[D-G] n-1: subtraction or abstraction?

[James Depew]

I have been trying to make sense of this discussion about Deleuze and
the symbolic.  Where we left off, it was proposed that some kind of
interpretation was still present in D&G, despite their rejection of
sense through the hermeneutic or evaluative mode.  Their rejection, as
far as I understand it, replaces the emphasis on whether desire
functions in terms of pre-existing social relations.  That is, instead
of interpreting the signifier, it is a matter of whether it functions
in a chain.  So far, Lacan.  But I think that one of the key
differences is their emphasis on the site of inscription - the domain
of metonymy rather than the chain, so to speak.  The actual is thus an
effect of productive desiring machines carrying out social investments
(the investments of social machines).

For Lacan, the subject is an effect of reference given the absence of
a referent (lack).  For D&G, insofar as they can be said to theorize
the subject it is probably a revolutionary subject that ensures the
continued displacement of the chains and is displaced in relation to
itself.  The succesful schizo is the one that doesn't try to fit flows
into paranoid arrangements.  "The madman doesn't decode in the sense
that he would harbour a secret the meaning of which ordinary people
have forgotten, but rather he decodes in the sense that he sits in his
little corner and makes little machines which make the flows pass and
which make social codes break down."  There is an order to
displacement, distinct from lineal codes and State overcoding, that
lets the flows pass/circulate.

I think that this is where we encounter the symbolic in Deleuze, in
this order of displacement, in repetition.  Deleuze says as much in
Difference and Repetition: "repetition is in its essence symbolic;
symbols or simulacra are the letter of repetition itself.  Difference
is included in repetition by way of disguise and by the order of the
symbol."




On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:47:52 -0500, Chapman <chapman0603 at rogers.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> let's finish the analogy:
> 
> 'the actual', is reality mediated by interpretation.
> 
> when i'm trying to hum theory's tune
> this is what i think.
> 
> what is language redundant to?
> 
> -----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 sid littlefield
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 10:22 PM
> To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org
> Subject: RE: [D-G] Deleuze and the symbolic
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>