[D-G] the "virtual"
jeremy.livingston at gmail.com
Mon Jan 24 08:20:44 PST 2005
I think "virtual" is meant to be a concept of (dare I say it)
ontology; I think it's meant to be a contribution toward getting a
vocabulary in which we can talk about the world without resorting to
objectivistic or transcendental realism. "Virtual" is a concept of
immanence and dynamism: the "virtual" is that (or "virtuals" are
those) by virtue of which an event unfolds in just the way it does;
the virtual factor is an analytic element of "A LIFE" (where
life-events are immanent to consciousness). The virtual is the power
of the world. Like a less metaphoricalized or anthropomorphized
version of Nietzsche's locus of "will to power", if you like -- and I
think this is important, that "virtual" is meant to mean "pertaining
to power", virtus, not "pertaining to the unreal or illusory".
Or maybe I'm just mixed up.
> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:21:45 -0800
> From: "sid littlefield" <falsedeity at lycos.com>
> Subject: RE: [D-G] Deleuze and the symbolic
> To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org
> Message-ID: <20050122032145.0161C86B0D at ws7-1.us4.outblaze.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 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.
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari