[D-G] In the opening pages of Repetition and Difference,

[Harald Wenk]

dear list,

I don't know, if the group who came to read Deleuze and Guattari still works.

Now, that science concerns only the general stems from
Aristoteles.
So, the singular  is handled as  a general and as a special.
This is related to  the logic of predicates of Aristotle, which is
a little bit changed, turned into propositional
functions  by Russel and others.
There indeed the main feature is, to be applied to
different arguments, giving.
x  is red for example.
The proposition is general, the applicability of the propositional function
is the specialization.

That repetition needs something that repeats, a mechanism, a habit or a will
and is a behaviour is something else,
in spite some repetition maybe general.

Now natural laws in general, e.g. thermodynamics and electrostatic 
fields,  tend to an equilibrium. Where some periodic
orbits like in celestial mechanics occur,
there is a friction or something other
destroying process, so that there is something active that has to repeat.


The sun captures a planet or some meteor, and in this capture, if it 
results in a periodic orbit around the sun,
we have a repetition of the orbit of the planet or the meteor.
This is  a first example,
"Not a second or  third time add a to the first one,
but to lift the first to the nth potency".
The first repetition has all the others to the "n^th" potency,
as stated,.
This lies in the perodicty of the orbit,
producing the same velocities and positions as the first time.
So,the first time productin produces odf the orbit produces
the n tiimes production of the orbit,
its n°potency.
A periodic orbit is produced by the first orbit.
  being a function of "circle" solution.
So, Halley's comet is a capture on an extremly narrow elliptic orbit 
around the sun.

If it is one time on a periodic orbit, it wil stay there until 
somethinmg throws it out,
myriads, very large n times.
The sun is something singualar.

"If the exchange is the criterium of genrality, theft and gift are 
are the criteria of repetition".

As the planet or meteore is captured, this maybe a metaphorical "theft".

At last for today I like to remimd,
that analytical philosophy, the main philosophical rival
in the analysis of the notions of difference and repetition,
is strongly related  to behvioursm.
Therefore, invoking Aristotle and Witgenstein very indirect,
it isa fine philosohphical hunor, that Deleuze shows here.

Difference and repetion are so important, because
a deviation of homogenous identiy involves differences,
in thinking and in existence.
Differences of energy are the ultimate last reason
for phaenomolgical differences.
We have the double: Secondary quality problem:
 From energy to stable elemntry particles, from there to
agrregations of molecules, like the DNA,from there to gross,
visible bodies and structures.
Not to forget the "incorporal" transformatiosn of tha  bodies
by thinking events and communications.
So,there are at least two "back worlds"

This applies for the human body, resulting in an unconciousness and habits.
Repetion is the most common and and often only way to
continue existence by oneself as a finite thing for an infinte or 
very long time.

It structurese reality, especially our daily lives.
And repteating things combine good, as the durance gives more chance to do so.
They are on the heart of machines too.

In the brain, peridic cycles or repetions structure brain activity 
to a large extent.

Even eternal repetition is possible,  a real infinte time has already 
gone backward in times.



Greetings Harald Wenk





Am Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:58:26 +0200 schrieb Super Dragon 
<superdragon at addlebrain.com>:

>Hello all, nice to see some ineresting activity on this list.
>
>i must admit i get very 'stuck' on the opening pages of DR. 
>Repetition is not generality-isn't that a generality masked under an 
>apophatic strategem?-reminds me of negative theology. it might be 
>interesting to have a dialogue with ATP at the same time-i am sure 
>that generality as described by Deleuze becomes molarity in this 
>text -and I am even more sure that the Nietzsche of Heidegger is 
>synonymous with this molarity. What is going on with this ecluded 
>self same of singularity that repeats with monotonous regularity? 
>there seems to be a monumental dimesnion to the repetition that does 
>not fit the claims of repetitions.
>
>just some thoughts
>R
>
>nb i hope the conversation stays on this list-it would be good to share it
>-i hope it stays here as i would get lot
>
>Sloughing one's skin.-The snake that cannot slough its skin 
>perishes. Likewise spirits which are prevented from changing their 
>opinions; they cease to be spirits (Nietzsche: Daybreak:V:573)
>