[D-G] Life altering

.Sylvia_Jenepi. sylvia_jenepi at brokenvessels.xyz
Tue Jun 26 16:17:54 PDT 2018


regarding kantian fractured cogito,
the I THINK "formal" thought is a new layer on top
which Kant wants to add to the crowds of the european revolution
going wild on the continent since 1789.

i don't undersdtand : it's so confusing: feeling is an experience, so
why the need to distinguish with two differents words?

[what is becoming a feeling: what was it before being a feeling, and 
what will it become?
can't we have an answer on that, even using related absolute notions 
would be of help i guess.
and what becomes of an experience? or aswell: what was an experience 
before being an experience?
is there no evolutive line between each, even if its not a hand drawn 
line, that doesnot say sensation
is après-coup, a residue, wip? say sensation is a vibration.]

the origin of deleuze views, as come in probleme de l'expression [cfr . 
singular versus individual]
is from atomism (bc.greece) that's a general thought motivation in 
deleuze: to
combine several ideas coming from various backgrounds
that's his superficiality as well.

he so experiment ie.tries to explain his 'feelings'
by atoms.

the 'difference' between atoms comes in cc spinoza and the 
archistructure.this ain't no
atomism. i think wip? glanced at painting and vermeer
vue de delft already, and before there was lawrence turtle baby 
geometric scales in 1000plateaux.

this comes from his wife probably.

she Fanny  is pure geometry and holds no particle in becoming. She a 
stand still.

because She was so disinterested in deleuze becomings.

nb oh, this is weirdo by shaviro to explain aesthetical capitalism
by the third deleuzian synthesis:):):)

i am not sure either why distinguish a Fanny's beauty driven free third 
from a mecano first synthesis.or from recording.

here we get a chance to understand:
capitalistic and Outer Forces
explained or everything brought back into 
deleuze-philosopher-transcendental monad, right.

3 and may-be many more: recording, distributing, layers from Big Outside 
brought into the critical eye.

like in comment line:Levi seem say this is passive synthesis, because 
not a subject: above it, right, is
this what you we're about to explain Drake?

sylvia jenepi
(just a messenger)

On 26.06.2018 02:56, Drake Gossi wrote:
> Let me preface this remark by just saying that I have been silent on 
> this
> list for a while now (though I joined, say, four months ago?), but it 
> has
> mostly because I joined the list because I wanted to not only discuss D 
> &
> G, but to also learn more about them. So, I'm excited to reply to 
> Daniel
> because of how he has invited others into a conversation wherein we can
> reaffirm our love for these two figures, while at the same time pushing 
> the
> bounds of our knowledge about them a bit. So, I solicit more 
> conversations
> like this one. Can we just talk about D & G and learn from each other 
> about
> them?
> So, Daniel, I struggle with Deleuze, and right now I'm struggling with 
> his
> thoughts on subjectivity, so I'm thinking of the three syntheses--I
> believe--in *Difference and Repetition*. To me, the subject for Deleuze 
> is
> a kind of after-feeling or feeling of having been affected and
> simultaneously affecting others. These affects sediment into something
> that's not asocial or private--certainly not--but an idiosyncratic and
> networked form of subjectivity, one made of solely of  all of my past
> repurposings of the world. And I take this to mean what you were saying
> earlier, that is, when you said that there's this complexity that 
> emerges
> from rules and games but that isn't available in or doesn't get 
> absorbed
> back into those rules and games. The subject accumulates, but is not
> appropriated and is not in fact appropriable (is useless or
> *désœuvrement--*though
> I'm sure Zizek and Badiou argue differently). I've heard this called a
> membrane elsewhere, the subject as a membrane--or a kind of liminal 
> space...
> Any thoughts on this? Do you know how this relates to the three 
> syntheses?
> I remember this link from Shaviro <http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=648>
> being helpful... This is another one by Levi Bryant
> <https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/deleuze-on-simondon-and-individuation/>that
> might be helpful too; it's on individuation. Or, perhaps easier 
> question:
> Do you know how these ideas you're discussing relate back to a specific 
> D &
> G text?
> Here's another topic for discussion, one that bugs me frequently: how 
> is
> Deleuze's version of difference different than Lyotard's?
> Drake
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Daniel Fineman <dand at oxy.edu> wrote:
>> For me, D&G have been the most consequential philosophers of all. 
>> While the
>> ramifications of there thought seem nearly infinite and so impossible 
>> to
>> enumerate, the general consequences for me seem somewhat captured in 
>> two
>> attitudes. First, I understand all the normal - extensive - 
>> actualizations
>> which constitute the social frame as games with rules and elements
>> institutionalized to form structures of regular intelligibility. 
>> Second, I
>> find I attend to my own becoming as an ongoing and so dynamic 
>> conjuncture
>> of unanticipateable complexity that is, thereby, unavailable to those 
>> very
>> normative structures.
>> Others?
>> Danp
>> _______________________________________________
>> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>> Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-
>> driftline.org
>> Archives: www.driftline.org
> _______________________________________________
> 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