[D-G] Deleuze and the symbolic

sid littlefield falsedeity at lycos.com
Fri Jan 21 19:21:45 PST 2005 

I don't think the virtual can be reduced to "interpretation mediated by reality". It seems to reside in Deleuze's metaphysics. I will speak more to this later.

----- Original Message -----
From: Chapman <chapman0603 at rogers.com>
To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org
Subject: RE: [D-G] Deleuze and the symbolic
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:43:59 -0500

> 
> The next page over in AntiO talks abt the BwO, after Lacan, as the 
> site of the disjunctive synthesis, "The support is the body without 
> organs" (38), parsing out meaning through exclusion / displacement. 
> They call on Lacan for a definition of the BwO in a footnote on 
> p.39, quoting Lacan's footnote #36 in Ecrits.
> 
> Lacan, as found in D&G, writes:
> 
> "...let us also add that the one dimension limiting this condition 
> is the translation of which such a chain is capable. Let us 
> consider this game of lotto for just a moment more. We may then 
> discover that it is only because these elements turn up by sheer 
> chance within an ordinal series, in a truly unorganized way, that 
> their appearance makes us draw lots"
> 
> They go on to suggest that this state of interpretation, 
> translation of appearances, is a form of writing that is 'inscribed 
> on the very surface of the Real'.  The conversion you suggest 
> Deleuze makes at the end of his career, giving up on the 'surface/ 
> depth' trope is interesting because it would seem to me, that as 
> one of the terms of his lost interest,  would be a turn away from 
> interpretation mediated by reality, ie. the virtual. In a spooky 
> way, Deleuze is signalling to me, that he is rethinking the 
> positive act of division.
> 
> I'm not being perfect help here.  I imagine that you're wondering 
> abt what I call non or un-metaphoric interpretation? On that score 
> I'm following consequences on p.38-9 of AntiO when they talk abt 
> the BwO as the support for all of the chains of code, linguistic 
> and otherwise.
> 
> "It is an entire system of shuntings along certain tracks, and of 
> selections by lot [hear Lacan here and the flickering between 
> real=cardinal objects in the symbolic=ordinal order], that bring 
> about partially dependent, aleatory phenomena bearing a close 
> resemblance to a Markov chain. The recordings and transmissions 
> that have come from the internal codes, from the outside world, 
> from one region to another of the organism all intersect, following 
> the endlessly ramified [tree -either/or - logic] paths of the great 
> disjunctive synthesis. If this constitutes a system of writing, it 
> is a writing inscribed on the very surface of the Real..."
> 
> Needless to say this is a hermeneuts game, one that is reaching to 
> read the Real, that which is given without metaphor.
> 
> --Gotta stop.
> 
> Chris.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-bounces at lists.driftline.org
> [mailto:deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On
> Behalf Of James Depew
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:57 PM
> To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org
> Subject: Re: [D-G] Deleuze and the symbolic
> 
> 
> How do you understand this interpretation, how do you envision it
> functioning?  I'm not sure I understand the second last sentence you
> wrote.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:39:39 -0500, Chapman <chapman0603 at rogers.com> wrote:
> > Well, The big issue in AntiO is overcoming the faith in lack, the 
> > zone of differentiation, as it were. Maybe all we need is to read 
> > "Purloined" then. I'm fascinated by your report of Deleuze's 
> > economy beyond surface/ depth, beyond reference, in LoS.
> >
> > "We owe to Jacques Lacan the discovery of this fertile domain of 
> > a code of the unconscious, incorporating the entire chain - or 
> > several chains - of meaning: a discovery thus totally 
> > transforming analysis. (The basic text in this connection is hih 
> > La letttre volee.) But how very strange this domain seems , 
> > simply because of its multiplicity- a multiplicity so complex we 
> > can scarcely speak of one chain or even of one code of desire. 
> > The chains are called "signifying chains" because they are made 
> > up of signs, but these signs are not in themselves signifying. 
> > The code resembles not so much a language as a jargon, an 
> > open-ended, polyvocal formation."
> >
> > They go on to say that it is the function of the BwO to interpret 
> > each of these chains, as they 'fall back' on it. If they allow 
> > for non-signifying, un- or non-metaphors, then they still seem to 
> > allow for interpretation. But it's interpretation different in 
> > kind from the one we're using to communicate with now.
> >
> > Chris.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-bounces at lists.driftline.org
> > [mailto:deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On
> > Behalf Of James Depew
> > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 6:57 AM
> > To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org
> > Subject: Re: [D-G] Deleuze and the symbolic
> >
> > Perhaps I "jumped the gun" a little in my last post.  Obviously I see
> > some connection between Lacan and D&G in their use of the void.  I
> > think that, however, for D&G the void is not a lack, and that this
> > makes for an significant difference (in more ways than one).  Perhaps
> > we might look at how, for Lacan, the subject is construed as a lack,
> > and how it tries, in vain (in vanity), to fill this empty space with
> > language.
> >
> > This also could connect with another thread on this list, comparing
> > Badiou and Deleuze.  They both refer to the void.
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:22:55 -0500, Chapman <chapman0603 at rogers.com> wrote:
> > > Maybe before we try to unpack LoS we can try to figure out a 
> > little more Lacan? See what's at stake a little better? I would 
> > like to know more than 'pancake' party tricks and necklaces of 
> > Signifier/signified. Any suggestions beyond "Purloined Letter"?
> > >
> > > Chris.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-bounces at lists.driftline.org
> > > [mailto:deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On
> > > Behalf Of James Depew
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 5:10 PM
> > > To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org
> > > Subject: Re: [D-G] Deleuze and the symbolic
> > >
> > > To be honest, I have always been a little unsure about the end of LoS.
> > >  My doubts were confirmed when Deleuze himself said "I've undergone a
> > > change.  The surface-depth opposition no longer concerns me.  What
> > > interests me now is the relationship between a full body, a body
> > > without organs, and flows that migrate."  This is perhaps the point at
> > > which Lacan becomes the "enemy", I don't know.  Nonetheless, LoS is
> > > worth studying in order to follow the development of Deleuze's
> > > thought.  I still think there is the attempt to bring thought and
> > > action together.  Yes, "Speaking presupposes the verb and passes
> > > through the verb", but "This is the verb which, in its univocity,
> > > conjugates devouring and thinking: it projects eating on the
> > > metaphysical plane and sketches out thinking on it."  Then again,
> > > those last few chapters of LoS, from the Twenty-Eighth Series of
> > > Sexuality on, are all very, very, dense.  If any one wants to risk a
> > > summary, that would be incredibly helpful.  For me, at least...
> > >
> > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:57:02 -0800, sid littlefield
> > > <falsedeity at lycos.com> wrote:
> > > > I am not sure if thinking and acting are re-united in D&G, 
> > since speaking and action are united but thinking does not take 
> > place under a sign, hence is not linguistic. Maybe look at the 
> > end of LoS where the sexual body is broken in order to think.  
> > Maybe this is just a mundane point that one cannot think while 
> > one is fucking, but I think not...
> > > >
> > > > sid
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "James Depew" <spatium at gmail.com>
> > > > To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org
> > > > Subject: [D-G] Deleuze and the symbolic
> > > > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:34:24 +0100
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't have an answer either, but here goes...
> > > > >
> > > > > The caesura of psychoanalysis, as I understand it, is the break that
> > > > > open the space between action and thought enabling one to perceive
> > > > > oneself "in the act".  However, the thought is not, in this case, in
> > > > > the act at all.  I think part of what D&G are attempting to provide,
> > > > > is something like an alternative whereby thought and act are reunited.
> > > > >   In therapy, this space occurs in a relationship between analyst and
> > > > > patient which the patient is eventually supposed to develop with
> > > > > himself.  The space has to come to exist in the patient.  Many
> > > > > theorists seem to think that Winnicott's transitional object is such a
> > > > > space.  However, Guattari disagrees.  He reformulates Winnicott's
> > > > > space into the "institutional object" which exists as the
> > > > > intersubjective locus of development.  So the site typically reserved
> > > > > for the ego is replaced by a generalized, or perhaps neuter, site of
> > > > > differential relations.  The subject is still void, thought here it is
> > > > > no longer dispersed amongst structural sites that eventually holds
> > > > > symbols for the construction of the subject – the filling in of the
> > > > > gap – instead the gap is already distributive.  As far as I can tell,
> > > > > this gap becomes the smooth space of the social and the circulation of
> > > > > forces across this space the virtual potential for formalization.  The
> > > > > social as subject.  However, when the social actualizes, striates, the
> > > > > circulation is inevitably(?) coded, channeled, controlled.
> > > > >
> > > > > I recently read somewhere about Blanchot's reading of Serge Leclair.
> > > > > Blanchot points to the third person position that disperses the power
> > > > > of the "I" as a matter of refusal.  I believe he uses the term neuter.
> > > > >   Here, the ego is always trying to destroy the third person that
> > > > > refuses to accept determination of "is".  The third person refuses to
> > > > > be negated by particularization.  A pure "he" or "it" without the "is"
> > > > > predicate.  In that refusal, that displaceability of the third person
> > > > > exists a multiplicity of experiences without particulars, a
> > > > > virtuality.  Guattari often refers to this "third".  This is how D&G
> > > > > turn the subject into a void, though not in the Lacanian sense.
> > > > > Yesterday I sat in on a lecture by Jean-Luc Nancy, and he suggests
> > > > > that poetry operates the same way – according to a break.  He points
> > > > > to the structure of the verse (versus: from vertere, to turn) as
> > > > > always returning to a baseline degree 0 site where it can begin again.
> > > > >   Poetic truth, he suggests, is torn from the void only to return to
> > > > > the void in order to speak again. (Unlike philosophy which just goes
> > > > > on and on...)
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, it seems to me that the symbolic has a differentiating
> > > > > function for D&G.  The third person continues to disperse itself in
> > > > > symbols, but not in the attempt to create a stable position, an ego,
> > > > > rather it is a kind of refusal of all particularization.  The symbolic
> > > > > is always intercalary, filling the void, and a mask for the sake of
> > > > > masking.  Thought and act reunited?
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> > > > > Admin interface:
> > > > > http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
> > > > 
> > http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> > > > Admin interface: 
> > http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> > > Admin interface: 
> > http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> > > Admin interface: 
> > http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> > Admin interface: 
> > http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> > Admin interface: 
> > http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Admin interface: 
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Admin interface: 
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org

-- 
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list