File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1998/deleuze-guattari.9810, message 299


From: Assad Dib <A.M.Dib-AT-lboro.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: boundaries in flow
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:29:31 +0000


AUnleesh wrote
> Also, how does including the disjunction of "just happened" and "about to
> happen" establish the "eternal" nature of events? Are we discussing an
>"always
> happening" that touches upon manifestation only at certain points? So that
>the
> virtual and manifest planes are like two rippling surfaces that turbulently
> touch each other, and a virtual plateau that is "always happening" impinges
> like a three-dimensional solid onto flatland onto the manifest plane in such
>a
> way that it divides into "just happened" and "about to happened"? 

I think that the eternal nature of the event comes the fact of having a sort
of infinitive 
temporality that keeps interweaving through the constituents of the plane of
immanence in 
the course of the event's own differentiation.  The loop of the event that
is (un)folding the 
two vectors of time (v1: just happened and v2; about to happen) is the
imperceptable that 
leaves the traces of its own differentiation at the moment that exceeds it.
So, it looks as if
the eternal aspect of the event is a dynamism that is not a generality. One
can say, it is 
absolute but always already specific (a solution for the finite and infinite
relation). 

Unleesh wrote also:

Or are
>there
> even more temporalities into which it divides? Would these be according to
>the
> perceivers? At the car accident, 4 human witnesses, 26 ants, 6 birds, 2 bees,
> 3 plants, one tic, and a partridge in a pear tree? So eachly of these eachly
> perceives "the" event, so that we really have AT LEAST 42 events here, at
> least on the manifest plane???
>  >>

I like your example. It is lucidly expressive of the multiplicity of
temporalities. 
It seems that the reinterpretation that Paul did of your example (see below)
does
not fit with deleuze's understanding of the infinitive element of the event. 

Paul commented on Unleesh:
>  Your latter remark involving the 42 events seems to be the most profitable
>way to go.  However, it is not 42 events, but 42 perspectives on an event.
>This is the way in which events enable the possibility of co-ordination.  In
>short, for our sorts of beings an perspective is always organized around a
>manifestor, a denotation, and a signification that are clustered around the
>sense or event that organizes them.  

I might be wrong. The way you have proceeded in clarifying unleesh's point is 
conveying a humanist perspective on the event. A relation of knower to known.
However, from another email message where you discussed the issue of Lebneiz's
conception of inhuman perception, one can realise that the above position on the
event might be contradictory. Well, there are two sides of the coin here. We
find
ourselves confronting again the issue of one and many. On the side of the
event itself, 
the unityis always having a sort of conjunction or disjunction. So the event is 
E+1 or E-1. In both cases, the event is events. On side of the event in
relation with
the differences that become a milieu for its movement, it is also a
multiplicity. 
In consequence, there are 42 events in coexistence with the event that is
moving in its
own line of differentiation.   

amdib



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005