Re[2]: on the matter of mind

Incorporeal/corporeal, virtual/actual, plane of transcendence/
plane of consistency, BwO/full body of the socius (organism, etc.),
nomad/state, thought/extension, active/passive, micropolitics/
molar politics, social production/desiring production, etc., etc.,
etc.

None of these amount to the same thing, though they all share
multiple relations, including similarities, isomorphisms, blah,
blah. It does seem to be the case that for certain of these
polarities, Deleuze wishes, at some times, to establish a fairly
immaculate break, at least ontologically, so that how one pole
might effect, reflect, or refract the other does not impinge on
their being ultimately totally separate. For example, in SPP,
Deleuze wishes to separate thought and extension as two different
realms (attributes), which relate secondarily to each other,
but primarily only to themselves and to God by default. Chris finds
this example relatively anomalous, and indeed, Deleuze rarely
insists explicitly on such a radical differentiation of the
polarity.

However, Nathan rightly points out that in TLS, Deleuze pointedly
separates the incorporeal from the corporeal, ontologically or
metaphysically, and it seems contrary to the spirit of this
cleavage to reinsert rather too simply the incorporeal into
the corporeal as a non-extended, but still *physical* (i.e., the
sort of thing physicists use in their theories) energy. Even in
D&R, one characterization of the virtual is in terms of the
problem: the nature of a problem is. . .to be solved. Or rather
to be working itself out. Any physical corporeal thing is already
too differenciated to have this character. An electron, in spite
of Heisenberg and in spite of the quantum ambiguity of particle/
wave, is mostly already differenciated. It has an equation which
exactly characterizes it, and distinguishes it from other
electrons, along with a probability function which predicts, with
almost total (statistical) accuracy, its behavior in particular
circumstances. Yes, and electron is somewhat more obscure, and
maybe more confused than, say, a chair, but it is still mostly
clear and distinct.

If the incorporeal is to be virtual, that is problematic, if sense
occurs in an event which takes place on a surface which is not just
a shadow or reflection of the depths underneath or the heights above,
then we must take incorporeality as genuinely distinct from the
corporeal, even if inseparable, and Chris may have to explain some
more room between these two notions. One of the central reflections
of A-O is just how to walk a fine line between collapsing
desiring production (at a molecular level) into social production on
the one hand, and making them forever separate, on the other.
Initially, A-O claims that they are distinguished provisionally, for
the purposes of the discussion. Then, that they are distinguished by
regime, but that this is not a real distinction. By the end of
the book, the distinction is still difficult, but it turns out
to be crucial to the project of A-O; and we realize these cannot
possibly just be the same thing repackaged. The distinction is
genuine, tenuous, and difficult.

I really think this is an important issue, and its one which Chris
and Nathan, and others, keep bumping up against. In D&R, Deleuze
seems to attempt to push action into the virtual, sometimes referring
to actuality as a shadow or mere illusion. (Actually, these terms
are only applied to an actuality cut off from the virtual. And this
is a clue: polarities lead us to overlook the actual process or
flow between in favor of two isolated elements which then need to
be reconnected. The question is not corporeal or incorporeal but
what passes between them.) In TLS, all the good stuff happens
on the surface, that is where the difference gets made, that's
where the event is. Deleuze always seems to be working with
some such polarity and pushing toward one pole or another. Hence,
it's crucially important to work on how these polarities work.
I don't know, but I'm not satisfied with just making, e.g., the
incorporeal and special case of corporeality, "corporeality without
extension."

Sorry this is so long, I'm thinking as I go. (Or maybe not. . ;x))



  ::=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=::
                ::                     ::
               ::         Aden          ::
               ::                       ::
               :: BGRZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ::
              ::                         ::
              ::=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=::

     ------------------