/lit/ - Literature

>>13124148
Thoughts on Deleuze's "metaphysics of difference": Unawares, Deleuze *identifies* and *associates* (operative words designated) entities (or "systems", to be more sympathetic to his project) by means of difference. This takes place in the abstract, without the use of specific examples, instead hypothetical objects that are implicitly acknowledged by Deleuze in his putting-pen-paper (whether he likes it or not), but it takes place nevertheless; an identification and association of n-many (to use Deleuze's nomenclature) entities *by means of difference* is made. The subtext: n-many entities are the *same* in that they are different (how else could they have been identified or associated if not by means of sameness?). The complete and utter priority of the process of identification and association inherent to not only language but signing in general prevails. The ramifications: Underlying Deleuze's supposed "metaphysics of difference" is one of sameness; the "Platonic ideal of difference", "difference itself".

>>13124451
putting-pen-to-paper*

>>13124451
You're saying that Deleuze's literal rhetoric undermine his arguments about difference?

Also I haven't gotten that far lol

Any choice quotes about Immanence that I can look forward to?

I hate how Deleuze writes, it's so random and 'le epic meme hahah'. It's annoying, doesn't have to be like that.

>>13124998
he hits a much larger range of feelings and intensities that way

>>13124451
>This takes place in the abstract, without the use of specific examples
> The ramifications: Underlying Deleuze's supposed "metaphysics of difference" is one of sameness; the "Platonic ideal of difference", "difference itself".
what how, he uses specific examples all the time
can you elaborate?

My understanding was that he demonstrates material morphogenesis of actual difference, that difference itself is a real field called the plane of immanence.

Deleuze is a genius.

Difference and Repetition is a metaphysical calculus to upgrade previously algebraic conceptions. X is not A + B + C but the area under the curve of whole universe as defined by the expression of X. This will be the gunpowder or the internal combustion engine of philosophy.

>>13124451
Fair critique. Good post. I find myself mostly thinking along the same lines when I ponder Deleuze these days. Multiplicity is not new. Nor is materialism. Heraclitus is the original thinker of multiplicity (or difference). But even he unites them under the umbrella of the logos as fire -- hence the ease with which he is assimilated with Parmenides by Plato and Aristotle. In some sense the problem of the one and the many reminds me of particle wave duality. It is both and neither. Entity and force. No need to pick sides. Hegel, of course, establishes similar aporias with his dialectics of contradiction -- despite Deleuze pretending to ignore him. Maybe I am biased but Hegel, IMO, is, no doubt, superior to Deleuze from an idealist perspective and Marx provides a gateway to a materialist understanding of Hegel. Materialism has its own set of problems. But Deleuze at least has the courage to rebel against the "good will of the thinker" (the idea that pursuing truth will necessarily lead to truth). Absolutists love to say this is nonsense but I think it is as likely to be true as the reverse. If we are naught but material and not ideal then there is no reason to suppose that the good fortune of truth awaits all the philosophers who are earnest. Nietzsche makes a similar point with supposing truth be a woman. Women are tricksters who love tricksters. Why not truth? There is also a certain irony when he refers to schizophrenia as if it is a platonic form when even scientists agree there is no monolithic disorder despite the label but merely a convenient grouping of certain psychoses. Quite an inconvenient truth. Along with his actual dislike of schizos. One of many reasons, I like Guatarri better. Nevertheless, I find certain things in his writings insightful. The idea of a non-representational nature to consciousness is helpful in breaking the spell of analytic philosophy -- although much better treated in Rorty's Mirror of Nature. The Logic of Sense is better than Difference and Repetition insofar as it is constructive of useful concepts. Better than Capitalism and Schizophrenia too which is mostly a revolt against Daddy Lacan and Grandaddy Freud. Affect theory is incredibly enlightening and developed best in Logic of Sense. People often talk about his revolution in philosophy but I do not see it (aside from affect theory). The idea of relations and process is better expressed by Whitehead. Maybe even Buddhism and Daoism do it best.
>>13124998
>>13125012
Agreed with both of you.
>>13126266
Disagree with you. His biggest contributions are to psychology. He is an unoriginal failure of a philosopher.

Bump

>>13127062
Could you elaborate on your last point? If you're a Hegelian I would think it's natural that you disagree with any kind of materialism but I feel like Deleuze's brand is very light. Deleuze might address Hegel somewhere else, idk

Is your argument about absolutism from Hegel too? I really don't know much except dialectics and related concepts.

>scientists agree there is no monolithic disorder despite the label but merely a convenient grouping of certain psychose
Uh I'm not sure this is true, I agree schizophrenia is difficultly defined but to go as far as "convenient grouping" disagrees with most modern psychological research

Next on my reading is Process and Reality, so I'll see.

>>13126266
I really don't think it's a metaphysical calculus, although he explores the metaphysics of calculus as a expression of difference

>>13128851
Which point(s) would you like me to clarify? Sorry to sound dumb but I am having trouble unpacking my rambling phonepost and discerning what you refer to. Yes, I suppose you could call me Hegelian. Phenomenology is probably my favorite philosophy book. I am hoping to read the Science of Logic soon. I like Deleuze and Guatarri a lot (especially as a clinically diagnosed schizophrenic I have been inspired by them quite a bit) but I don't think their insights require any sort of radical re-evaluation of philosophy the way their followers claim. Most of their followers seem unoriginal and more obsessed with buzzwords and style over substance too. I encounter the same problem with Laruelle. Is it really non-philosophy? Or just non-standard philosophy? Even he has begun to claim it is merely the latter. It could be said that I have been trying to sublate them all into my own system, though my thoughts borrow heavily from the Lacanian-Hegelian-Marxist school...

>re: schizophrenia

That's what I recall my teacher telling me in my abnormal psychology class as well as what I read in the CBT handbook to schizophrenia. Would make sense with the ways different patients require different meds and some fail to respond at all as well.

A quick googling reveals this article:

https://source.wustl.edu/2014/09/schizophrenia-not-a-single-disease-but-multiple-genetically-distinct-disorders/

>Process & Reality
Good shit. Semi-Hegelian IMO.

One of the tragedies of Deleuzean thought is his (alleged) suicide / death before confronting Marx (and Hegel)...

I think that Hegel, like Plato, is somewhat unavoidable if one seeks to imbibe a system. But perhaps there is no system...

To quote Fucko:

>[T]ruly to escape Hegel involves an exact appreciation of the price we have to pay to detach ourselves from him. It assumes that we are aware of the extent to which Hegel, insidiously perhaps, is close to us; it implies a knowledge, in that which permits us to think against Hegel, of that which remains Hegelian. We have to determine the extent to which our anti-Hegelianism is possibly one of his tricks directed against us, at the end of which he stands, motionless, waiting for us.

Lol :^)

>>13128983

I agree with your point about Laruelle, although granted I've not read much of himself, non-philosophy is just a way to attract attention imo.

Hmm reconsidering, Deleuze isn't that special, but understanding him is a great tool to understand most contemporary philosophy, especially in the speculative realism camp. He does have cool insights, but lots of unnecessary verbiage.

That article talks about the genetic clustering of schizophrenia, but the study abstract is more illustrative.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25219520

So it does give some credence to your idea, that it is a group of disorders are are correlated in a network, which is interesting because it connotates how schizophrenia might be archetypal -- correlated traits put into one character. Although it is a preliminary study and weak evidence- just correlating epidemiologies -- it is interesting and I would tend to agree with you.

That quote from Foucault is really interesting, I think it demonstrates the corrosive nature of idealism, how external states can be constantly mapped into internal states so that in appearances, there are no external states.

Meow :3

>>13127062
>There is also a certain irony when he refers to schizophrenia as if it is a platonic form when even scientists agree there is no monolithic disorder despite the label but merely a convenient grouping of certain psychoses.
hes not using schizophrenia to refer to actual schizophrenic people, hes specifically using it as a "split-mind" ideological view of the world reproduced by capitalism, neo-liberal cognitive dissonance, commodity fetishism is "schizophrenic" process

>>13129140
>So it does give some credence to your idea, that it is a group of disorders are are correlated in a network, which is interesting because it connotates how schizophrenia might be archetypal --

almost like some kind of a line of flight emanating from interdependent material conditions actualizing from a field of difference?

>>13126266
good bait

>>13128851
read Leibniz

>>13127062
>Maybe even Buddhism and Daoism do it best.
check out this and the companion volume if you're interested

>>13127062
>The idea of relations and process is better expressed by Whitehead.
http://www.shaviro.com/Othertexts/DeleuzeWhitehead.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304646766_Introduction_Deleuze_Whitehead_Bergson_-_Rhizomatic_Connections

>>13129477
Maybe
>>13129354
Also I haven't read A Thousand Plateaus, is independent material conditions mentioned in there?

Also I would argue with civilization it is interdependent material conditions, were you the anon who ;( at Deleuze dying before analyzing Marx?


How I would view it as excitation between the medium of society and singular(ity)? difference field of being~

>>13130243
>were you the anon who ;( at Deleuze dying before analyzing Marx?
That was not me.
>>13129140
>>13129354
Agreed. But with qualifications that it could be both. I guess this indirectly supports Deleuze however...

Have you read Judge Schreber? Bataille? I feel excess and lack are the two antimonies of the modern noumeknight.

>>13130431
*both and neither nor both and neither nor not both and neither

>>13130243
>>13130431
*that was me originally but not me in response (am sadface)

>>13129540
Looks dope. I like Nishida.
>>13126227
Univocity.

>>13130431
Are you talking to both of us?
I am >>13130243, >>13130240 and OP

For me I haven't read Schreber, but on first look he is interesting.

I have a bit of Bataille, parts of Erotism, which developed in taboo and war, but it kinda got boring.

Hmm I didn't know there was a Schreber in Dark City, maybe that has connections in trends of idealism

Ugh I don't remember if I got far enough in Critique of Pure Reason to get to antimonies. Honestly I need to finish....

What do you mean by noumeknight?

>>13130555
Fuck I meant >>13129140 not >>13130240

>>13124451
So these words actually mean something. Well today I learned im dumb.

>>13130503
>Univocity.
That's like saying because gravitational singularities aren't physical objects gravity is idealism yet the planets spin. The line that defines the area under the curve exists even when the object in question is the area itself. The actual border between my skin and the air around me or the tip or a meter can't be measured to the atom yet my body is real.

>>13130626
No singularity is just when something changes meaning, transitions or whatever. When interpreted through Deleuze, it would be when our definition of space time for the black hole changes meaning, but since it is indeterminate it changes to idealism, physical to theoretical

The time you spend deliberating over Deleuze's contrived verbiage would be better spent reading popsci. There's little value in his linguistic abstractions.

>>13130664
only i am silly, im not familiar so i try to absorb it in

also u can do both

>>13130555
>>13130559
Nyaa :3
>>13130574
Sweet summerchild
>>13130626
>>13130652
>>13130664
>>13130689
Yes

>>13124148
Anyone else who wants to talk more add me :333

Eden#5673

>>13130652
A gravitational singularity is not a transition but a physical measurable fixed point, the core of the earth flows towards an actual place not an idealized form. The edge of a waterfall is a place I can point to even if the water over it is in constant flux.

>Deleuze adapts the doctrine of univocity to claim that being is, univocally, difference. "With univocity, however, it is not the differences which are and must be: it is being which is Difference, in the sense that it is said of difference. Moreover, it is not we who are univocal in a Being which is not; it is we and our individuality which remains equivocal in and for a univocal Being.

> Deleuze at once echoes and inverts Spinoza, who maintained that everything that exists is a modification of the one substance, God or Nature. He claims that it is the organizing principle of Spinoza's philosophy, despite the absence of the term from any of Spinoza's works. For Deleuze, there is no one substance, only an always-differentiating process, an origami cosmos, always folding, unfolding, refolding. Deleuze and Guattari summarize this ontology in the paradoxical formula "pluralism = monism".

>it is not the differences which are and must be
>For Deleuze, there is no one substance

>>13130816
space time is undefined pass singularity, there is no analytic or physical measurement of it, I'm not saying singularity is what is undefined, I'm saying once you pass it, spacetime is undefined. The path over the waterfall is would be undefined

"While there are competing definitions of spacetime singularities, the most central and widely accepted criterion rests on the possibility that some spacetimes contain incomplete, inextendible paths. Indeed, the rival definitions (in terms of missing points or curvature pathology), as we will see, rely on the notion of path incompleteness. "

>>13130880
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-singularities/#SpacSing

>>13130880
(Figure 2: a non-maximal spacetime)
>The path over the waterfall is would be undefined

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiderivative

>indefinite integral
>The process of solving for antiderivatives is called antidifferentiation (or indefinite integration)
>Antiderivatives are related to definite integrals through the fundamental theorem of calculus:
>the definite integral of a function over an interval is equal to the difference between the values of an antiderivative evaluated at the endpoints of the interval.
>>13130891

>If there is an incomplete path in a spacetime, goes the thinking behind the requirement, then perhaps the path is incomplete only because one has not made one's model of spacetime big enough. If one were to extend the spacetime manifold maximally, then perhaps the previously incomplete path could be extended into the new portions of the larger spacetime, indicating that no physical pathology underlay the incompleteness of the path. The inadequacy would merely have resided in the incomplete physical model we had been using to represent spacetime.

(Figure 2: a non-maximal spacetime)
>An example of a non-maximally extended spacetime can be easily had, along with a sense of why they intuitively seem in some way or other deficient. For the moment, imagine spacetime is only two-dimensional, and flat, like an endless sheet of paper. Now, excise from somewhere on this plane a closed set shaped like Ingrid Bergman. Any path that had passed through one of the points in the removed set is now incomplete.

>In this case, the maximal extension of the resulting spacetime is obvious, and does indeed fix the problem of all such incomplete paths: re-incorporate the previously excised set. (See Figure 3.) The seemingly artificial and contrived nature of such examples, along with the ease of rectifying them, seems to militate in favor of requiring spacetimes to be maximal.

>For a path that is everywhere timelike, i.e., that does not involve speeds at or above that of light, it is natural to take as the parameter the proper time a particle or observer would experience along the path, that is, the time measured along the path by a natural clock, such as one based on the vibrational frequency of an atom. (There are also natural choices that one can make for spacelike paths, e.g., those that consist of points at a single “time”, and for null paths, those followed by light signals; however, because the spacelike and null cases add yet another level of technical complexity, we shall not discuss them here.) The physical interpretation of this sort of incompleteness for timelike paths is more or less straightforward: a timelike path incomplete with respect to proper time in the future direction would represent the possible trajectory of a massive body that would never age beyond a certain point in its existence. (An analogous statement can be made, mutatis mutandis, if the path were incomplete in the past direction.)

LMAO this only strengthens deleuze

>>13131091
I guess Deleuze would agree with maximization and inextendiblity of space time, a property of immanence, correct?

>>13131096
Also I wasn't trying to refute Deleuze lol? I was trying to use his interpretation to analyze univocity.

What do you mean by specifying indefinite integration and then definite integral?

I don't get your point, for someone so argumentative you seem to not use a lot of argumentation

>>13124148
Update on reading: I have read the first 40 pages twice over. It is tortuous but also I am understanding more context. I realize this is symptomatic that I do not have the background to understand it but dynamically re-contextualizing it is fun.

>>13131114
I'm trying to get a response from >>13124451 about how difference is idealism. I assumed >>13130503 was a response from them saying Deleuzes conception of univocity wan't material and takes place in the abstract.

I'm saying with calculus you can chart the undefined path of the waterfall from above without looking over the edge by the rate of flow of the river before it, the mouth of the opening, the depth of the water, the temperature of the air, the time of year, the surrounding geology, biology, and so on. That path is necessarily defined by what it is not; its environment, which is real. Differential material differences of independent multivariable systems, like weather forecasting, rocket science etc.

>>13131211
I think >>13124451 is also >>13128983
Their quote on Hegel illustrates their point pretty good.

Doesn't differentiation end at those singularity points? Since the flow is non continuous - it drops due to factors outside of it's own meandering and so at the point, it itself is defined but not the derivative of the point.

And does antiderivatives have the same restrictions on their domain as their original function? I only read to summation in my calc book and I have no clue, but the constant introduced in every antiderivative must complicate any translation of restrictions?

burp

>>13130737
Are you a qt grill? Can you record a video of yourself masturbating while reading Deleuze?

>>13134266
fuck u anton i don't know if you're him but you're just a old timey greek philosopher who likes intercrural sex with little ones

>>13134361
Little ones aren't allowed on this board. And if I was a pervy old Greek guy I would not be hoping you were a qt grill.