we dive:
into our lives…
I think we can, and, in fact, must, do this together. For, while it is true that every concept is signed, as it were, with the name of a single (and singular) thinker, that creation is at the same time, as I’ve said, a complication. Thinking is bricolage. In order to think, to create, we enter into dialogue with other thinkers, we assemble what we have available around us, inflecting it in new ways. This is an emphatically intersubjective affair; it is only solipsistic inasmuch as the “lone thinker” still engages with a history of thought, still dialogues with others, even if those others exist for him only as modalities of his own thought. It might be worth quoting, even if only for the fun of it, a favourite passage of mine from Jarmusch:
[size=85]Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from - it’s where you take them to.[/size]
I think this sums up nicely the fact that philosophy is as complicated as it is creative. To create, you have to complicate or “steal,” in Jarmusch’s vernacular. You take from other thinkers, you take from experience, from art, from sensation, from your own life, from the lives of others, and out of this bricolage of other tools, you build your own edifice, your own concept. This concept is singular, though it always refers back to the larger conceptual plane out of which it emerges, just as the most original film maker still refers back to a tradition from which he takes, even if only to ultimately depart from it.
We do this together, even if we only ever do it alone—if you know what I mean.
Sorry d63 been away but some jeneral observations here re: repetition diffefamce. Basically the ontolilogical turnaround from reductive paradigms occurred as a consequence of the political foundation with Sartre
.
The macro difference.was replaced end by micro differrance where participation became a mistoque as Levi Strauss pointed out
So community itself is presented on a given rather then reduced from arrived at representations.
Sorry d63 been away but some general observations here re: repetition differance. Basically the ontollogical turnaround from reductive paradigms occurred as a consequence of the loss of socio- political foundation with Sartre
.
The macro difference.was replaced by micro differrance where participation became a mistique as Levi Strauss pointed out
So community itself is presented on a given rather then reduced from arrived at representations.
Note: the above is in referance to "can this be arrived on a singular or communal context?’ , as presented above.
In any case, I feel DeLueze's intentiona was one
Correlating the two. My communication with You started on the level of finding nexus between the two, and I think You (and I and the OP are at a point, where, the two are corelevantly involved, yet to what degree? I guess it reamains to be seen.
The shift is subtle, almost unnoticable, but present nevertheless. Is it seeking ground, or becoming more and more an excercise into the area of 'what if'? , a hypothetical option, steered toward a possible outcome into unknown territory(ality) And if it is so, is it a matter of a shift toward the middle, a cry for more direction and authority, or, a further wait and see attitude, where the limits have to be set, almost indiscriminately by statistical awareness of those limits ?
Finally, found a book that, as Claire Colebrook did with Deleuze himself, gives me a meaningful steppingstone to Difference and Repetition: James William’s interpretation and guide. It being in e-book form, I turned to it when I found myself reading pages and pages of the Logic of Sense with no payback whatsoever. I just couldn’t take it anymore. But this one is working. And I think the main reason it is is because Williams is not afraid to offer a nominal understanding that, while not completely accurate, will give you a means, on your own terms, to work towards the subtleties and complexities of Deleuze’s concepts.
Consequently, I’ve come to conclusion that, as far as reading, I’m better off engaging in the dialogue of my own day and age (that which I can most easily relate to) and working my way back to the actual texts of the greats. Much as I did with music when I was a musician. Of course the purists and snobs will scoff. They’ll argue that you can never truly understand Deleuze until you read Deleuze. And that might work if I were, as relates to philosophy, out to be a scholar. But I’m not. Not even out to be a philosopher. I care more about writing about it and my experience of it. Beyond that, I prefer to be more of an audience to it. And I can’t be an audience if I’m not, in some minimal sense, entertained enough to want to go on.
And given Deleuze’s emphasis on encounters, the same kind we have with movies or music, I’m not sure he would be as opposed to my approach as the purists might be.
*
One of the cool things I have gotten out of it is the realization that my initial instincts about the significance of difference and repetition were not as inaccurate as my lack of faith in myself would lead me to believe. As Williams’ book points out, it is about the relationship between difference and repetition that makes reality what it is for us: the underlying structure.
For instance: this post. Now, you know it is a post because you have seen posts a thousand times before. And yet you are able to recognize that, through a synthesis of all the posts you have seen before, even though it is different than any post you have seen before. Of course, this is a more obvious example.
But let’s say this was a rock. Of course, you would recognize it as a static object. But the thing, given your subjective experience of time, is that you are always experiencing it at different points in your subjective experience of time. In other words, it is always moving, even though it seems to be standing still.
And this is what gives us an illusion of an orderly world standing still even though it is always in a process of becoming. And it is this illusion that sucks us into the even more dangerous illusion of representation that allows us the delusion of believing that our minds can be like mirrors of reality, if we just tweak them just right.
“Cowardice, cruelty, baseness and stupidity are not simply corporeal capacities or traits of character or society; they are structures of thought as such”
Williams, James (2013-01-15). Gilles Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition: A Critical Introduction and Guide (p. 134). Edinburgh University Press. Kindle Edition: a quote from Gilles Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition.
I have been particularly malicious, lately, with a very dear real world friend (Doug) and a respected message board friend (Vlad). But I’m not going to apologize to them for pretty much the same reasons I would consider any apology from them to be superfluous and unnecessary. It, as far as I’m concerned, was a language game that escalated into a little mutual roughhousing –and little more than that. And I can only hope that my respected peers will, despite our differences, consider this to be as close to an apology as this needs to get.
That said, I need to articulate on the position I’m coming from here. First of all, I tend to subscribe to a Deleuzian, Guattarian, and (to some extent) Zizekian agenda of seeking out all pockets of fascism (purposely with a small “f”) that tend to emerge everywhere –including, and most importantly, within ourselves. Secondly, and lastly, my process always works from the assumption that there is no form of human behavior (including those far worse than I have attributed to Doug and Vlad –neither one of them strike me as being worthy of being tagged as evil) that can’t be understood if we look deep enough into ourselves. If I found a fascistic tendency in either of them, it was only because the potential lies in us all.
In other words, in order to truly understand how oppressive social systems tend to emerge we have to look at tendencies that inhabit all of us. If we don’t, there can simply be no real basis for making assertions about “the other”. Without the basis of our common human nature, there would not be any proof for our assertions: they would simply be “the other” with a whole different foundation than the rest of us –kind of like alien life forms. And I find that assumption a little hard to buy in to.
*
To cop off of and revise Russell, philosophy lies in that no-man’s land between science and poetry. Therefore, wouldn’t the main goal of philosophy seem to be to penetrate to our common humanity and take note of the pitfalls it can fall into?
*
One of the main complaints among post –structuralists and –modernists concerning science is that it tends to work with isolated systems. The thing is that we all, when pursuing the life of the mind, tend to work in our own little mental labs. In other words, despite the engagement with reality that we find ourselves in, the armchair nature of what we do involves the isolated systems of our mental concepts. This is why we can be so malicious on boards when we would tend to act otherwise in real world encounters: the other, on the boards, is strictly a matter of their concepts and the language they use to express them as compared to the person as a whole that you tend to deal with in real world situations.
*
However, given that important distinction between 2 ways of interacting, you have to wonder about the potential for fascism (once again, purposely with a small “f”) in digital interaction. You have to wonder if it couldn’t lead to a dangerous reductionism.
James Williams is good. Daniel Smith is even better. Check out his compendium of essays (called, I think, simply Essays on Deleuze).
hi d63. long time no hear-or see. I do not think you need to fear any consequential negative feedback from anyone who knows you even slightly. As far as fascism implicit in a disconnected venue is concerned, the checks are mostly built in as artifacts, mostly in the form of been there done that. it takes specially circumscribed personalities to become prone to these types of concerns, I remember Nixon on his way out publicly admitted of fears of a fascist emergence. periods of weakness tend to give rise to the signifier shift toward a more certain center, and for opportunists, this translates into advantages to be had. At any event to be sure, we must examine the order of our own house to see to it that we do not fall into such traps. There are ongoing forums going on on Deluze, have You taken a look at them ?
I’ll check it out, Onto. Thanks.
Yes, moments of turmoil do tend to compel people to seek order -even if it is a really bad one. It would be hard to deny the role that post WWI economic insecurity and hyper-inflation played in the emergence of NAZI Germany. Interestingly enough, in the midst of our recent economic uncertainty, I have actually found myself confronted with a few people (otherwise decent people) who are actually turning to the Jews as the source of our problems. It’s as if people are trying to deny the very real failures and injustices of Capitalism as America embraces it by diverting the issue to a matter of a specific type (or race) of rich people.
You’ll have to send me a link to those forums.
But then doesn’t simply pointing to “rich people” in general suggest a potential fascism? As Marx pointed out: even the Capitalists are subject to the forces at work in a free market approach to the economy. Or as Jonathon Wolfe, the writer of Why Read Marx Today, pointed out in an interview on Philosophy Talk: you simply cannot submit yourself to such forces without expecting results that are beyond your control.
“In What is Philosophy?, Deleuze and Guattari make the following provocative claim: “Plato said that Ideas must be contemplated, but first of all he had to create the concept of Idea” (WP 6). The assertion that Plato’s philosophy is fundamentally creative appears radically at odds with Socrates’ frequent claims, most notably in the Meno and Phaedo, that knowledge is attained through the reminiscence of our perception of real things prior to the soul inhabiting the body.” - (2012-09-27). The Cambridge Companion to Deleuze (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy) (p. 3). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
And here we have it: the dichotomy that has haunted philosophy since its very beginnings: the pragmatic/Rortian distinction between understanding as making and finding. And it is that which has culminated in the occasional animosity between continental and analytic approaches.
But then it’s not like there haven’t been overlaps. Rorty (w/ his continental sensibility spoken in his native tongue: the analytic (points to both Quine and Wittgenstein as heroes. And while I can tell you little about Quine, I get it as far as Wittgenstein in that he started with Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (that which focused on philosophy as finding (which followed his adage:
“And whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent.”
:then evolved into his recognition of the import of language games: our tendency to engage in discourse purely for the sake of bringing the words we use to describe reality closer to reality itself: that which focused on philosophy as making.
And we can see a similar overlap in Russell when he describes philosophy as that which lays in that no man’s land between Science (the art of finding (and theology: the art of making. But if we (being in more secular times (replace the term Theology with literature, and replace “no man’s land” with spectrum, we find a domain (a multiplicity to match our multiplicity as molecular individuals (by which we can analyze our own place in the scheme of things as the intellectually and creatively curious.
And this is rooted in a problem the ancient philosophers were dealing with: how to establish stable truths in a universe that was constantly changing. Of course, Plato’s solution was to come up w/ (make as Deleuze points out (a metaphysical realm of ideal forms that all earthly efforts (nature, art, language ( are trying to immolate. And this could only lead to the ethical assertions of Plato’s Republic based on an analogical hierarchy based on mind, emotion, and body. In this lies the heart of the classicist disposition.
But after several generations of authoritarian social systems based on Plato’s model, we made the romantic break by reversing the early civilization notion of civilization good/ nature bad. This went on to the bridge provided by Nietzsche from romanticism to existentialism (with the neo-classicism of the analytic serving a reactionary role (on to modernism and then (via structuralism and post-structuralism: that which recognizes the futility of language in the face of the reality it is trying to reflect (on to postmodernism.
Against this background, we can see the import of philosopher’s like Deleuze and Rorty (and even Zizek despite his assertion that “the truth is out there” (in that they represent the diametrical opposite of Plato’s assertion that philosophy is a matter of gravitating towards the realm of ideal forms. They, rather, embrace the creative potential of language in the face of a reality that can never be ideal. They establish themselves as an endgame in the ancient dichotomy between making (the side they’re on (and finding.
Okay! Time to get back to business:
“Such is the reason why Platonism seeks to nip this anarchy and rebellion in the bud, by hunting down, as Plato says, simulacra and rogue images of all kinds.” -(2012-09-27). The Cambridge Companion to Deleuze (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy) (p. 57). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
And here we get at my issue with neo-classicism and (in a perhaps loose manner (alliance with Deleuze’s clearly stated anti-Platonism. For me it is the issue of ideal forms that lie at the heart of the classicist sensibility. This is because such ideal forms, by their inherent nature, must form hierarchies. And Plato’s ideal society should have clued us in given its downward vertical structure that ran, analogically, from mind to emotion to body. We can, furthermore, see as much in the difference between progressives (who seek to work with things and people as they are (and conservatives who retrogressively seek to make people what they should be: that based on the ideal forms of days past.
Now this may not seem to fit the reality (especially in America (given the Wild West nature (the so-called rugged individualism (of the conservative sensibility. But what we have to understand here is the ultimate failure of the romantic break from classicism in that it ultimately proved to appeal to the ideal form (the so called “real thing” as compared to the simulacra (that, in turn, only led to another hierarchy that followed the same Platonic scheme that was vertical in nature and based on the ideal form of the mythological hero. And this, of course, has bled into the higher status we tend to give to the superstars of Capitalism: the ones who “made it”. The edges may be a little rougher than those of Plato’s ideal forms. But the same dynamic is at work.
And this is why I can apply the issue to the ultimately authoritarian nature of a thinker like Rand who, once again, was primarily working in terms of ideal forms. And I would note here her preference for the heroic and mythological (as was demonstrated in her fiction (as compared to her disdain for stories of the underdog beaten down by forces beyond their control. And we can see as much in the neo-Nietzscheian gospel of the fearlessly fanciful: what Putman described as Macho ethics and Raymond Tallis as Darwinitus. Such people claim to embrace a less than ideal situation. But the ultimate goal of it is to achieve the ideal human: the Overman to put it in Nietzsche’s terms –an ideal form which they, of course, assume their selves to be approaching.
The problem with this lies in a distinction made by the poet Coleridge: that between fancy and imagination. Fancy, of course, is that which taps into the domain of so-called ideal forms. Imagination does the footwork of revising those ideal forms in the face of the world as is. And in this sense, it is the non-classicists (the postmodernists who embrace conceptual play over futile strivings for the truth (those who reject any loyalty to the ideal form (who are the true realists –despite the neo-classicist claim to the contrary.
And I find a common issue and agenda with Deleuze as is pointed out later in the above book concerning Deleuze’s postmodern reaction to the classicist sensibility:
“Rather, it is a matter of distinguishing between copies and simulacra, but with a view to affirming the rights of the latter, and subverting the distinction constitutive of representation: “Crowned anarchies are substituted for the hierarchies of representation; nomadic distributions for the sedentary distributions of representation” (DR 278).” - (2012-09-27). The Cambridge Companion to Deleuze (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy) (p. 74). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
In this sense, working from a univocal sense of Being, Deleuze (w/ and w/out Guattarri (champions the idea of production simply for the sake of production as compared to production for the sake of some end: that which lies in the transcendent realm of ideal forms.
“The problem with this lies in a distinction made by the poet Coleridge: that between fancy and imagination. Fancy, of course, is that which taps into the domain of so-called ideal forms [the Platonic and classicist]. Imagination does the footwork of revising those ideal forms in the face of the world as is. And in this sense, it is the non-classicists (the postmodernists who embrace conceptual play over futile strivings for the truth (those who reject any loyalty to the ideal form (who are the true realists –despite the neo-classicist claim to the contrary.”
“Their difference is ultimately temporal: whereas the Platonic and Aristotelian distinctions aim to grasp the permanent and stable behind the fleeting and becoming, the Stoics understand the incorporeal as the eventful , which opens up a different modality of time.” - (2012-09-27). The Cambridge Companion to Deleuze (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy) (p. 68). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
First of all, at this point, I am doing a as Deleuze advises us in Difference and Repetition and writing at the edge of what I know. Therefore, I have to take each step with heavy consideration while treading lightly through the sublime and complex.
And I suppose the best place to start is my issue with the neo-Nietzschean gospel of the fearlessly fanciful. Now, on one hand, their approach would seem to fit the bill of the latter quote. They would seem to be the more stoic in their acceptance of things in a constant state of becoming. This is why a social democrat such as myself (through a half-assed interpretation of Nietzsche (would seem to them as weak since I am allegedly entertaining the bad faith of looking towards the ideal form of a perfect state: a kind of watered down socialism. But there are several problems with this:
First of all (and at the most superficial (is the notion that those (social democrats like myself (who want to make things better for people are necessarily trying to create an ideal state. There is a big difference between trying to improve things for people and seeking the ideal form of the perfect state.
Secondly, stoicism is not just a matter of accepting things as they are; it is equally a matter (as is implied all over Deleuze’s notion of desiring production (as well as the evolutionary relationship between the brain and its environment (of acting on it with the added courage involved in recognizing that one will always continue to have to act up upon it. And therein lays the true stoicism of the reformer.
Furthermore, the false stoicism of the Neo-Nietzschean lies in their claim to accept things as they are (the fashionable cynicism (while seeing an ideal form in those who are willing to suck it up in the fanciful hope that the Overman (or a half-assed understanding of them (will emerge. In other words, for all their raw edges and less than ideal forms, their appeal remains with a neo-classicist appeal to ideal forms.
Even less stoic is their appeal to fashionable cynicism which argues that things are what they are, therefore the best strategy is do as the Roman’s do and seek power through things like submitting their intellectual process to what is basically an in-crowd or player mentality -once again: expressions of yet another Platonic realm of ideal forms as we can see in many TV ads. Their fashionable cynicism claims to be dealing with reality as it is. But all it is really doing is succumbing to the fancy that marketers (and the Platonic realm of media (feeds into them everyday via the fantasies they are entertaining about themselves: the pro-Capitalist media version of the Will to Power. Think, for instance, of the ideal and mythological form of Rambo: the rugged individual who, regardless of what is thrown at them, can deal with it.
And we can apply the nonsense (the fancy and false stoicism (at work here to the nonsense and fancy at work in the fashionable cynicism of Republicans and Randheads.
The real stoicism lays in the ability to see things as they are, recognizing that what is is all there is, and seeing the suffering of it (due to exploitation: an expression of power (as a cause to act to make things a little better without entertaining the illusion of a final solution that will bring the struggle to an end. And I fail to see how simply arguing that the world is shit and the only solution is to look out for my interests fits the Deleuzian concept of stoicism and its related anti-classicism.
One of the cool things about philosophy is that you will be going along and dealing with certain terms and concepts, and understanding them in an empathetic way. Then all it takes is some beer (American pisswater is my preference (and Jager (or maybe a tap off some adequate to really intense pot (and you suddenly find yourself sympathizing: what Joyce referred to as an epiphany.
It happened tonight with the Deleuzian term: traverse. To traverse is to dance lightly (like a stone skipping across water (across the field of experience (the plane of immanence (or even the BwO (that allows you to…. that opens you up to the possibility of saying something profound: of producing something that can never completely represent the experience: the experimentation.
To the psychologist that means: unquestioningly following ones disposition, instincts.
For what are things beyond our perception of them?
Perception is an encounter, interpretation is a response.
To let the natural response come out, is this the Stoa?
I find the Stoics of fame to be people of great tiredness. Marcus Aurelius the central figure; a point in the inflation of the empire where the inflator stopped blowing, and tied a knot into it. Aurelius made a point of accepting the way things were/are, but that is a friction encounter of the being with itself at a limit of its growth; it is essentially as fire turning to stone. A volcano only accepts the way things are when it ceases to do what makes it a volcano.
Let’s follow this with the full quote:
"Secondly, stoicism is not just a matter of accepting things as they are; it is equally a matter (as is implied all over Deleuze’s notion of desiring production (as well as the evolutionary relationship between the brain and its environment (of acting on it with the added courage involved in recognizing that one will always continue to have to act up upon it. And therein lays the true stoicism of the reformer.”
It’s not just a matter of following one’s instincts. This assumes that one has some kind of fixed disposition. Or I should say, rather, that instincts have nothing to do with some fixed disposition. Our instincts are the expression of the physiological brain adapting to a constantly changing environment –which means that the physiological brain is changing as well.
Aurelius, as I remember my reading of his meditations, was fixated on the transcendent notion of virtue.
And as nice as your analogy sounds, you’re comparison doesn’t work since a volcano, as far as I know, doesn’t choose to do anything. Stone and dirt is passive in nature. It is shaped by changes external to it. At the same time, the analogy serves my purposes since a volcano remains a volcano by standing its ground while being flexible in the face of its transformation due to forces outside of it: it’s becoming.
Likewise, Stoicism (in Deleuzian terms: is a willingness to keep acting with no fixed criteria by which one must act. It defies the Sartrean Bad Faith of thinking it can find some all purpose system that will make everything work like some fine-tuned machine and embraces the novelty of its day to day existence.
Rhizome 12/12/2014
I had, in a previous rhizome:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=181968&start=175
:noted (in a kind of epiphany (a connection between Deleuze’s transcendental empiricism (closely connected to the plane of immanence (and his admiration for the stoic sensibility: what I can only summarize as the courage to face brute reality while not succumbing to the security of denying the reality of the less tangible expressions of our subjective reality: I’m thinking extreme forms of materialism and Randian appeals to brute facts while making assertions that are anything but.
And my take on it got some juice from my recent reading of Sean Bowden’s The Priority of Events: Deleuze’s Logic of Sense:
“He distinguishes three such images – the Platonic, the pre -Socratic and the Hellenic…” -Bowden, Sean (2011-08-16). The Priority of Events: Deleuze’s Logic of Sense (Plateaus – New Directions in Deleuze Studies) (p. 15). Edinburgh University Press. Kindle Edition.
Bowden starts with a distinction reminiscent of the rationalist/empiricist dichotomy in first pointing out the intellectual hierarchy described by Plato:
“In Plato, following Deleuze, the ‘philosopher’s work is always determined as an ascent and a conversion , that is, as the movement of turning toward the high principle (principe d’en haut) from which the movement proceeds, and also of being determined, fulfilled, and known in the guise of such a motion’ (LS, 127).” –Ibid.
He then compares these “heights” to the pre-Socratics who found their depths in the natural world:
“Here, Deleuze is no doubt referring to the pre-Socratic ‘physicists’ or ‘natural philosophers’, among whom we can count Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Empedocles and Anaxagoras. For these philosophers, the fundamental principles of all things must be sought in physical nature itself: Empedocles’ four elements and the forces of ‘Love and Strife’, for example. 4 Fundamental physical principles such as these were posited to provide an ‘immanent measure . . . capable of fixing the order and the progression of a mixture in the depths of Nature (Physis)’ (LS, 131).” –Ibid.
He then points to a kind of synthesis that Deleuze saw in the stoics who:
“….bring about ‘a reorientation of all thought and of what it means to think: there is no longer any depth or height’ (LS, 130).”
Philosophers that had the courage to see that it:
“is always a matter of unseating the Ideas, of showing that the incorporeal is not high above (en hauteur), but is rather at the surface, that it is not the highest cause but the superficial effect par excellence, and that it is not Essence but event. On the other front, it will be argued that depth is a digestive illusion which complements the ideal optical illusion (LS, 130).”
In this sense, we approach the same univocity of being that Rorty was getting at in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature when he worked to undermine claims concerning ontological status. A thing either is or is not: it doesn’t matter if it’s something you feel or the rock that stubs your toe (which is, BTW, something you feel.
To give a more practical/pragmatic sense of what I’m at getting here, I received from this post/rhizome:
“Capitalism is control. We believe it is a choice. Yet everything we do is controlled by it. We soften the blow of this very truth by assuming that it is some kind of natural force in our lives. But it is not. It is the product of a human agreement. But then it’s kind of hard to not feel like it is a natural force on the internet.”
:a couple of what I assume to be sarcastic remarks:
“ I like bold empirical claims.”
“Wait, what?”
Now I would note here the use of the popular buzzword (which both Deleuze and Rorty are opposed to: empirical. What does that mean? Does it, for instance, mean that the thing we are perceiving has, somehow, more ontological status than the act of perceiving it or how we react to it? And since these 2 goons seems to think in terms of brute facts (or claim to (how does 1 + 1=2 or the fact that water boils 212 degrees at atmospheric pressure tell us anything about how we experience Capitalism? I quite sure they think they can. But most arguments from their likes end up being as non sequitor as:
1+1=2, Capitalism is the only legitimate economic system on the face of the earth.
Deleuze and Rorty, on the other hand, ask us to look beyond the appeal to the in-crowd (the socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues (of the above hecklers and recognize the import of what we’re experiencing as well as that of what we are experiencing.
Appeals to the Heights or the Depths (the tunnel vision (is for pussies. The courage of the stoic takes it all (the plane of immanence (into consideration. It does not flinch at the possibility of being wrong.
Rhizome 1/22/15:
When one has a routine (an Einstein’s wardrobe (every day is a repetition. You can almost feel the loop: felt it today as I walked into the Tobacco Hut to buy my 40 ounce and shooter. But such repetitions, by their very nature (the fact (and may the wrath of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (that they are always carried out at a different point in time (produces difference. And creative curiosity can only amplify it.
*
Reading James Williams’ critical introduction and guide to Deleuze’s Logic of Sense, I’m starting to feel like I’m also getting a technical manual to the Rhizome’s. And in my defense, I actually started the rhizomes before I got the book and was mainly working with my instincts (supplemented with my readings of Deleuze (concerning the rhizome which was the first concept (attributed to his work with Guattarri (that drew me to him. And I would attribute this to 2 things. First of all, I believe that there exists a kind of osmosis between reader and writer in that sometimes, even when the reader does not consciously understand what they are reading, there is still information slipping through, instinctive reactions to it that are later confirmed by either later readings of the text or interpretations offered by the secondary text.
Secondly, I would point to something I read about Lacan: that in order to understand him, you had to go into it already understanding him without having articulated him to the extent that he had. In other words, you would have to go into it with a common sensibility. And it is that common sensibility that draws us in to a certain philosopher or artist or writer or scientist or famous person for that matter. What is always being sold is a sensibility. What an individual produces are mainly sales pitches for that sensibility.
*
Anyway, Williams points to 4 things concerning how to read Logic of Sense: Order and Series, Series within Series, Humor, and Multidimensional Sentences (all of which I hope to get to in the context of the rhizomes (but then if I don’t, there is always the next one: the next rhizome (now let me check my notes:
Order and Series:
“At this stage, all that needs to be stressed is that the readers can bring their own elements to Deleuze’s series in order to move among them.” –James Williams, Gilles Deleuze’s Logic of Sense: a critical introduction and guide, pg. 15
I would first point out that the main point of this section is that Logic of Sense (consisting of series as compared to chapters (invites us to read them out of order. It’s pretty much like (books… way too many books…. here it is! (Brian Mussumi points out in the intro to a Thousand Plateaus: it should be jumped around on until one finds certain riffs that sticks with them then work from there. However, the main difference (as well as the connection (between Deleuze’s series and my rhizomes is that I give you no choice. Outside of ILP (viewtopic.php?f=25&t=187249 (my primary launch pad, I tend to randomly post my rhizomes on whatever board I feel them most appropriate for. Beyond that, it is the mission of the reader (should they choose to take it (to trace the serial aspect back to its sources and (via the above quote: bring their own elements into it.
The main thing I want to point to here is that Deleuze’s use of a series (that which foreshadowed his turn to (w/ Guattarri (the rhizome is almost interchangeable with my use of the rhizome. I would offer as evidence:
Series within Series:
“Every portion matter can be thought of as a garden full of plants, or as a pond full of fish. But every branch of the plant, every part of the animal, and every drop of its vital fluids, is another such garden, or another such pond” –Leibniz
Now going back to Williams’ book:
“In his Difference and Repetition and later texts such as The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque, Deleuze describes his internal connection as the folding of ideas and things within one another.”
Or as I like to put it:
The enfolded (enfolding within) enfolded.
(It’s right: the logic: I thought about it hard.)
Humor:
I refuse to be taken seriously!
Multidimensional Sentences:
Now this I always feel like I (and the rhizomes (must be falling short on since, given the spontaneous nature of it, I never have that much time to put that much work into a sentence. I can only hope that it happens through the seemingly mystical power of spontaneity or the process of repeating certain phrases and making them different until I happen to stumble upon such a thing.
But the point is not that I am somehow Deleuze’s equal. I simply don’t have the time and resources he had. It’s to show that, through the rhizomes, with the limited time and resources I have (and through a common sensibility (I have the blessing of being able to approach what he had. It’s why the rhizomes won’t let me go. And I think he would have appreciated that.
Rhizome 1/28/15:
“Deleuze’s assault on common and good sense should not be confused with an assault on the everyday; rather, his thought frees the everyday from the grip of layer upon layer of common and good sense. My refusal to lose ‘experience’ is part of a political position, in terms of a commitment to bring philosophy to bear on life as accessibly as possible and with as much flexibility and care as possible. There is no doubt that this could fail badly and that it excludes equally, or perhaps more, valid approaches to the explanation of Deleuze. Nonetheless, I would not want his see his work become the claimed property of intellectual or social elites, or a self-selecting margin, or a revolutionary cadre. These should not themselves be excluded, but Deleuze’s sensitive and open philosophy should accompany and shape many of “us”, through our thoughts, and our political actions, rather than remain in the possession of a few protectors.” –James Williams, Gilles Deleuze’s Logic of Sense: a Critical Introduction and Guide, pg. 39
Whenever I approach a philosopher like Deleuze, it’s never about knowing him or her concept by concept. I have no designs on being the ultimate authority on any great mind, or anything for that matter. It is, as much as anything, about feeling them (much as I would a poet (a shared sensibility (about finding what I can use to further my own process. As I have said repeatedly, I would far rather think of myself as a writer writing about his experiences with philosophy than a philosopher which requires that certain steps be taken, certain books be read and understood in depth. I simply haven’t the time for that. The best I can hope for is to respectably participate in the same discourse great minds have –much as great minds like Deleuze and Rorty encourage me to do.
And this is why it makes no sense to me to turn the boards into a pissing contest, to treat it as if it is some kind of competition in which we are comparing the size of our dicks: our intellectual and creative (mainly through wit –the clever response (prowess, that is when all we should really be concerned with is participating in the discourse: the jam.
*
The main reason I didn’t include Zizek (the third in the triad of philosophers I’m mainly influenced by (is that, as much as I admire him, you get the feeling from him that he wants to establish some kind of authority over most people by establishing the true message of popular culture. As he likes to quote from The X Files: the truth is out there. At the same time, he shows his humility by actually referring to popular culture and bringing the common man into the discourse.
This, as I see it, results from an imperative inherent in his clear distaste for Capitalism –something I’m not totally unsympathetic with. As someone who champions the communist solution, as compared to my more incremental social democrat one, he has to believe in some kind of ultimate truth. And his arguments for left-wing complicity (his recognition, for instance, that Starbucks is a way of consuming social conscience (are not altogether unconvincing.
Plus that, I think he uses the same “repeat myself until I get beyond myself” approach that I do.
Rhizome 1/29/15:
Song added to mix: Yoshinonori Sunahara’s New World Break (Exo Mix)
Author: James Williams
Book: Gilles Deleuze’s Logic of Sense
Section (starting at page 29: Unfolding the Circle of the Proposition: Denotation, Manifestation, Signification, and Sense
In today’s study at the “library”, I found myself getting a little closer to the Deleuzian sense of “sense”. (And did I just engage in a Deleuzian pun there or what?) But I should start with the growing recognition that with any term you encounter with Deleuze, you will ultimately have to approach it from different angles in order to truly understand it. But then that’s what philosophy is really about, isn’t it? Getting at those understandings that work outside of the capacity of language? The Lacanian Real? That which always transcends the language we use to describe it?
Still, one of the reasons that we have science is because we have to work our way from isolated systems to the whole. It’s all our minds can handle. And we may be able to get at Deleuze’s sense of sense by taking the post and not-post structuralist approach of looking at language and how we extract meaning from it and start with the breakdown of the science of linguistics: Denotation, Manifestation, and Signification. These, however, fail to satisfy Deleuze as an explanation. In order for them to work, they would have to form a circle: a non-linear feedback system (perhaps a disjunctive synthesis (in which the three are interdependent and play off of each other. As Williams puts it:
“Put simply, this means that neither the reference of language (denotation), nor its situation in relation to a speaker or point of writing (manifestation), nor its meaning as decipherable through the position of words in relation to one another (signification) are sufficient bases for understanding how language works.”
In other words, we can’t settle for the dialectical breakdown that the scientific approach offers us without considering the interdependence of the three. And it is the transcendent effect of the three that gets us at Deleuze’s sense of sense. For instance: if I say, as I often do on these boards:
“Love ya, man!”
How would you extract meaning from that? You could take the denotative route of taking me at my word, in which case you would have to depend on signification. But that would put you reading more into it than it really means. The only real way to go about it is turn to manifestation and say:
“D’s clearly drunk again and having a good time.”
Or as William’s writes:
“In other words, there can be no full reference without a manifestation because the set of beliefs and desires associated with the denotation require a manifestation….”
Now the thing that struck me here is that me saying “Love ya, man!” is not that different than any proposition that an analytic could make. Those who cling to the scientific approach may think they’re above their beliefs and desires; but manifestation is always a factor. You still have to look at the sense of sense: for instance, the obvious desire for order involved in the analytic sensibility. This is because no matter how hard we try to get above subconscious factors, we are always beholden to them: the very subconscious factors that hard core materialists insist control us.
But what goes deeper to the heart of the analytic approach is the way the logical fallacy of the ad hominem approach is given license. It is not enough to look what an individual is saying. We have to look at why they are saying it.
*
Final thought: it’s always a matter of going somewhere.