[D-G] Varela/Stengers : enaction /environment

[.Sylvia_Jenepi.]

Hi!

the concept of repetition in your example from D&R Deleuze, is not 
offering my understanding a proper way to conceive the relation or 
comparison between the first water lily, and « all the others ».

i know that Guattari in interview explained how Deleuze idea on D&R was 
the treasury hoard out of which he (and deleuze?) hunted to produce the 
concepts /creations of ATP.

but Guattari was if we consider evidence, mistaken on ATP: the « 
universality of the singular » is not a concept, nature as spinoza 
understood it in Ethics books, nature thinks. if teleology : asigning a 
goal to nature thoughts, like did Aristotle, was coveted, it is because 
the human thinker and his alliance with his society, wanted to be « 
close to the gods » and think as « fast », shortest path, and that's why 
it became interesting to get « universal ideas ». repetition is a « fast 
» word, but its not a concept that nature uses, except in humans. when 
human uses the word, the reality of the singular, precisely, escapes 
from  the comprehension offered by the fast word « universality of the 
singular » so much that it is not much less fuzzy and non-describtive 
than « generality of the particular ». just more « intellectually » 
informed. yes. but not encompassing of the thoughts « immanent » to the 
different stratas of nature. because there are different stratas: time 
matters with such strata, where exists an entity. but the same entity 
exists on a different strata simultaneously, and in this strata, the 
entity is affected/active with different entities than she is 
affected/active on the strata where there is a matter of time. but with 
what happens on the « time » mattered strata, the entity as it is 
active/affected in the « etheric », to call it that way, strata, can be 
indifferent to it, when simultaneously the entity as it is alive in the 
« time mattered » strata, will be hurt or pleased. it seems that the 
time mattered strata level contains for the entity, more events, thus 
more possibilities, but that considered at the same entity, the etheral 
strata is more important for absolute reality of the entity across a 
multiplicity of strata.

so if a lily compares itself to the next generation of lily offspring of 
the first lily, why to use the word « repetition » instead of « lily as 
a specie » ? it is different, but not offering much hope of considering 
the singularity as it is existing in different stratas, and in an 
absolute reality as a singular lily.

i think this is why Deleuze gave up the use of « repetition » as a 
concept, and prefered to consider stratas and crossing the multiplicity 
of strata, while considering the differences of population on each 
strata, population experienced by the absolute and singular entity, 
populations engaging the thinking productivity of each of the entities, 
whose thoughts were « activated » by the study of ATP.

On 29.05.2021 03:39, Mike Lansing wrote:

> you wrote: 'if science thoughts/experiments are/is founded on a 
> transcendental being then it can have more diffuse/molar power than a 
> power drifting from the "event-truth", that which resists man/organisms 
> thinking.'
> 
> Deleuze: 'Monet's first water lily which repeats all the others. 
> Generality, as generality of the particular, thus stands opposed to 
> repetition as universality of the singular.'
> (D&R, p.1)
> 
> Guattari: 'As for the mega-enterprises of the second voice/pathway, the 
> great collective industrial and scientific adventures, the management 
> of the large markets of knowledge, they evidently retain all their 
> legitimacy. This, however, is on condition that their purpose, which 
> today remains desperately deaf and blind to human truths, be 
> redefined....the purpose of the division of labor, like that of 
> emancipatory social practices, will have to end up being re-centered on 
> a (fundamental right to singularity [italics]), an ethics of finitude 
> that is all the more demanding with regard to individuals and social 
> entities the less it can found its imperatives on transcendent 
> principles....But one should not be deceived: these questions of of the 
> production of subjectivity no longer concern a handful of visionaries. 
> Look closely at Japan, the model of models for new capitalist 
> subjectivities! It has never been emphasized enough that one of the 
> essential ingredients of the miracle cocktail that it presents to 
> visitors consist in the fact that collective subjectivity, which is 
> massively produced there, associates the most 'hi-tech' components with 
> archaisms inherited from the depths of the past. There again one finds 
> the reterritorializing function of an ambiguous monotheism -- 
> Shinto-Buddhism, a mixture of animism and universal powers -- which 
> contributes to the establishing of a supple formula for 
> subjectification, which, it is true, goes well beyond the triadic 
> filter of Christian capitalist paths. There's a lot to learn!'
> (Schizo. Cartog. pp. 12-13)
> 
> '