/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7084202]

In Deleuze's "Cinema 1: The movement image", he talks about how the anciant understanding of movement was of forms or ideas which are themselves eternal and immobile. In order to reconstitute movement, these forms will be grasped as close as possible to their actualisation in a matter-flux. These are potentials that can only be acted out by being embodied in matter. Movement expresses a 'dialectic' of forms, an ideal synthesis which gives it order and measure.

Can anyone elaborate on this a bit?

[Anonymous No.7084239]

>>7084202
for example a square. there is an abtract, ideal, eternal square, which is approached but never achieved in earthly instances. one could draw a square in the sand, but this isn't the perfect square, it is irregular, drawn in sand, etc. its not just the square though, there was a "form or idea" version of everything, including less mathematically defined concepts like honor, beauty, justice, etc

[Anonymous No.7084313]

>>7084202
Plato & Aristotle on forms

[Anonymous No.7084455]

Another question.
Deleuze talks about bergson's distinction of the anciant and modern understanding of movement.
The former being the one described in my OP and the modern one being relating movement not to privilaged instants but to 'any-instants-whatever'.

For both of thse conceptions Deleuze says one misses the movement because one constructs a whole, one assumes that 'all is given', while movement occurs if the whole is neither given or giveable.
As soon as a whole is given to one in the eternal order of forms or poses, or in the se of any-instant-whatevers, then either time is no more than the image of eternity, or it is the consequence of the set; there is no longer room for real movement.

[Anonymous No.7084504]

>>7084202
>>7084455
>this is your brain on pomo

[Anonymous No.7084508]

>>7084455
>u can't kno the future brah

[Anonymous No.7084509]

Is deleuzefag still around, or is he busy working on his phd

[Anonymous No.7084510]

>>7084455

>As soon as a whole is given to one in the eternal order of forms or poses, or in the se of any-instant-whatevers, then either time is no more than the image of eternity, or it is the consequence of the set; there is no longer room for real movement.

I dont understand this.

[Anonymous No.7084999]

i would highly suggest getting ahold of Deleuze's book on Kant, Kant's Critical Philosophy, and reading at the very least his preface to the english edition. In it, Deleuze explains (in a very academic, unDeleuzian style that is shockingly easy to follow) what he means by 'time as the form of eternity.' To sum it up brutishly: for Kant, and despite their disagreements for Deleuze, too, time is not to be understood as the flow of 'instants' — this is the contribution of the I, or the perception of time as experienced by the conscious 'self' — but rather as the idealized form of movement or change. when 'objects' in space move, or change shape, they are imitating the pure form of time, in the same way the square drawn in the sand (>>7084239) is an imitation of the pure form of the square. for the Deleuzian Kant, time itself is a form. the experience of self is the action of the ego to SUBORDINATE this pure form to its preference for discrete moments— your consciousness is merely the product of the ego's collapsing of the continuous, indivisible flow of time into the tripartite past, present, and future.

as to the relation of all this to cinema 1, i'm not sure. i haven't got that far yet. i'm still lost in Anti-Oedipus. i'm not sure if i should be reading this slowly, trying to articulate the relationships between all the metaphors, or quickly, and just let it 'sink in' before doubling back and reading it more rigorously.

[Anonymous No.7085084]

>>7084999
Is it right to think this viewpoint entails that every time we look at the world, it's always unchanged at a temporal level (the entirety of time) and the only thing that varies is the way we "subordinate" it to the play of the self?

[Anonymous No.7085291]

>>7085084
the subordination is equally as constant as time itself. i agree with the first part of your proposition—time is eternal, indivisible, and unchanging—what is changing is the objects. time is not a measure of change, it IS change. the self*, meanwhile, is a kind of momentary, perpetually renewed, fleeting entity. i like to think of it as a 'shaving' of the ego, being peeled away forever by the knife of time.

*the translation i have translates deleuze's use of 'moi' as 'ego' and 'je' (as in, 'le je') as 'i.' Le moi et le je. The ego and the 'I,' which for convenience sake i refer to as the self, because it's much easier than repeatedly defining the 'I' as 'the thing that experiences the experience of being you'

[Anonymous No.7085333]

>>7084999
thanks for the explanation!

[Anonymous No.7085382]

>>7084202
>these forms will be grasped as close as possible to their actualisation in a matter-flux. These are potentials that can only be acted out by being embodied in matter.

Deleuze is a philosophy of immanence. In his philosophy he criticizes notions like Plato's forms, essences etc. that are supposed to exist outside of what is real (in the mind of god or something)

His ontology has two levels, the virtual and the actual. These two levels are both "real" and immanent with eachother.

In your quote the "forms" are like attractors in the state space of complex systems. The system can actualise different attractors when it moves through the state space.

e.g A pot of water is on a stove. As the heat at the bottom slow increases, the matter (water) changes consistency from static, to periodic rolls of convection, finally to boiling (chaotic). The attractors (static, periodic, chaotic) are embodied in the matter as it changes state. The attractors are not essences or forms that exist "outside" the actual world, they exist virtually and immanently with the actual world.

[Anonymous No.7085402]

>>7085084
I'm not him but having read Kant's Critical Philosophy of a couple of times, I feel like you're assuming that time exists, as in, the future is part of the present, which neither Kant nor Deleuze really believe afaik.

Rather, the true future is the unpredictable future and is nowhere to be found in the present. It's important to take this into consideration when reading Deleuze.

[Anonymous No.7085446]

>>7084508
It makes sense though, as unintuitive as it is. Basically it's like that thought experiment that goes "if you make a list with all the things in the world then that list is also an item and must be addes to the list ad infinitum therefore totality cannot be guarantees".

[Anonymous No.7085451]

>>7084455
>bergson's distinction of the anciant and modern understanding of movement.

Bergson was interested in evolution (it was new idea around his time). So sort of what he is making the distinction between is the notion that time is like a container or tunnel down which we can walk and that which we are separate from. That we move within a container called time. Rather he thought that we are sort of "in" time, it is a part of us, rather than being a separate dimension, rather than moving we sort of morph or evolve.

Bergson also writes about what "possibilities" are. What the capacity for a change can be. This is the "creative" part of his "creative evolution" idea. His notion of possibility influenced Deleuze notions about the virtual.

[Anonymous No.7085557]

>>7084239
>example a square. there is an abtract, ideal, eternal square, which is approached but never achieved in earthly instances.

yep so this is Plato's view but its the opposite of Deleuze's view.

In this example, the "abtract, ideal, eternal square," and the "square in the sand" look similar to each other. The "square in the sand" is a crappy version of the "ideal, eternal square," but it is still has four sides like the ideal square. The real square and its form resemble eachother.

In Deleuze philosophy, the real square and its form do not resemble each other. A virtuality is divergently actualised in actual. Meaning that the virtual instance and actual do not resemble eachother. Because they are different, then there is creativity.

In the example I gave of the pot of water in
>>7085382
the "form" of the attractor that is embodied in the water does not resemble the form of the matter. A chaotic attractor does not resemble boiling bubbling water.

[Anonymous No.7085654]

>>7084202
I suppose you are not coincidentally attending Prof. Ensslin's seminar on Cinema 2?

[Anonymous No.7085666]

WTF

[Anonymous No.7085965]

>>7084999
>>7085333
>>7085666

the holy trinity has graced this thread. deleuze for /lit/ messiah

[Anonymous No.7085979]

>de luzional
>de ballsack

people actually read this tripe?

[Anonymous No.7086045]

>>7085446
>totality cannot be guarantees
very good anon

[Anonymous No.7086052]

>>7085666
he doesn't have the usual protective whorls

[Anonymous No.7086057]

>>7085654
No..

[Anonymous No.7086148]

>Movement is translation in space

What does this mean?