[D-G] Concepts seen as functions (malgosia askanas)

jcu jcu at execulink.com
Sat Jul 30 07:32:03 PDT 2011

HI Jeff,

And thank you for your rely. I am not an academic, nor a philosopher.
And it might be a question of (my) semantics. But if you are correct,  
the plane of immanence is consistent (as opposed to many planes),
perhaps what I refer to are its folds (as opposed to the within-without
structures of many planes), and those relations that form when disparate
elements connect like jump-cuts.


On 30-Jul-11, at 10:00 AM, Cain, Prof. Jeffrey P. wrote:

> Nice to think about this thread a bit more.  Joan, I do have a  
> question--if a concept could move from one plane of immanence to  
> another, this implies multiple planes of immanence, which seems to  
> me to pose at least some challenge to univocity. Or in other words,  
> I'm not following the move from the first part of your post to the  
> second :-)  Quite possibly this is my own fault, but I wonder if you  
> could write a bit more about it.
> Best,
> Jeff
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jeffrey P. Cain, Ph.D.
> Chair, Department of English HC221A
> Sacred Heart University
> Fairfield, Connecticut 06825
> 203.371.7810
> ________________________________________
> From:  jcu [jcu at execulink.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 8:39 AM
> To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
> Subject: Re: [D-G] Concepts seen as functions (malgosia askanas)
> Hello,
> If concepts are specific to philosophy (as percepts are to art,
> functions to science),
> and the making of them define the practice of philosophy, they are
> singularities (not
> universalities) that always attach themselves to other concepts on a
> plane of immanence.
> Somehow, concepts can jump from one plane (of immanence) to another,
> attach themselves
> to other concepts and by doing so, become-Other.
> Plane of Immanence means existing within (not without, not
> Transcendent), but since Deleuze
> denies Transcendence (a divine or metaphysical outside),  he claims
> the plane of immanence
> to be pure, unqualified, smooth space without division (no inside-
> outside), and hence his quote,
> " It is only when immanence is no longer immanence to anything other
> than itself that we can
> speak of a plane of immanence."
> Kind of like my neighbours who smoke around the clock and spill their
> class A carcinogens
> into my breathing space such that even when I step outside, I am
> breathing their air. NO inside-outside.
> The smooth space of cancer, formless, self-organizing, no longer self-
> contained field of air but the
> collapsed or flattened plane of your air = my air, or to rephrase, a
> plane (cloud?) of carcinogenic consistency
> that has no universal or transcendent notion of "clean". Instead, only
> movements of air and relations of
> movements (they smoke at 5 am, 7am, 9 am) and speeds or slownesses
> (the wind delivers it faster or slower
> to my lungs and through cracks in electrical outlets, air vents, door
> frames). Leaving me with only
> haecceities, affects, collective assemblages of their toxic air
> becoming my air; this plane knows
> only longitudes and latitudes (the geography of second hand smoke),
> speeds and haeceities,
> this plane of consistency (knowing they will addictively smoke again
> to fill my space).
> However, much as I try not to think about it, this plane is a
> wordless cloud without
> cessation. NO letter 'a' t/here.
> joan
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list