/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15034067]

Can someone please explain Deleuze's plane of immanence in simple terms for a big dummy

[Anonymous No.15034252]

What's the need?

[Anonymous No.15034270]

>>15034067
everything is everything, all things are equal in the sense that it can all be plotted out within the network of connections of difference.

[Anonymous No.15034636]

>>15034252
I want to understand.
>>15034270
I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.15034683]

>>15034270
>>15034636
Wait a minute. Let me see if I am getting this right.
"Everything is everything" means that one object, let's say for instance a tree here on Earth, is also a rock on a different planet in a different galaxy light years away in the universe because for the tree to exist, the rock also had to exist and vice versa if we start from the big bang. Is that what it means?

[Anonymous No.15034723]

>>15034636
the differences between things are all the same

[Anonymous No.15034783]

>>15034723
>the differences between things are all the same

[Anonymous No.15034789]

>>15034723
I don't understand what you mean.
Is my post here correct >>15034683

[Anonymous No.15034799]

>>15034067
How are you with the rhizome?

[Anonymous No.15034805]

>>15034799
I don't understand that either.

[Anonymous No.15034843]

>>15034683
No. The tree is a tree. The rock is a rock. Both exist, neither have any inherent value, but both have similarities, though they can only be told apart by their defined differences, those differences create a network between things and ideas. Eg. the tree has more "meaning" to you because of it's physical proximity to you, which, its location being the difference between the two objects that is predominant in your connection to the network. It's characteristics of tree-ness don't matter in the discussion of differences with the rock light years away, as the major descriptor of the rock given was its distance.

[Anonymous No.15034854]

>>15034783
damn you’re smart

[Anonymous No.15034875]

>>15034789
think of it in terms of physics and normal force

[Anonymous No.15035315]

>>15034843
Sounds like new age "woo woo nothing is real, there is no absolute truth" garbage.

[Anonymous No.15035361]

>>15035315
It’s literally post modernist thought. Of course it’ll sound like that when looked at with a reductionist take you fucking pleb.

[Anonymous No.15035415]

>>15034843
>>15035315
>>15035361
Actually, couldn't one approach this from a religious perspective in the sense that the material world is illusory and temporary, but there is a true spiritual reality that transcends the material?

[Anonymous No.15035419]

>>15034843
>>15034270
this is differential ontology though not specifically the plane of imminence
>>15034067
the plane of immanence was an idea borrowed from Spinoza, basically we have to insist that there are two planes, a plane of consistency and a plane of imminence.
if you know Spinoza, the plane of imminence is infinite substance (God) and the plane of consistency is the modes and affects of infinite substance. in fact, Deleuze goes as far as to say "It is only when immanence is no longer immanence to anything other than itself that we can speak of a plane of immanence", which, if you are familiar with Spinozan substance, should make everything make sense.
if you don't know Spinoza, think of the plane of imminence as whatever sort of being exists when all "beings" have been removed. if every physical thing disappears, what sort of raw infinite potentiality is left behind? this is the plane of imminence.

[Anonymous No.15035427]

>>15035415
Of you want to think about things like that then go read some Plato or Thomas Aquinas. It’s about the relation of all things and their differences, not just what you think transcends.

[Anonymous No.15035443]

>>15034067
You familiar with Spinoza at all? Take his claim that god is substance as your starting point, and follow that with the idea that everything else is simply that which exists through or as a mode/modification of that singular substance. The plane of immanence is what happens when you collapse all distinctions between those modes or modifications of god/substance into a single, smooth, undivided plane. Where Deleuze can be differentiated from Spinoza is that Spinoza believes that God is univocal, which means that terms that describe anything only have meaning by analogy to God, eg. Humans are good, but only by analogy to the goodness of God, which is infinite. Deleuze's trick is to reorientate this univocal relationship, such that being instead turns around the modes. For Deleuze, being is, fundamentally, the univocity of difference. And that "being" is the plane of immanence, in which all differential relations are flattened out across a plane of consistency.

[Anonymous No.15035580]

>>15035443
>Deleuze's trick is to reorientate this univocal relationship, such that being instead turns around the modes. For Deleuze, being is, fundamentally, the univocity of difference. And that "being" is the plane of immanence, in which all differential relations are flattened out across a plane of consistency.
I understood the first part of your post but not this part.

[Anonymous No.15035654]

>>15034636
BECOMING-ANIMAL

[Anonymous No.15035674]

>>15035419
>whatever sort of being exists when all "beings" have been removed.
Is this like the universe as mind of panpsychism?

[Anonymous No.15035692]

>>15035580
Yeah, it's the sort of manoeuvre that can really send your head in a spin, not least because its so loopy to describe. Basically, Spinoza's conception of univocity of being is onto-theological, IE. God is a being in the literal sense, in fact, he is the being of beings. Deleuze, rejecting the theological definition of univocity, but wishing to retain the term's meaning in relation to existence generally, does this by precluding the idea of "substance" and "mode", which in theological/spinozian terms can be reframed as "creator" and "created", or "god" and "man". By flattening out those distinctions, what we are left with is a form of univocity that no longer gives ontological privilege to God as a being, but instead affirms a kind of univocity that respects ontological difference. So take Spinoza's idea of substance and modes (IE, the modifications of substance), subtract substance as an intelligible concept (IE, the being called God), and what you are left with is a univocity of difference that, as he puts it, "turns around the modes".

[Anonymous No.15035786]

>>15035315
if that's literally all you got from this you shouldn't be allowed to post on this board

[Anonymous No.15035887]

>>15035674
being in the strict philosophical sense. for Spinoza, God is being, but God is not a being, if that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.15036036]

>>15035415
Its not transcending anything, unless you want to call its "universal involvement" transcendence (its my understanding Deleuze and those like him, e.g. Nietzsche, are trying to argue just this point, they're saying we make a mistake when we talk about this thing in terms of transcendence in the sense of absolute truth)

[Anonymous No.15036068]

>>15035361
It looks like that even without a "reductionist take", pseud.

[Anonymous No.15036075]

>>15035786
No, bloviating pseudointellectuals like you shouldn't be allowed to post on this board.

[Anonymous No.15036080]

>>15036075
>bloviating
you need to go back.

[Anonymous No.15036099]

>>15035443
>>15035692
not OP but tyvm anon, that was useful

[Anonymous No.15036153]

>>15036075
lmfao faggot

[Anonymous No.15036462]

Is Zizek a postmodernist?

[Anonymous No.15036537]

>>15035315
That sounds less woo woo than the vast majority of perspectives.
"I don't believe in it because I can't prove it exists" is the general scientific way.

[Anonymous No.15036626]

>>15036537
Are you sure that you don't believe it? Would you say that you are... absolutely sure?

[Anonymous No.15036668]

>>15036462
no

[Anonymous No.15036700]

>>15036099
Welcome. Trying to describe Deleuze's thought is incredibly challenging because so much of it goes beyond the capacity of regular language to talk about it. In fact, one of Deleuze's interests was tracing the line between nonsense language and "non-sense" (if that makes sense, lmao); so for example, the difference between the language of Carroll's Alice In Wonderland, and the language of Beckett's The Unnameable.

Even his concept of the minor language is this idea that a broken, stuttered, monstrous, language is an important vehicle for voicing a particular kind of ineffable frustration that would otherwise be impossible through regular language.

[Anonymous No.15037387]

>>15036700
>Even his concept of the minor language is this idea that a broken, stuttered, monstrous, language is an important vehicle for voicing a particular kind of ineffable frustration that would otherwise be impossible through regular language.
fufu