Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 11:44:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: CND7750-AT-UTARLG.UTA.EDU
Subject: re: brains and susan says


The brain as the main organ of the central nervous system is not the
same thing as the 'brain' as d&g deply the term. I am using the term
in its ordinary sense, not like d&g's abstract machine. But the brain
as a kind of BwO is, if i'm not terribly mistaken, very close to
many contemporary neuroscientific/connectionist theories of the brain.
So such a concept does get back around to d&g's. Deleuze's soft side
for neokantian garb when explainging 'thought' and the brain is, like
notions of pure exteriority, but soemthing of a romantic tie tothe
history of philosophy, one that is not only unnecessary for adequately
explainging the brain and its connections to temporal energy, but one
which hinders the construction of a new conceptual system from which
to comprehend the brain. I am still under the impression that Deleuzel
remains 'forgiving' of kantianism because he, for some reason, wihses
to hang on to the category of art and the sublime. Of course for
Deleuze art is not a category of the understanding, nor is the 
sublime some kind mystical transcendence fo the normal conditions
of sensibility, affectivity available to humans because they alone
possess 'understanding.' So what he fuck is it? Who knows? Those
supporting such childish notions have yet to explain how Deleuze
can argue that art is everything and everywhere as a kind of
sensibility and can yet remain 'art.'If the categories of 
representation and identity are liquidated how does art survive.l
Obviously it does not, excpet for those who, through no fault of
their own of course, for professional or personal reasons, are unable
to give it up.

cnd

     ------------------