Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:13:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Inna Runova Semetsky <irs5-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: re: The Empty Square


On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Charles J. Stivale wrote:
	
	Absolutely - and as a line of flight it becomes vanishing line
never
reaching but approaching own limit. But the issue also links to the recent
post
mentioning Deely: both Deely (as neo-Peircean) and Deleuze are affected by
Scotus. Diagram (perhaps in too literal a sense) in Peirce is an element
of thirdness - linking to
Deleuzian thirdness as something (or nothing - empty square?) between the
two. Deely addresses - seemingly very much in Deleuzian mood, although he
himself might not agree - virtual and actual semiosis
emphasizing magnitudes of thirdness and stating that without thirdness
semiosis would slip into brute actual. Deleuze is also explored by
Merrell (also neo-Peircean), and very well indeed.
Inna.
PS I briefly "articulated" diagram and Deleuze to soon appear in Semiotics
1998
by Peter Lang (tentat). 
==================		I was thinking about Steve's question last night, and thinking about the
> role that the differentiator takes in _Logique du sens_, shifting and
> reorienting/redirecting the series into a new one, I'd say that in Mille
> plateaux, the case vide/empty square becomes the "line of flight". A too
> quick response, needs development, but the traits of the "line of flight"
> tend toward the same functions, and more, as the earlier manifestation as
> case vide/empty square.
> Having said this, the diagram sounds like another interesting possibility,
> and it would be fun to articulate the movement of the line of flight
> across/through/within the diagram.
> CJ Stivale
> 
> At 08:41 PM 1/27/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >Diagram can be a differentiator, yes, any gap (empty --- non-place) that
> >simultaneously connects or links, like e.g. visible and articulable in
> >case of a diagram. I wonder if vanishing point belongs here too? Like when
> >things go beyond event-horizon that is become pure event? I dont think you
> >should worry about what causes what: it's more in a sense of efficient
> >causation that D. addressed virtual.
> >Inna.
> >
> >On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Stephen Arnott wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks to Paul, Paul and Charles for your most helpful responses. What a
> >> great resource this list can be. I haven't had a chance to think about it
> >> yet, but anyone got any ideas about what happens to the empty square in the
> >> ontology of Mille Plateaux? The "two-fold" aspect, described by the
> >> virtual/actual distinction, is still very much in evidence in MP, the
> >> Ecumenon and the Planomenon, but what then takes up the role of
> >> 'differentiator'? Abstract machine, I guess. Anyway, I suppose all of this
> >> is in Charles' book, which hopefully is winging its way to this distant
> >> outpost at this moment.
> >> 
> >> With regard to the Empty square as Event (capital E), I'm still unclear
> >> about this. The examples you cite, Gombrowicz's hanged animals (or rather
> >> hanged objects, the first is just a stick), Poe's purloined letter,
> >> Proust's Combray etc., are then all instances, particulars of a universal,
> >> The Unique Event. This means then that all the events in _Cosmos_
> >> communicate and are distributed in terms of the hanged objects etc. Is it
> >> then a normative universal which states that series can only interact
> >> according to this pardoxical element. 
> >> 
> >> I detect a confusion. The two series of which Paul Bryant wrote, the infant
> >> and adult series, their heterogeneity and interrelation by means of the
> >> empty square, appearing as a lack in one and an excess in the other - these
> >> two series which constitute a structure - cannot be equated with the
> >> virtual and the actual. The empty square does not cause the virtual and
> >> actual to communicate, but only virtual series which by communicating
> >> produce the actual.
> >> 
> >> Now I'm rambling, but thanks again for your help,
> >> 
> >> Steve
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> >
> 
> 
>