[D-G] Concepts seen as functions
Cain, Prof. Jeffrey P.
CainJ at sacredheart.edu
Thu Apr 28 11:42:30 PDT 2011
RV, thanks for the interesting comments. I do understand, I think, a reasonable part of this issue with regard to schizoanalysis--though I will never claim to have any of D&G's concepts completely or even mostly exhausted, especially not schizoanalysis. But the part of _What is Philosophy?_ that has always seemed a bit vague to me (and I blame it on my own lack of mathematical sophistication, not Deleuze and Guattari), is Part Two, Section Five, "Functives and Concepts." Specifically, the English translation says that "the first functives are the limit and the variable and reference is a relationship between the values of the variable, or, more profoundly, the relationship of the variable, as abscissa of speeds, with the limit" (118-119).
I'd be gratified to resolve a gnawing question about how this relates to differential calculus, the limit theory, the asymptote, mathematical functions, etc; particularly since D&G do make remarks elsewhere that implicate the calculus. Perhaps an unfocused but well-intentioned question would be: "how is schizoanalysis like differential calculus?" But I already sense that it isn't formulated rigorously. Again, I assume this is my own ignorance--I can say that I've been working fairly hard on my math for the last couple of months, have arranged to audit a calculus class and am definitely trying to get there by myself. (My Ph.D. is in English!) But it occurred to me earlier today that someone on the list might have a complete understanding from a mathematical point of view. Just thought I'd clarify my reasons for writing.
"Abscissa," by the way, seems to be a somewhat outdated word in English--I understand it as simply the term one plots on the x or horizontal axis of a Cartesian grid. My pre-calculus book doesn't use the term, so I'm also wondering whether it has any other meaning for D&G.
Thanks again, RV, for your very kind help.
Jeffrey P. Cain, Ph.D.
Chair, Department of English HC221A
Sacred Heart University
Fairfield, Connecticut 06825
Office Hours Spring 2011: Mondays 12:00-2:00; Wednesdays 12:00-2:00; Fridays 11:30-12:15
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org [deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org] on behalf of saphiregnauld [saphi.regnauld at numericable.fr]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 1:37 PM
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] Concepts seen as functions
according to D+G and at least in french "concepts" are not "functifs"
and will never be..
Concepts are able to mobilize the movement whereas functifs are said to
immobilize the movement in order to build a true equation.. This is
one the worst D+G idea : concepts are only for philo and science is left
with second order ideas which are called functifs.
The basis of this is in "cartographies schizoanalytiques" by G (alone)
when he dismisses neuro sciences and wants to promote schizio analysis
(in the french edition it is page 47 to 51)
" notre souci principal est de developper un cadre conceptuel qui
prémunisse la schizo A contre toute tentation de s'abandonner à l'idéal
de scientificité qui prévaut ordinairement dans le domaine "psy" "..
which in english is something like :
"our main aim is to develop a conceptual framework which may prevent
schizo A to be leaning toward the idealistic scientist model which
usualy dominate the "psy" field..."
Good idea , absolutely great idea for the "psy" field. But the problem
is that other sciences do not fit with this local epistemic model. For
so called "natural sciences" such as geology or physical geography or
ecology.. there is no need to separate the concept (which ables the mind
to move) and the functif which stops the minds and reduces it to a set
of neuronal interactions.
There no mind in natural sciences.. and this difference between self
concious minds and incouncious minds does mean anything.
So D+G should not have taken the model of neuro science vs schizo A as
a universal model of the relation between science and philosophy..
Hopelessly this is not a main topic in the excellent book about Deleuze
it is of the most tricky aspect of D+G work and working about it is a
difficult task.. You have to get back to the early book on Hume and to
all the difficults relations between D and G at the end of their lives
(see Dosse's book) .
See, above all, A Sauvagnargues' mega excellent book on "empirisme
transcendantal" (in french) and some papers in in Chimères..
malgosia askanas a écrit :
> Dear All,
> When D&G, in WiP, refer to the view that concepts are functions, are
> they referring to Frege, or is there an earlier philosophical
> tradition that proposes this view of concepts? I recently chanced
> upon a text that claimed the latter, but now I cannot locate it
> again. Your help will be much appreciated.
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari