Re: Levy's notes

On Sat, 23 Dec 1995, Paul Bains wrote:

> "Ramyond Ruyer (the last of Leibniz's great disciples) opposes "true form=
s"
> to figures and structures. Figures are functions that refer to relative
> positions ordered from one to the next, according to states of equilibriu=
m
> and horizontal linkages, even when their exists a relation of dominance. =
But
> the so called substantial individual forms are absolute vertical position=
s,
> surfaces or absolute volumes, unified areas or "overviews" unlike figures
> which do not imply a supplementary dimension in order to be themselves
> understood , and are not dependent as are preexisting and localizable
> linkages. These are souls, monads, "self-surveilling" superjects." (The F=
old
> p.102).
> "Il n'y a aucun sujet, aucun observateur, aucune super-r=E9tine, dans une
> dimension perpendiculaire, et pourtant tous les points, tous les d=E9tail=
s de
> la sensation sont pr=E9sents, 'visible' =E0 la fois: _c'est une surface
> intuition=E9e sans troisi=E8me dimension_." (Ruyer, La conscience et Le C=
orps,
> p.58. (This little gem is definitely available from UCLA library).  =20
> For Deleuze these superjects are absolute interiorities - having an insid=
e
> that is only for the inside. How would this relate to the current
> fascination for the 'exteriorisation' of the subject?

    great stuff....am wondering how this relates to (a) the early and
freud-obsessed lyotard, who in "discourse/figure" contrasts (i think)
"discourse" as 2-dimensional saussurian structure (binary s-s field of
meaning) with the "figure" as "3-dimensional disruptive force on the
"margins"  of language/discourse (as in, freud's latent and manifest
dream-texts are both "discourse" but the violent transformation of one to=
=20
the other, the "dream-work," is "figure"); (b) the whole rationalist
"tradition" from descartes/spinoza/leibniz as it permeates p-m thinkers
like deleuze, ie the relation of math and logic to "metaphysics," etc.;
(c) the "fold" as we get it not just in deleuze's book on leibniz but also
(differently?) in derrida ("the double session," mallarme, poetry/phil)
and foucault ("madness and the absence of work" where f. talks about=20
"in-foldedness of the work" and "work" =3D mallarmean "modern poetry" and=
=20
also freudian "dream-work");  (d) the VIEW FROM ABOVE of the
                     =20
                      about-to-be-ex-teriorized
                      sub-ject, about to
                      pro-ject itself as thin projectile thru space
                      to become a super-ject=20
                      as versus the
                      (always-already-interiorized)
                      (windowless monads of molecules of the concrete)
                      viw from below?=20

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