Adrian,
>>> adrian romero <nairdatl@xxxxxxxxx> 10/09 7:30 am >>>
RUTH:
You said that when i mentioned "expereince of
multiplicity as a universal measure of Deleuzianism",
you "wanted to raise the issue of which kind of
multiplicity" i ment. I certainly can "draw out the
partial and creative interpretative limits" of my
argument much far away from presume my lexical
habilities about Dlzs concepts.
good-but its not a wrestling match ( far too competetive)
You "would like to
hear" my "supporting argument" (that is like literaly
imposible,
i take it you are saying either a) that you don't have an argument-or b) you
do have an argument but it is not to be received as an argument but a piece
of emotion in the raw state?
but i know you can recreate the sound of my
words as i say to you that my support it is not
mererly argumental).
you know wrong- i can create (my) sounds for your words if they resonate
enough- i can not recreate the sound of your words.
I do have the belief of an
emotional state that concerns to that distinction
between Deleuzian and Deleuzianist, and i want to risk
my "non-competetive assertions astray in the thickets
of academic debate" with you (or underneath your
academic vigilance), on the matter that i "seem to be
saying that there is an objective expereince of
Deleuze to be had, instead of the subjective illusion
of objective knowledge".
ok-can't argue with belief i suppose ( which is why, i guess, that D and G
exclude theological figures from philosphy as having closed philsophical
thinking down in advance)
YES. Following Klossowski
(N&CV), Nietzsche wanted to iniciate his friends,
after the Sils-Maria vertigo, to the doctrine of the
eternal recurrence. As you can recall: Klossowski
remarks thats a word significates an emotion, but it
is not identical as the experiencie of that emotion,
and that is that a significated emotion (a
designation)is weaker than the non significated
emotion (a designated emotion). That leads that every
time the comunicative designment exchanges words with
the others there is a displacement between experiencie
and expresion. This displacement represents a
reflection for an emotional genesis of thinking.
ok, i understand this ARGUMENT about emotional displacement and the
impossibility of enunctiation i.e 'what is it that the phantasm really wants
to say' ( N and CV) but Klossoski, also makes quite clear that the
'objective' conditions of ER as a selective test do not have an objective
outcome-i.e the eternal return of the phantasm of the I is characterised by
the eternal return of 'subjective' disguises and displacements. further, K
compares the lived expereince of ER, the temporal fracturing of the causal
supports of the agent, as unwittingly unleashing the buddhist 'concept' of
Nirvana, ( square quoutes to indicate the futility of trying to decribe
Nirvana under a conceptual description) within the west. i understand the
distinction you are trying to make but, again, say it is untenable as trying
to say what satori is. i.e anyone who had lived the expereince of ER would
not be so foolsih as to try and narrate it within conventional logical
oppositions. it would be tantamount to saying I AM buddha
Well Ruth, i want you to suppose that you have a huge
non rational emotional experiencie,
i do expereince some repulsion at being labelled a 'professional academic'
so that you can make your argument.
just like the
implication of a phenomenological approach to madnees,
does not matter which kind,
i think it matters a great deal which kind and i find it hard to reduce D
and G to phenomenological readings.
just like a surrendering
against the centripede forces of caos. (Could you?)
Very well, concerning to that displacement...
Will you notice the distintion between a designated
emotion of a persistent and subjetive force from the
non significated emotion that concerns and gives sense
to the thinking thought of deleuzes concepts, and the
designation of a concrete and objetive weakness from a
significated emotion that no further concerns sense to
the thinking thought of deleuzes concepts,
i agree that there are non-signifiable elements to making sense but speaking
about them always implicates one in the sense at hand. to do this-D uses
CONCEPTS such as asignification to describe time image proliferation outside
modes of grammatical linkage, alternatively, the affective interplay of
non-human becomings also works with the task of creating ( open) concepts
for kinds of multiplicities which are always exceeded by the outside of that
conceptual componenets. ( see Paul Patton's Deleuze and the Political-for
some 'sensible' scholarly exegesis of this idea)
additionally, on Charle's Stivale's web site there is a wonderful series of
Deleuze's seminars on Leibniz. in the first of these, D explains what he
means by concepts bearing the signature of the thinker who creates them.
someone who has need of the concepts of a specific thinker may be called
Kantian, Cartesian or whatever. however, Deleuze and Guattari's concepts
differ from these becuase they are built in a way which makes them
inhabitable ( and thereby capable of differentiation) by agregate composites
which are not their own. A few strings ago Dan Haines spoke about his
expereince of reading D and G, where his notes, doodles, underlinings all a
participated in a musical relation with the concepts specific to his
singularities. this is what i maen by saying that D and G's concepts are
open to the fulx of singularities which adds owns own signature to theirs in
the act of creating a reading between their conceptual aggregate and the
kinds of multiplicitie brought to the text-i do not think there can be an
'authentic' objective Deleuzianist to offset agains a somewhow weaker notion
Deleuzian. so i will say again, i am not ashamed to say that my thinking
participates in a territory, i am happy to call Deleuzian ( or better still
Deleuze-Guattrian)
but it
concerns sense underneath the interpretational
condition of a necessary impulsive domination that
imposses impulsions to the others on a pluralistic
multiple perspectives?
the minitute you name this 'sense underneath' you are participating in
extending the realm of making sense from non-sense-nothing wrong with doing
this intuitively, indeed i would say i make most of my stuff that way but
once one surrounds intuitive sense with the mantles of mysticism then one is
on the look out for a cult of believers-no thanks.
Ruth.C
Gracias y...adis...
adrian
--- Ruth Chandler <R.Chandler@xxxxxxxxx> escribi: >
Adrian,
>
> >>> adrian romero <nairdatl@xxxxxxxxx> 10/05 3:41 am
> >>>
> Ruth:
>
> i agree with you,
> "'the experience of multiplicity' encompasses all
> experience whether that is intuitively 'understood'
> or
> made into a speculative abstract machine".
>
> But even though you are the one that wrote this, it
> is
> the interpretation of the D`s conceptual enunciation
> (so i cannot be able to desagree with you, because
> you
> are the one that reproduces this knowledge as a
> cultural or academic password, that colocates you as
> well in a profesional role of intelectual
> competiteveness).
>
> ok i think you may not have noted some distinctions
> i made. the point of
> stressing the singularities of any interpretation
> against the oxymoron of an
> exact interpretation (if an interpretation could be
> exact it would no longer
> be an interpretation) was to mitigate against the
> empty reproduction of
> Deleuze and Guattari's thought as a cultural
> password. i have no shame about
> trying to inhabit their vocabulary as a
> 'professional academic' because to
> do so means that the cultural habits and academic
> assumptions which i bring
> to the text are placed into a language which changes
> them. by asserting that
> there is a sum of relations between readers of
> Deleuze which i am happy to
> call Deleuzian rather than, say McCarthian, i am
> positing a mobile area made
> up of the fluctuations between very different
> interpretative expereinces of
> these texts. the area could just as easily be called
> something else which is
> why i did not go on to consider figures in this sum
> of relations as
> 'Deleuzianists'. the later 'technical' term would
> assume some kind of
> universal/particular relation between individual
> figures and the socious
> rather than an inclusive disjunction between
> composite aggregates. it would
> be one my interpretative framework would not desire,
> politically. now none
> of this means that people who have not read Deleuze
> and Guattari do not have
> expereinces that count within the potentially
> infinite combinations of
> conceptual/interpretative expereintial assemblages
> opened up by this
> technical vocabulary. yet, the perenial 'elite'
> problem remains of applying
> a technical vocabulary to groups that would not
> accept it as a relavant
> indicator of their milestones of expereince. i don't
> know which way you want
> to play it here-you elite for trying to occupy a
> vocabulary, you elite for
> conceptualisng expereince not your own with this
> vocabulary-me special for
> having a different vocabulary. when you mentioned
> expereince of multiplicity
> as a universal measure of Deleuzianism, i wanted to
> raise the issue of which
> kind of multiplicity you mean'to draw out the
> partial and creative
> interpretative limits of your argument. this was so
> productive dissagreement
> could take place between your and my composite
> aggregates. you are free to
> disagree with my interpretation, and my
> interpreation of how interpretation
> works but suggesting that no basis for disagreement
> exists through a piece
> of anti-intellectual stereotyping of 'professionals'
> is an interpretation
> which, i think, reduces the argument to 'you evil
> ones-therefore i am good'
> and whichj allows very little debate to take place.
> perhaps a day will come
> when the revolutionary thing to do will be to say
> 'Deleuze and
> Guatarri-never heard of them!', but. as you will
> note, i can't make do, at
> present, without this technical vocabulary to
> express concepts which i do
> not think have an equivalent elsewhere. call it a
> power game of competitive
> intellectualism if you like, i prefer this game to
> burning books in the
> Reichstag. its a poltical choice.
>
>
>
>
> But, you believe...
> "that the only properly Deleuzian expereince is the
> one lived by the collection of singularities which
> were Deleuze".
>
> If this belief is true (it`s enough to be true with
> your own certitude)
>
> i do not have certidude.
>
> then i can say that you are less
> deleuzian (don`t even know if you presume to be) it
> seems that you cannot believe that deleuze`s work
> includes the subjetival thinking of your own
> experiencie,
>
> my argument was that the technical vocabulary is own
> that milatates for the
> subjective expereinc of the interpreter to gather
> together into new
> concepts.
>
> understanding the belief of a experiencie
> (yes) as the collective sigularities -as you say-
> (or
> even as any rememberable significant that your body
> unconcientiusly carries with -you- everywhere). How
> fragmentary, instead of that, you seem to think that
> deleuze`s work is less subjetive than objetive:
> "Thus any understanding or technical vocabulary made
> consistent in readings of Deleuze are ones proper to
> the collection of singularities which make them".
>
>
> So, you are understanding the consistency of
> "Deleuze"
> (of course, rith now, with capital D) from a
> emphatycal interpretational reading.
>
> my interpreation is that someone like Deleuze's
> singularities occurs so
> rarely that they are worth a captial D-it would be a
> huge arrogance of
> personal textual authority to think my captital R
> had any equivalence with
> the force of this mind. yet the singularities of my
> capital R, your captital
> A, and everyone elses readings are what makes its
> possible to think concepts
> which differentiate from his. that his philsophy is
> designed for this to
> occur is, for me, what sets this thinker apart.
>
> Could HE be
> mistaken? Never in life.
>
> this is now an obtuse interpretation of what was
> said in the last post-- of
> couse Deleuze could be mistaken, the whole point of
> an argument for not
> being or following Del;euze is to ascertain, in the
> bringing into
> consistency of ones own partial interpretative
> schema, where potential
> questions ( for the interpreative schema in play)
> may be posed within the
> propsotions put forward by Deleuze..
>
> agree, (of course not in the "sense" that you
> expose) when you say...
> "it would seem futile to posit a Deleuzianist
> expereince".
>
> It seems that you did not notice the diference that
> i
> remarked, between been deleuzIAN (the one that
> interpretates D from the beliefs of the personal
> experiencie) and been deleuzIANIST (the one that
> interpretates D -sometimes not even that- from the
> beliefs of an intelectual mood, style, or hability).
>
> i did notice it, but as said above, did not
> entertain it as a viable
> distinction.
>
> As you can understant, maybe you will like it this
> way: been deleuzianist is the experience of and
> objetive interpretation of Ds work, and been
> deleuzian, is the experiencie of the subjetive
> interpretation of Ds consistency.
>
> i would like to hear your supporting argument for
> the distinction between
> Deleuzian and Deleuzianist, if that doesn't lead
> your
=== message truncated ===
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Obtenga su direccin de correo-e gratis @yahoo.com
en
http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com
