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? > > ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005