File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1996/d-g_Mar.96, message 101


Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 13:51:22 +1000
From: P.Bains-AT-uws.EDU.AU (Paul Bains)
Subject: Re: Levy's notes


Frank,
going thru my mail I find your rave. Is there anything you would add to this?

>
>On Sat, 23 Dec 1995, Paul Bains wrote:
>
>> "Ramyond Ruyer (the last of Leibniz's great disciples) opposes "true forms"
>> to figures and structures. Figures are functions that refer to relative
>> positions ordered from one to the next, according to states of equilibrium
>> and horizontal linkages, even when their exists a relation of dominance. But
>> the so called substantial individual forms are absolute vertical positions,
>> surfaces or absolute volumes, unified areas or "overviews" unlike figures
>> which do not imply a supplementary dimension in order to be themselves
>> understood , and are not dependent as are preexisting and localizable
>> linkages. These are souls, monads, "self-surveilling" superjects." (The Fold
>> p.102).
>> "Il n'y a aucun sujet, aucun observateur, aucune super-rétine, dans une
>> dimension perpendiculaire, et pourtant tous les points, tous les détails de
>> la sensation sont présents, 'visible' =E0 la fois: _c'est une surface
>> intuitionée sans troisi=E8me dimension_." (Ruyer, La conscience et Le Corps,
>> p.58. (This little gem is definitely available from UCLA library).  
>> For Deleuze these superjects are absolute interiorities - having an inside
>> that is only for the inside. How would this relate to the current
>> fascination for the 'exteriorisation' of the subject?
>
>    great stuff....am wondering how this relates to (a) the early and
>freud-obsessed lyotard, who in "discourse/figure" contrasts (i think)
>"discourse" as 2-dimensional saussurian structure (binary s-s field of
>meaning) with the "figure" as "3-dimensional disruptive force on the
>"margins"  of language/discourse (as in, freud's latent and manifest
>dream-texts are both "discourse" but the violent transformation of one to
>the other, the "dream-work," is "figure"); (b) the whole rationalist
>"tradition" from descartes/spinoza/leibniz as it permeates p-m thinkers
>like deleuze, ie the relation of math and logic to "metaphysics," etc.;
>(c) the "fold" as we get it not just in deleuze's book on leibniz but also
>(differently?) in derrida ("the double session," mallarme, poetry/phil)
>and foucault ("madness and the absence of work" where f. talks about
>"in-foldedness of the work" and "work" = mallarmean "modern poetry" and
>also freudian "dream-work");  (d) the VIEW FROM ABOVE of the
>                     
>                      about-to-be-ex-teriorized
>                      sub-ject, about to
>                      pro-ject itself as thin projectile thru space
>                      to become a super-ject
>                      as versus the
>                      (always-already-interiorized)
>                      (windowless monads of molecules of the concrete)
>                      viw from below?
>
>


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005