From: Kalapsyche-AT-aol.com Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:10:20 EST Subject: Re: boundaries in flow In a message dated 10/26/1998 9:34:13 PM EST, Unleesh-AT-aol.com writes: << "Deleuze's texts are inherently without boundaries" Perhaps they are, but this does not mean they are without thresholds. They are a series of schizzes that skip across multiple milieus. Boundaries, or portals? >> So am I to understand that you are replacing the concept of thresholds with boundaries? I also have another question on this issue: You sent out an e- mail citing a journal artical that criticized psychologists for taking up a perspective that is too molar in character. In response to this, I'm lead to wonder if we are to expect the dismissal of all molar categories on the basis of those that confuse the molar with the molecular? As D. argues in chapter three of Difference and Repetition, the representational categories of good and common sense are always are always at work, but he does not argue from here that these categories are always illigitimate or without use. This point resembles another point that Nietzsche makes in "Truth and Lies in the Nonmoral Sense", in which he claims that we have to temporarilly forget the metaphorical character of our concepts in order to effectively use them. How would we effectively interact without some measure of molar actualization in place? Doesn't the real problem lie in reifying the molar and confusing it with the real in a manner akin to the confused applications of Kant's regulative Ideas with things as they are in themselves?
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005