[D-G] Mimesis & Simulacrum

[Mike Lansing]

There is too little time to comment on this at present.
<-----Original Message-----> 
>From: Johnatan Petterson [internet.petterson at gmail.com]
>Sent: 2/24/2017 12:30:43 PM
>To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>Subject: Re: [D-G] Mimesis & Simulacrum
>
>Hy. Still here in the Perpignan's Municipal Library.
>I managed to get you a hold on a french copy of LOS.
>Here follows required original (my very own off -the -cuff transl.)
>
>Gilles Deleuze, Logique du Sens, 1969
>Les Editions de Minuit. (Appendice p.295)
>
>"Nous partions d'une première détermination du motif platonicien :
>distinguer l'essence de l'apparence, l'intelligible
>du sensible, l'Idée et l'image, l'original
>et la copie, le modèle et le simulacre.
>Mais nous voyons déjà que ces expressions ne se valent pas.
>La distinction se déplace entre deux sortes d'images.
>Les _copies_ sont possesseurs en second,
>prétendants bien fondés, garantis par la ressemblance ;
>les _simulacres_ sont comme les faux prétendants,
>construits sur une dissimilitude,
>impliquant une perversion, un détournement essentiels.
>C'est en ce sens que Platon divise en deux le domaine des
>images-idoles:
>d'une part les _copies-icônes_,
>d'autre part les _simulacres-phantasmes_.(@)"
>
>((((((( - We started from a first determination in the platonician
>motive:
>to distinguish between the essence and the appearance,
>the intellegible and the sensible, the Idea and the image,
>the original and the copy, the model
>and the simulacrum.
>Yet we see how these expressions are no match to each other:
>The distinction displaces itself between two kinds of images.
>The _copies_ are owners in a second degree,
>well founded pretenders, warranted by similitude;
>whereas the simulacra are like false pretenders,
>built upon a dissimilitude,
>implying an essential perversion, an essential deviation.
>In this sense it is, that Plato divides in two the realm, the
idols-images:
>one one side, the _icons-copies_,
>on the other the _simulacra-phantasmata_.(@) )))))))))))))))
>
>
>
>
>(@)Deleuze's ref.note to Plato's The Sophist, 263b, 264 c.
>
>
>
>so, for yur ref. 266 e. _The Sophist_ Plato: as well here:
>~(french.transl.Nestor L.Cordero)-
>#
>"L'ETRANGER
>
>Rappelons que, si l'on devait montrer que ce qui
>est faux est réellement faux et qu'il est devenu ainsi un être
>parmi les êtres
>, il fallait prouver que,
>dans la technique de production d'images, il y avait deux genres :
>celui des copies et celui des illusions.
>
>
>((( Let it be reminded: were we to demonstrate that what stands false
>is really false et that because of that it became a being amongst the
other
>beings,
>we should provide evidence that, in the techne of images production,
there
>are two kinds:
>the one of the copies, the one of the illusions ))))))))))))
>
>THEETETE
>
>C'était ainsi.
>
>
>(((( Let it be so . ))))
>
>L'ETRANGER
>
>Nous l'avons montré donc.
>Et, par suite, ne sera-t-il pas incontournable de compter ces
>genres, réellement, comme deux?
>
>
>(((((So did we shew. And, follows, these kinds are in reality, numbered
>two: ))))))
>
>
>THEETETE
>
>Oui.
>
>L'ETRANGER
>
>Divisons donc à son tour le genre des illusions, en deux.
>
>THEETETE
>
>Comment?
>
>L'ETRANGER
>
>D'une part, il y a celles qui sont produites par des instruments ;
>d'autre part, il y a celles dont l'instrument est la
>personne elle-même qui produit l'illusion."
>
>(((((( (How?) says The Stanger:' On one side those
>produced by instruments ;
>on the other, those whose instrument is the human being producing the
>illusion '))))))))))))
>
>#
>--
>Now let's get further back to LOS Deleuze Ed de Minuit.1969:
>Appendice pp297-298:
>
>"Soit la grande trinité platonicienne :
>l'usager, le producteur, l'imitateur. Si l'usager est en haut de
>la hiérarchie, c'est parce qu'il juge des fins, et dispose d'un
véritable
>_savoir_ qui est
>celui du modèle ou de l'Idée. La copie pourrait
>être dite une imitation dans la mesure où elle reproduit le modèle;
>pourtant, comme cette imitation est noétique, spirituelle et
intérieure,
>elle
>est une véritable production qui se règle sur les relations et
proportions
>constitutives de l'essence. Il y a toujours une
>opération productrice dans la bonne copie et,
>pour correspondre à cette opération, une _opinion droite_ sinon un
savoir.
>Nous voyons donc que l'imitation est déterminée à prendre
>un sens péjoratif pour autant
>qu'elle n'est plus qu'une simulation,
>qu'elle ne s'applique qu'au simulacre et désigne
>l'effet de ressemblance seulement extérieur et improductif,
>obtenu par ruse ou subversion. Il n'y a même plus là
>d'opinion droite, mais une sorte de rencontre ironique
>qui tient lieu de mode de connaissance,
>un art de rencontre hors du savoir et de l'opinion. (@@)"
>
>(@@): ref.note by Deleuze's to : Plato's- République, X, 602 a. and:
>Sophiste, 268 a.
>
>(((((( Given, the famous platonician Ttinity:
>the user, the producer, the imitator.
>If the user stands at the top of the hierarchy, it is because she
judges of
>the ends,
>and holds at her disposition of a true _knowledge_ which is the model
or
>the Idea.
>the copy could be said a mimesis in this measure that it reproduces the
>model;
>nevertheless, as this mimesis is noetic, spiritual and interior,,
>it is truely a production anchored onto relations and proportions
>constituting the essence.
>There always is a productive operation in the right copy and,
>in order to match this operation, a _right opinion_ if not a
knowledge..
>We thus observe how mimesis is determined to be given a pejorative
meaning
>in as much case it be nothing else than a simulation,
>that it apply itself only to the simulacrum and designates
>the effect of a solely exterior and unproductive similitude,
>obtained by ruse (trick) and subversion.
>There, is none right opinion, yet a sort of a sly encounter,
>which stands as a modus cognoscendi, an art of encounter outside
>knowledge and opinion. ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>
>
>
>
>--->::::
>
>
>in my opinion, thus, we see how the chemical process of
>PhotoGraphy has changed the given
>in the arts of mimesis, it is like a "black box" described by Bruno
Latour
>in "La Science en Action",
>enabling us to shun the right_opinion operation.
> the noetic mimesis Deleuze is alluding to in Plato's times.
>this noetic operation has been substituted by the techne of
photography,
>and the other techne of similitudes by
>"black boxes". in my opinion, hence the role asigned by Deleuze to
>photography in his book on Francis Bacon, and in LOS
>his development on simulacrum as supra.
>Deleuze is portrayed currently by accademia in Paris often as a
>anti-phenomenologist.
>Because of political turn of discussion regarding Phenomenology in DG
in
>WIP?
>Yet i see him as only deepening a phenomenologist
>stand which can be seen for example in Jean-Louis Déotte, L'Epoque des
>Appareils (Edition Lignes et Manifestes 2004)-
>
>So, My Wonder: if Plato is inspired by the complexion of socius in his
time,
>how was this socius, etc.
>
>Regards,
>Johnatan P.
>_______________________________________________
>List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>Info:
http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>Archives: www.driftline.org 


<span id=m2wTl><p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2" style="font-size:13.5px">_______________________________________________________________<BR>Get the Free email that has everyone talking at <a href=http://www.mail2world.com target=new>http://www.mail2world.com</a><br>  <font color=#999999>Unlimited Email Storage – POP3 – Calendar – SMS – Translator – Much More!</font></font></span>