Re: Event, Paradox, and Fractals

In a message dated 10/31/1998 3:32:21 PM EST, A.M.Dib@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

<< Thanks Paul for your reply. I do appreciate all the responses done.
Although
 I know that there is some sort of a relation between structure and idea, I
 just got  astonished by Boundas and Marks' equation of both terms without
 any qualifying description. I do not know where I read Deleuze (is it in
 TP??) saying something like there is no structure but events???? Apparently,
 Deleuze kept on changing and adding on his lingo articulation of the
 structure. The structure he found in D&R reflects a tint of structuralism
 without a structure. The reconciliation of the dynamic and static aspect of
 genesis is the difference that he made to the concept of structure. 
  >>
Amdib--

I admit my surprise with Deleuze's use of structure as well.  And I agree that
when Boundas uses the term "structure" without qualification this is apt to
cause confusion and perplexity.  "Structure" has been thrown around in so many
ways since Lacan, that the terms has almost become meaningless.  For this
reason, I try to restrict my use of the word to Levi-Strauss' articulations.  

I think Deleuze's rejection of structure occurs in the opening pages of
Nomadology.  I can't help but feeling that he's flying fast and loose here
though, since he needs something like an idea of structure in order to explain
the State apparatus...  Maybe he's reacting to Lacan's equation of structure
with the Real in his later seminars:  The Real is that which always returns to
its place.  In this connection, we could then argue that Deleuze and Guattari
are protesting the essentialization of structure in order to make room for
non-structural or structuralizing Nomads.  We might think of the "Go" peice as
"structuralizing" in this sense, while the Chess peice would be
structuralized.  This would accord well with Deleuze's proclivity for
generative accounts, and would also connect well with his admiration for the
Linguist Labov expressed early on in TP.

In a sort of tangental vein, it might be interesting to read the Deleuzian
notion of structure in terms of Bourdieu's notion of habitus.  Although
Bourdieu appears in only a few places in TP, his critique and appropriation of
structuralism through habitus might give us the means of appropriating
structure without falling prey to an essentialization of structure.  But I
need to think about this a little more.

Regards,

Paul