Re: Event, Paradox, and Fractals

My guess would be thatproblems cannot be solved by positiong questions but
must be set, displayed, deterritorized -
 there are problems only - but
their spatiotemporal distribution helps!

On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, ron day wrote:

> Paul wrote:
> 
> Roughly, Deleuze seems to think that a structure or Idea
> is a problem, defined by internal relations of singularities in a process of
> development towards actualization.  These structures or Ideas change when
> divided because they are qualitative multiplicities...  Insofar as a
> qualitative multiplicity yields a difference in kind every time it is divided,
> it also yields a different problem that can be poorly or well formed...  "We
> always get the solutions (or truths) that we deserve in light of the problems
> we give ourselves".
> 
> Paul (and all): could I ask you to go into this a bit more.  In particular the
> notion of division here and how that yields a difference in kind.  Reading chapter
> four of D&R I always thought in terms of a sort of selective combinations of
> "potentialities" from 'within' the Idea ("the potentiality of an Idea, its
> determinable virtuality" p.201).  This always left me somewhat mystified as to how
> this multiplicity of "potentiality" got there in the first place and how one could
> determine the range of potentialities within an Idea (i.e., ultimately, is there
> one univocality to the Idea or many (--many Ideas?)).  On p. 193, for example,
> Deleuze points to a (Chomskian) sense of linguistic generative grammar as an
> Idea--are Ideas really this formalistic?  Are Ideas, here, a structuralist
> complexity ("It is not surprising that, among many of the authors who promote it,
> _structuralism_ is so often accompanied by calls for a new theatre or a new
> (non-Aristotelian) interpretation of the theater: a theatre of multiplicities
> opposed in every respect to the theater of representation..." (p.192))?  Must one
> have a strata of instances or things (e.g., speech) in order to have a complexity
> 'proper' to it?
>     There also seems to me to be a sense in the text that the expression of these
> Ideas is related to the instance of their actualization--that there is a
> reciprocal relation of some sort which can modify the potentialities of the
> Ideas.  Or do you read them as fixed?
>     And while I'm at it: does anyone have a read on the problematic-question
> distinction in this section of D&R.  I have a hard time distinguishing the
> difference.
> 
>             Many thanks, Ron
> 
> 
> > Roughly, Deleuze seems to think that a structure or Idea
> > is a problem, definined by internal relations of singularities in a process of
> > development towards actualization.  These structures or Ideas change when
> > divided because they are qualitative multiplicities...  Insofar as a
> > qualitative multiplicity yields a difference in kind every time it is divided,
> > it also yields a different problem that can be poorly or well formed...  "We
> > always get the solutions (or truths) that we deserve in light of the problems
> > we give ourselves".
> 
> 
>