) and the regression itself, as experienced by schizophrenics. Namely, there is a social/individual correspondence, between attempts at constructive reality of the individual: and a de constructive/philosophical/social simplification. The two processes, one social the other individual are the same essentially, but different, inasmuch society seems fearful of the implications of such people as Szasz and Laing. One seeks enrichment, the other a trend toward meaninglessness, impoverishment (of the soul)
I can’t go further then this, since I do have to read to adequately respond especially the kyle material
I have never really read any Derrida, but to at least afford justice to your OP, I can in all honesty offer a street wise correspondence, from which I hope to at least learn, however I need to at least expose my self to snippets of “serious” philosophy. (Your words)
The French stuff is great, and I believe, the whole 60's experience /, I once had the pleasure of talking to Timothy Leary, and I think he agreed me that the french symbols were the raison d'etre of the 60's experience/ ----so here comes the tie in with corporate America's using this expression of artistic merit, as a subliated anti-thesis, to perhaps neuralise the overt objections? Maybe. Paranoid/authorativen are the only channels available in this mode, since it's impossible to go reaaly to go beyond media as the message at this point.
Again later: in compressed form: un seriously, -not the reversal, as not coincidental, is deleuze pushing the envelope? To correlate two different processes: a psychological and a social/political?
Psychoanalysis, is an attempt to see forces lurking behind events, so we get the psychoanalysis of the singular personality like Stalin, who is for saying : it’s easier to kill millions of people then one. To reduce social forces to the level of singular yet unconscious ones, then because this type of determinism failed, to ideology, there is a turn around: there are traits shown rather than types, resemblance because of common traits, in families;;;;;such that is 2 members have similar traits, they belong to the same family, ; rather than 2 member belong to the same type (let’s say ideal) therefore they are identical (logically)::::what is the significance of this turn around? The logical type is a reduction of the approximate trait.
Merleau ponty says that the difference between “acts of thought” and. “Intentional objects of thought” do not constitute an irreducible ground" implying the ground is reducible. (From the intentional object to their acts.) In other words, --the thought (as thinking) and what is being thought about, is analogous to the thought and it’s content (as what is being thought about qua a physical content—and actual representation of what is thought about).
This is a higher level process which does not deal with the type of collapse that Ayer and Russell dealt with. Here, thought of a representation, is analogous to a representation.
In a psychological regression, a similar analogy can be made to a Phenomenological reduction, both seem to “bracket” phenomenologically the “situation” of the given, without judging it, and this is the interesting idea of looking at the “ontological” turnaround of --disassociation-.
Logical association seems to be one of necessity, one pointing toward ideal models.(As categorical identity)
Process,use, and identity show a focus of trends in an approximation of identity as a function of it’s utility. Meaning: continental rationalism has been trumped by a utilitarian, non modeled sense of presentation ourselves.
Why? If nietzche was still around, would he approve of a political/map like in Ayer? Is it just a sleigh of hand matter or is ontology dismissed because of expediency?
Terrible and weighty questions, and the only credible solution is yes, it’s both.
Both: political/epistemological and psychological/ontological.
We see in kierkegaard a way to see the split adhered over by an aesthetic band aid, where life imitates art, including God.
The divided man, somehow sees this, and the utilitarian objection, that existentialism tries to do this from both ends is, though valid, and politically incorrect, but the evaluation is not fixed, but a based on a map in flux, where both types , as complementary processes, with shifting topical values,changing boundaries constantly, are keener to appreciate these changes, and are able to incorporate them by the “bracketed” situations, as if they were pigeonholed and static, but yet, they are fluid and dynamic processes always like a film sliced into frames seeking exact definitions.
In the opposition of a Marxian and Capitalistic view of surplus value, for instance, both systems seem to utilize this, marxism literally by the use of uniformity, by seeing the ideal man (the worker) as qualitatively, a spiritual dialectical result of a spiritual/materialist conclusion of a logical process. The surplus in this process is the unfit, the misfit, the berogoasie.
Capitalism drains the actual profit of in a literal marketplace, where there machine exludes the man in an anti-descartes type of desription, where the man is not in the machine, since the man is the machine. This is why behaviorism is the starting point as in Ayer, of any inquiery.
The dialectic can not in any sense be a part of this process, since there is no connection to the subjective because there is only objective proximal certainty.
Strange, in marx, there is a hidden ideal , the spirit working through body, the material, and freedom is based on social necessity, whereas in the utalitarian point of view, freedom is seen as based structly on exchange value.
This whole ambiguous ideology turns on the definition of “freedom” and it is this confusion, which inclines to see poliical and psychological processes as intertwined.
The unanswered but necessary question is, how this ambiguity be solved?
I tend to think a neo kantianism as has implications on both fronts.
Kyle's counter arguments are taking the exact point of view that counter-argumants consist of, the language of interpretation/analysis, takes center point in his ontology, and creates the very blocks into the very things argued: relevancy (in case of the determinants of language over experience, synthetic/analytic differentiation as a definitional problem, and so on. His is unable to make existential/intuitive jumps, because he has limited the inquiry to undefined, and unknown capacities of experience. Therefore a phenomenological reduction as excluded by reason of definitional logic. This type of argument is a pseudo complex counter argument. But the basics of husserl-Heidegger are relinquished to the basic positivist objection.
The counter argument excludes any type having to identify transcendental reduction.
Even wittgenstein did not rule out such a possibility, only he felt the language was unable to define it.
Not satisfied with the “seriousness” of his argument, I need to express a dissatisfaction based simply his idea of what he thinks of my capacity to understand basic notions of synthetic and analytic.
Even if, I was still a student in an academic setting, taking graduate courses from notable speakers, I would not delimit my quest to understand in terms of what other’s understanding is of my interpretation.
And this with a view of having had years' long student/teacher associations.
I would like to continue this thread, with possibly a new angle: a polany-Heidegger of relatedness of "in the world" or polanyi's "tacit understanding" as a social basis of communication, if the theme can be turned around to afford that type of possibility.
Obe, you’ve given me a lot to work with here. And you seem comfortable with a form of exposition similar to that of the French. So the best I can do here is skim through and respond to what I understand.
You can do whatever you want with it. As I said in the beginning: it’s up to me to keep it on topic. And we can be certain that Heidegger participated in laying out a foundation for Deleuze –much as I’m almost certain Sartre did.
In fact, if you think about it, Delueze seems to be waging his own personal war against bad faith. He seems to have recognized that there is no way we’re going to find some all purpose system that will make everything click along like some fine-tuned machine. I assume this was the source of his opposition to Hegel’s notion of the dialectic –that which was behind his writing of Difference and Repetition .
But, yeah, the theme doesn’t need to be turned around. Bring in whoever you want. I, myself, always found Heidegger a little too stern to put at the top of my reading wish list. But what you have to say about him here may change my mind.
I think (in reference to kyle’s complaint about obscurity to some extent) that one could as easily read Rorty and arrive at similar conclusions as those of Deleuze. In fact, I would argue that Deleuze would be a fine example of Rorty’s ironist. Take, for instance, an interpretation of Deleuze by Claire Colebrook (yeah, I bought a cheater in the Routledge Guide –just wanted to make sure I had something to respond to) :
Or:
Now the ironist, according to Rorty, can be described as:
But what is more important here is the recognization of the importance of art in the process of understanding. Deleuze puts much importance on the distinction between Philosophy, Science, and Art. Philosophy is about the creation of concepts. Science is about the creation of what Searle calls “brute facts”. Art, as I interpret it, is about seeing what resonates with the mind and its physiological infrastructure then figuring out what concepts it connects with. This is why every time I go to make art, I have to forget I know anything about philosophy. We could do as much with dreams. As Colebrook puts it:
Now would it seem that surprising that someone like Kyle would prefer the classical hierarchy of an end? An end that would allow them a sense of superiority over those who had not climbed that same ladder? And how much of a corporate bitch do you have to be to think that?
In fact, come to think of it, it was the classicism of Plato that Deleuze was arguing against as well.
Yeah! But isn’t that what analytics do: act like they’re the only ones who know anything about Kant?
As Umberto Eco pointed out in an interview: the difference is that analytics seem to have a strict tradition from which they are working; continentals, on the other hand, try to say the same old things in such a different way that you could almost believe they were saying something totally revolutionary.
So would it be any wonder that analytics tend to act as if this were little more than a pissing contest on who knew more about any given philosopher?
I mean Kyle acted like he knew more about Deleuze than the 2 people that admired him.
Deleuze puts all the emphasis on process:
on becoming.
Analytic classicists put all the emphasis on being
(thereby stopping the flows of energy:
the end.
The only real end I know of is death.
On the other hand:
Deleuze could become the (almost( exact opposite of Nietzsche:
hard to read(
that is as compared to easy to read, but(
easy to misinterpret.
?: but how do you misinterpret someone almost no one can understand…
I have revised Russell’s description of philosophy to lying in that no man’s land between science and art:
in other words: between left and right brain impulses.
Bill Wiltrack inserted a smartass video in here concerning boredom.
What he fails to realize is that this is an issue of the spectrum that runs from right brain to left brain -the very issue he brought up himself.
Of course, Deleuze is a decidedly right brain philosopher. He does go towards the holistic as compared to left brained analytics.
From the point of view of rhizomatic epistemology, a correlation as to the redundant information, its understandable that confusion should arise --as to the meaning of the process you describe. However the meaning alludes, whether it be from a ground such as Heidegger’s or Husserl’s. It’s probably easier to de-identify certain meaning structures then to de-delude them, and the identification can always claim a mistaken referentiality, whereas a delusion is simply what it is. It is the former structure I am trying to de-mystify, by an allusion to Kant, a priori, not for a minute being unaware of the inadequacies of it compared to progression a-posteriori.
Therefore if I were an amateur, which , I am, it would be less challenging to travel from the left to the right, and with this in mind, saying Polanyi, here may be giving a tacit support and a cautious warning, to this sort misunderstanding.
As far as your references to Rorty, please give me another time to be able to answer.
Briefly loolked at Rorty, and my initial thoughts, when You first mentioned him, saw in his sense of irony, an attempt to point out the delusionary nature of the analytic versus the continental point of view. And it really parallels the the psychological difference between delusion and reference of identity: the analytic, ideal (german idealism) seems to be unable to solve this riight to left movement other than reference to it's own ontology, whereas the continentals are admittedly aware of a ground (Sartre et al) however improbable it has become.
There is the connection between the two processes, and the irony Rorty points out, and appearently, and allegedly having solved with his idea of philosophy-as a Being-in-itself; and Nature, as a descrptiion mirror themselves. This implies a metaphor, yet Rorty seems to disallow any correspondence between metaphor, representation, analytic philosophy.
His use of "mirroring" suits my initial view that interpretation is basically built around visual pre logical representation.
:-"
:-"
Sorry about that:
something about the combination of beer, fatigue, and French philosophy:
It tends to fog the mind.
Right, friend, if you would rate communication on this issue, if you would represent this by the use of 2 circles, where the 2 processes represent the two processes, how would you figure our issue as meaningful? 1/ two circles mutually exclusive 2/ totally inclusive (with max. Meaningfulness) 3/with partial Meaningfulness with the overlap -meaning) being a/minimal b/moderate c/substantial----how would you rate the meaningfulness of our communication? -just curious-
This last blog is connectible to Leibnitz’s calculus, (of limits) and that calculus entailing his principle of discernibility. And that to Wittgenstein’s family of resemblances: finally to recognition, besides the obvious.
Yes, I wonder if it doesn’t have something to do with your previous point about interpretation coming from a pre-logical center.
It seems to me that it’s one of the points that Kyle was missing in that right brain philosophers cannot be approached directly for meaning. It may be that you have to focus on the music of how they’re saying things and let the rest come through osmosis. I, myself, have made this mistake with both Deleuze and Derrida only to find myself frustrated. But I’ve also noticed, especially with A Thousand Plateaus that when you just let go and let the words flow through, there is actually a kind of pleasure to be gotten from the imagery -that is without even understanding a thing you’re reading. In fact, I think the main wall I hit with Difference and Repetition is that Deleuze was doing something similar except that he was being a little more abstract. It didn’t have the more concrete elements his later books did.
I also know that it has been said of Lacan and Foucault that one of the reasons they write like they do is so as not to dictate meaning, but to allow the reader to arrive at their own. And I suspect the same is true of Deleuze. It goes back to Roland Barthe’s writerly text.
I’m sure we’re both meaningful in what we’re saying, and confident in the meaning of it. Unfortunately, you’ve developed a comfort with the language that makes it difficult for me to understand everything you’re saying. At first, I thought you might be doing a parody of the French style of exposition. But the more I read, the more I see that you’re serious.
I mean one could easily imagine a high-brow Saturday Night Live skit in which a group of people are talking past each other in obscure monologues. Unfortunately, it does lend itself quite readily to parody -especially to the uninitiated.
But to answer your question, I would say the overlapping meaning. I think any common ground we have here is dependent on family resemblances. Ultimately, it will involve a process of bouncing off each other until until we get a little more clarity on where each other is coming from.
Much as is the case with Deleuze (or any philosopher or writer) it is a relationship which involves a process of turning content into form via form. One starts with an initial and superficial impression until, having learned more, what waits on the inside (the content) becomes a permanent aspect of the outside (the form). It’s a process of unfolding.
I think this is what you were suggesting in your point about Wittgenstein.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to do justice by first impressions. I do not exclude the possibility that I was doing a highbrow parody by far flung metaphors without really realising it (fully).
However I don’t want to be seen as trying to appeare simply as original, and hence must, in all justice give content a very serious course. This is another question, and it may be by the time I may be through such a course, I may have to retreive them from the archives. for that reason, for now, it is for You to keep it going.
However, You may find others to join in likewise. Thanks honest ! (If I contribute redundantly from time to time, please do not hesitate to ignore it, it would be a sign of overzealousness, nothing else) ((I hope.))
We should also add that they do not mirror experience as much as, in Deleuze’s terms, form a rhizome with it.
Furthermore, it is important to note the import of The Plane of Immanence in Deleuze’s thought. Through it, he does not give privilege to thought over the world that it tries to dominate. Thought becomes one type of thing among others in the world. Thinking becomes little more than a means of participating in the becoming of the world. We should further note that he poses this Immanence against the Planes of Transcendence we create for ourselves: God, Reason, Truth, Human Nature, and I would add Nature as is suggested by the naturalistic fallacy of assuming that nature should be the last word in ethical debates –a tactic often used by FreeMarketFundalmentalists and the tight-fisted disciples of Nietzsche and Social Darwinism.
This, in turn, morphs into the univocal plane of being in which all issues of ontological status are done away with. For instance, we normally make a distinction between mind and matter. However, Deleuze dismisses this distinction since the mind, as much as anything “out there”, is just one thing among many in the world. Therefore, it would stand to reason that any thought or idea that mind produces is just one thing among many others that forms a relationship with the world of objects. Hence: the opening of The Anti Oedipus:
Ultimately (or at least it seems to me), it’s as if everything about production. It’s about always moving forward (becoming) –hence his obsession with machines: desiring machines, abstract machines, and any other machine I may have missed out on.
And we can further see how this all connects to the BwO (body without organs). It’s as if Deleuze wants to make everything undifferentiated so that we are free to Play with it in any manner that suits us –that is since transcendence (to be distinguished from Transcendental (that which transcends the realm of normal human experience: God, Reason, Truth, Human Nature, and Nature)) can only work to stop the flow of energy.
But to bring this closer to our plane of experience: it is because of the above, and my emphasis on “the jam”, that I tend to react so strongly to the kinds of intellectual arrogance you tend to deal with on the board. 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.
As posters, we should not hesitate to become schizo-rhizomatic-nomads. The only thing that could stand in our way are prevailing tastes and a need to be part of the “in crowd”.