2.16.2014

As you

____________________________





____________________  Franny sent me  a note: unfortuneately she had subjected herself to  a barrage from that frothing at the mouth   man from Slovenia!

                  'As you know Deleuze took his own life  after being terribly sick and suffering long.
 yet reading, studying, listening to him lecture, I never have the urge to take my life.'


'Spending a couple of hours listening to the Slovenian Zizek, while he spoke about movies,
my head was pounding  my eyes were sore my heart was aching
i wanted to die
  to throw myself off a bridge

it was cold outside

i was on a bus while feeling this way   _ about a half hour after the two hours of Zizek hammering negative pounding nothing no hope no this no that etcerra
I had a copy  of Dialogues with me 
 The hard back version that I bought  years back

 Its a blue dusty cover

I took it out and started to read it

the chapter on Psychoanalysis


I slowly started to breath better to see
I began to emerge from under the welter and hammering i had subjected myself
to listening to the Z pounder who while speaking kept changing his uniform and how he looked like a priest
as he said there was no god

How he reminded me of the last man in Zarathustra
but I didnt know this until after
till now as I write

how he hates desire
how analysis hates desire

 the whole stinking ideology of analysis resurrected by him and spread on the 'global' 'stage' 


along with his little god and the other one and his negative ideations....


How they nauseate me! what buffons!

Little men playing to big audiences /academics

in dirty jerseys

and of course these days he says 'fuck ' a  lot as if that made him more what?

It simply makes him more vile. So that even if his ideas are right, or at least pointed in the right direction
one is suspicious

one Suspects the whole thing is a farce

the angry the posing the radical talk the revival of Lenin

the endless quoting of Hegel and really how so often

as one hears his proclamations one's reminded of a dictator a little Stalin

Mister Psycho-analysis himself: Interpretosis Alive and in the body .


and who he reminds me of , strange to say is Harold Bloom and his all too reductive capital
his 

little economy of anxiety and art for the wealthy few of the Harvard drag club
and other memory bummers

these shrieking voice this shrill reduction and deduction of the facts

of what Art is of what Life is
.

So little of Deleuze.


Guattari spoke of Black holes
and
Deleuze Spoke of the Z of creation 

well, folks it looks like we got the black hole of recreation with Mister Zizek.


The well known over published overprolifiic little man

that never shuts up. Thinks hes making a point discussing film while sitting on a toilet.


O dear, have we not seen this before?


Have we not heard it previously?

L'homme de resentiment

and the return nicely packaged of   'paulism'

     along with his pal and that other resenter Badiou.



____ It's time to go back and read Nietzsche's Twilight and those wonderous polemics
written
 from a real point of view about the 'apostle' of resentment .


The more i hear of these two the more I think they are simply bad students.

with big mouths and good publishing abilities. For Zizek and his pal Badiou it's okay to salvage these thugs
of morality


                 and resentment.'




------------------------------------'God save us from the resenters!'  O my dear Franny one must be wary of these negative figures   & their high-wire acts!
 ____________________________________________________--  Dunce!

    Void them!  D nce n ked with your body on the high hill of happiness


  ___________________________________









    

2.13.2014

Nous, sorciers,


One has to create knowledge whereever one is, as the lines of escape (and flight) keep changing! Non! alor, changeons  
alors changez-les !
 « Nous, sorciers… »

Nous, sorciers, nous savons bien que les contradictions sont réelles,mais que les contradictions réelles ne sont que pour rire. -4. Deleuze, 5. Guattari,
 Mille plateaux

'
Extrait de l'article paru dans la revue papier.
Dans Mille plateaux, Gilles Deleuze et Félix Guattari affirment l’exigence de percevoir l’imperceptible. Or une telle perception paradoxale met au jour en même temps qu’elle maintient le statut immédiatement problématique de la notion d’« invisibilité ». Que les termes mêmes d’invisible ou d’imperceptible existent pose effectivement un problème.

 by ridhadhib


Comment peut-on désigner quelque chose qui ne peut être perçu ? Si l’imperceptible n’est pas seulement renvoyé à la relativité de la perception, autrement dit renvoyé à ce qui serait perceptible pour autrui, ou en vertu d’un seuil différent de perception (l’œil de l’aigle ou celui du microscope par rapport à l’œil humain), s’il est envisagé en tant que tel, alors il faut penser quelque chose qui n’est, en quelque sorte, ni être ni néant, ou bien les deux à la fois, qui existe et n’existe pas, mais qui pourtant « insiste », « subsiste ».
Emilie Charonnat





12.31.2013

Deleuze - Heidegger - Angel Villegas

'El Video "Poetizar la Salud" de Stella Maris Angel Villegas es uno de los agenciamientos 

multimedia utilizados en el Seminario "Deleuze con Heidegger " abierto a estudiantes y 


profesionales de la salud y la cultura. Sede 9 de julio. 1619 Ed. Electrónica Medicina y Arte.  

www.medicinayarte.com 

Rosario Argentina.



_______________________________

12.30.2013

the project

.




The project as always is to discover the positive even in the midst of trouble and turbulence  ~ the task of the thinker.


Above all else to sidetrack the morose dialectic of the last thinker(s).



.

12.19.2013

~ sta'rt h'ere

                         


          St' art here hence   ~


12.06.2013

y being a cube? Non, you are a line. InstallAlTion

An anonymous novel written on the walls of an abandoned house in Chongqing, China (2012)
An anonymous novel written on the walls of an abandoned house in Chongqing, China (2012)



11.24.2013

"Squizodrame et schizo-scènes"





-------------------------------------------------------------

 Bonjour à tous et toutes,

J'ai le plaisir de vous inviter
à notre soirée de présentation
du n°80 de la revue Chimères


"Squizodrame et schizo-scènes"
que j'ai coordonné
avec Anne Querrien et Flore Garcin-Marrou


samedi 30 novembre à la Bellevilloise

de 19h à 22h30 :
lectures - performances - projections - discussion
en compagnie des auteurs et artistes qui y ont participéla Bellevilloise - salle du Forum
19-21 rue Boyer Paris 20° - métro Ménilmontant
bar et restauration légère sur place

Pour la revue Chimères,
Marco Candore
-------------------------------------------

11.15.2013

'Weep

_________________________________________ As I think of those who read and write everyday and those who die in their dumpy little stews.. and pews.. Miller 's lines came to mind...






'Weep and you will find a million crocodiles to weep with you. The world is forever weeping. The world is drenched in tears. Laughter, that’s another thing. Laughter is momentary-it passes. But joy, joy is a kind of ecstatic bleeding, a disgraceful sort of supercontentment which overflows from every pore of your being.

 

 You can’t make people joyous just by being joyous yourself. Joy has to be generated by oneself: it is or it isn’t. Joy is founded on something too profound to be understood and communicated. To be joyous is to be a madman in a world of sad ghosts.

 

 

Henry Miller, Sexus 

 

 

____________________________

'Holy Mother of God


 



Miller always comes galloping to one's salvation!


________________________________

Holy Mother of God, what does this crap mean? The earth is parched and cracked. Men and women come together like broods of vultures over a stinking carcass, to mate and fly apart again. Vultures who drop from the clouds like heavy stones. Talons and beak, that’s what we are! 

 

 

A huge intestinal apparatus with a nose for dead meat. Forward! Forward without pity, without compassion, without love, without forgiveness. Ask no quarter and give none! More battleships, more poison gas, more high explosives! More gonococci! More streptococci! More bombing machines! More and more of it - until the whole fucking works is blown to smithereens, and the earth with it!” 

 

   Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer

 _________

  He says it all doesn't he? Think  of the world goverments and their minions piling on the warships hourly

     and their crap ass spy gizmos, and the coprophiliac corporations...

       the disassters of war and the corruption of art ....

 

   and the legions of neurotics, the normoids, the crankers out of sentimentality and the upholders of 

   rich and beastly....

 

 

___________

11.14.2013

' WHAT DID GALILEO DO?'

_________________________________________________

[THIRD AND FINAL INSTALLMENT: WHAT DID GALILEO DO?]

Gilles: You said something quite marvelous. I insist on the following point because it’s a kind of philosophy in connection with modern science. I refer again to Bergson’s example, because to say that Bergson made a metaphysics from duration and liquidates science, one has to be profoundly retarded [débile] to say something like that. Bergson’s idea is that modern science gives us and brings us a new conception of time, scientific time. Modern scientific time which begins in physics around the 16th century can be defined scientifically, I say again scientifically, as follows: it’s the consideration of time at any instant at all [à un instant quelconque]. Why is this modern? Because ancient science defined time as a function of privileged moments. Bergson’s idea is very simple, and very beautiful: what did Galileo do, what did Galileo do? Based on that, what did Bergson try to do? He said that ancient metaphysics was the correlate to ancient science.
Bergson tells us: what you call metaphysics, is ancient metaphysics, but to what extent? It was perfectly adapted to ancient science, and inversely ancient science was perfectly adapted to its metaphysics. Physics, metaphysics, we must retain these excellent terms. Aristotle created the physics of movement, and the metaphysics that corresponds to this physics of movement, and the physics of movement corresponds to Aristotle’s metaphysics.
Today there is a series of cretins who thought, because science had evolved, it could do without metaphysics. Bergson said that this is completely idiotic; science has, in fact, sufficiently evolved – not at all that Aristotle is ancient, that has no sense – one must, including and thanks to Aristotle, take up metaphysics again from zero. One must make metaphysics into the correlate for modern science, exactly as modern science is the correlate of a potential metaphysics that we have not yet been abet to create. What is the metaphysics that corresponds to a scientific consideration of time taken as a any instant at all? Bergson said: it’s mine. He meant that it’s a metaphysics of duration, and no longer of eternity. You notice the common theme with Whitehead. What is metaphysics for Whitehead that corresponds to modern science? It would be a metaphysics of creativity.  It will be a metaphysics of the new. Novelty. The something new. It’s marvelous what Isabelle just said. I say: is it possible to conceive of a vibration that extends into the infinity of harmonics, that is, into an infinity of sub-multiples? She answered, obviously yes; but that would not interest a physician. Notice the notion of “interest”: that would not interest a physician because the whole operation of science will be to find the average. A research would be solely interested in the average. Or in the case of acoustics, a research would be interested only in a number of finite, and close, harmonics. This is a researcher’s job. The metaphysics that correspond to this science is not a reflection on this science; it must say metaphysically what the science says scientifically, it must say with concepts what science says with functions. Metaphysics is prodigiously interested in not finding the average, and to constitute a series which, in fact, will have no physical interest, but will have considerable metaphysical interest, an infinite series without convergence constituted by vibration and the infinity of its sub-multiples, the infinity of its harmonics.
Second point, which is more complicated. It is possible, in fact, that I understood poorly Whitehead’s these, and that hurts me. First, it’s in English, not translated obviously, and you have already guess that my relationship with English was painful. But for those who know English and this interest, it’s in Concept of Nature, it’s the marvelous chapter 4. I am translating little bits for you: “The character of the event (for the moment, the event is thus an infinite, not convergent sequence [suite] without limits) can be defined by the quantitative expressions expression relations between diverse intrinsic quantities in the event itself (i.e. in the series), or between such quantities and other intrinsic quantities in other events (that is, in other vibrations). In the case of events that have considerable spatio-temporal extension, the quantitative aggregate of expressions is highly complex. If ‘e’ an event, let us call Qe the aggregate of quantitative expression defining its character, and which includes its connections with the rest of nature.” You see that ‘e’ designate the infinite vibratory series extending to the sub-multiples, and that Qe designates one of the characteristics of the series. It yields as a schema of two series “e1, e2, e3, en, n + 1”, that the vibratory series, and Qen, Qen + 1, that’s the series of characteristics? “If Q1 is a quantitative measure found in Qe1, and Q2 the homologue of Q1 which is found in Qe2, and Q3 etc. etc… then we will have a series Q1-Q2-Q3-Qn+1, etc. … Although it has no final term,” thus it has in common with the preceding vibratory series, it has in common not to have a final term, it is indeed infinite… “Although it has no final term, it converges toward a definite limit.” So my agony is: Is my commentary correct? Whitehead gives no example. I therefore need Isabelle. The essential point is this birth of the convergent series, convergent toward a limit. What do you think?
Isabelle Stengers: [inaudible]
Gilles Deleuze: That interests me a lot because I believe in a kind of relay, a metaphysical relay in science, once we’ve said that the two disciplines are very different. But that does not prevent us from having relays if there is the complementarity that I indicated following Bergson, following Whitehead, if there is this complementarity between metaphysics and science, and that this complementarity has absolutely not gone stale; it’s just that people have absolutely understood nothing, it seems to me, and we have not [rejected] that there are relays [transcription seems to be missing a word]
Question: [inaudible]
Gilles Deleuze : … The Platonic theory of the receptacle does not presuppose space-time, it’s the reverse. Space and time will be born in certain conditions. The question is very correct, but it is yet to come. The actual occasion is something that is already in space and in time. My answer addressed what is the relation between space and time and the series, the initial series for the actual occasion. There series that I have ceaselessly discussed today, that are initial to the actual occasion, you remember? These are the conditions of the actual occasion, they [the series] are first in relation to the actual occasion. In order you have these series which condition the actual occasion, the series space-time, and the actual occasion. The actual occasion is certainly in space and in time.
Isabelle Stengers: [still inaudible]
Gilles : In my opinion, no, but I do grant you that. Those are your concerns. But that’s not bad, it’s not at all a criticism. My example of light, if I invoked it, it’s a pure example that consisted of using something that cannot intervene at that moment, by right, but which has the advantage of providing an understanding of how a screen [crible] functions. In fact, I said: the action of light consists in making a filter between shadow and dark ground [sombre fond] of colors, and on the contrary, the filter I mentioned made a filter between chaos and the dark ground, period. So I was not obligated to grant myself anything, in any case, like light. Does the screen – something more important in my view – does the screen already imply mirror equivalences, that would be a big problem. It must not. If we were obliged to include quasi-mirrors, that would complicate things a lot, but I hope there is no need for a quasi-mirror.
Isabelle Stengers: When you read Whitehead to us, and you made your series of Q, Q1, Q2, Qn+1, this n+1, does that mean we continue like that to infinity, or does it just mean that we are in a space of three + dimensions?
Gilles Deleuze: The symbols Q1, Q2, Q3, etc… it’s a series of characteristics, but each one animates a convergent series. Each characteristic has a convergent series, and on the other hand, you have an open, unlimited series of characteristics.
Intervention : [inaudible]
Gilles Deleuze : Well, good… then read Plato.


TrAnslation by the ever wonderful Charles Stivale


______________________

Part 2: Everything is event


Part 2: Everything is event http://www2.univ-paris8.fr/deleuze/IMG/png/vlcsnap-2010-06-22-22h30m21s0.png








__________________________________________________________________________





Everything is event, yes, including the great pyramid, says Whitehead. Even from the perspective of style, he’s quite Leibnizian.

Generally, we consider an event as a category of very special things, for example, I go out into the street and get run over by a bus. It’s an event. But the great pyramid is not an event. At most, I would say, well ok, the construction of the great pyramid is an event, but not the great pyramid itself. A chair is not an event, it’s a thing. Whitehead said that the chair is an event, not only the chair’s production. The great pyramid is an event. It’s very important to understand that this is possible, the expression “everything is event.” In what way can the great pyramid be event? I jump to Leibniz, and I would like to jump perpetually from one to the other. We started off from certain determinations related to Adam. He was in the garden and he sinned, he committed a sin. To sin is obviously an event, it belongs to what everyone calls event. But the garden itself is equally an event. A flower is an event. Ok, so what? Does that mean insofar as it grows? Insofar as it emerges? But it never ceases to emerge, to grow. Or when it has finished growing, it never ceases to wither. It’s part of the flower itself, and at each instant of its duration, I must say it’s an event. And the chair? The chair is an event, not only its production. In what way is the great pyramid an event?

It is so insofar as it has duration, for example, five minutes. Insofar as the pyramid lasts five minutes, it is an event. Insofar as it lasts five more minutes, it’s another event. I can connect the two events by saying: it lasts ten minutes. Every thing, says Whitehead, is a passage of nature. In English, it’s “passage of nature”. Let’s correct a little in order to get back to Leibniz: every thing is a passage of God. This is strictly the same. Every thing is a passage of nature. The great pyramid is an event, and is even an infinite multiplicity of events. What does the event consist of? Literally every thing is a dance of electrons, or every thing is a variation of an electro-magnetic filed. And with that, we place a foot quite carefully into physics.


For example, the event which is the life of nature in the great pyramid, yesterday and today. Perhaps we must foresee that there is not a single great pyramid, but that there are perhaps two great pyramids. That’s what he says in the text. But we are going too quickly… for the moment, that’s how it is. Ok, there are no things, there are only events, everything is event.



An event is the support for an infinity of processes, processes of subjectivation, of individuation, of rationalization. Everything you’d like. Subjects are going to be born, rationalities, individualities are going to be traced, but all of that is in the events. Everything is event, but a classification of events is indeed required. For example, now must we pose the problem of freedom in terms of events? Is there a difference in nature between the events that a subject – assuming that I know what a subject is – that a subject undergoes, or that a subject brings forth? Which means: for create an event (faire événement).
[turning over the tape]



DELEUZE / LEIBNIZ
Cours Vincennes – St Denis : l évènement, Whitehead – 10/03/1987, part II



If I can identify the great pyramid through two passages of nature, by saying: it’s the same pyramid, it’s the great pyramid, it’s uniquely thanks to an eternal object. I wanted to make you grasp what this philosophy contains that’s at once very familiar and very strange for us. Philosophy should create such modes of thought. Besides, that the title of one of Whitehead’s books, Modes of Thought. If I summarize, I see three coordinates: the actual occasions defined by conjunctions, prehensions, and eternal objects.
To the actual occasion correspond the concepts of conjunction, concrescence, and creativity; to prehensions correspond all the elements that we’ve not yet seen from prehension, all the components of prehension; to eternal objects correspond the different types of eternal object. For example, there are sensible eternal objects and there are conceptual eternal objects … no that’s bad, what I just said… there are eternal

objects that refer to sensible qualities, and other that refer to scientific concepts. All of that is relatively easy.


But we have three problems, and it’s there that I really need Isabelle.



First problem: we started off from conjunctions, that is, from actual occasions, we already gave ourselves events and a world of events. Can we undertake the genesis of the event? How do we arrive at conjunctions? Are conjunctions just given like that? For it is not at all a given that there are conjunctions in the world. How are we to explain that there are conjunctions in the world. For me, I don’t know what Isabelle will say, it’s the fundamental problem of Whitehead’s philosophy. If that problem is managed, all the rest unfolds, not as a given, but all the rest unfolds rather well. That is really the most difficult problem, where Whitehead is both a physician and mathematician. He needs there an entire mode of physico-mathematics to take account of the formation of conjunctions, that is, of the formation of actual occasions. Why? Consider this: we start from an random distribution, a type like the random distribution of electrons, or a variation of an electro-magnetic field. How do conjunctions form in such a world? If we don’t have a precise answer to that, well then we will have failed. We need a precise answer to that question.




The second question will be: what is a prehension made of? What are the elements of a prehension? And if it’s true that the actual occasion is a conjunction, we must say in Whitehead’s vocabulary, I forgot to indicate this, that an aggregate of prehensions is a nexus. Second problem: the components of prehensions.



Third problem: the modes of eternal objects.



The most difficult for me is this initial genesis. How do we arrive at conjunctions, why are there conjunctions? Is there a reason for conjunctions, a reason that can only be mathematical and physical? I would like Isabelle’s thoughts. How do you see all this?


Isabelle Stengers: [Isabelle is quite far from the microphone, and her long intervention is barely audible].



Gilles Deleuze: That’s very interesting. We don’t have to discuss everything. What strikes me is that seems to interest Whitehead – the fundamental aspect of all great thinkers – what seems to interest Isabelle Stengers in Whitehead is not what interests me most. It’s not a question of saying who is right or wrong, it’s my turn to ask Isabelle questions because I am sure she is able to answer, without at all giving up her viewpoint. She told us this quite exactly: it is true that at the start of his work, for example in the Concept of Nature, Whitehead still thought it possible to create a genesis of the actual occasion, that is, a genesis of conjunctions. And OK, she tells me, at that moment, he thought only a mathematical physics can give us the key to this genesis. And then she says, he might have senses that, at the moment if he made a genesis of conjunctions, an idea to which he was greatly attached, since every conjunction is new, it is in fact novelty (nouveauté), in its essence it is novelty; there is not actual occasion that would not be new. It [the conjunction] is not the effect of preceding actual occasions, there is no determinism. An actual occasion is active, it is prehension, that is, prehending – well, since an actual occasion can not be deducted from anything other that itself, Isabelle thinks that he would have renounced, or at least less interested in its genesis in order to take the problem to a level of a finality and of a very particular conception of God which, ultimately, operates at the level of actual occasions. As for me, I think, as we will see, that the genesis of conjunctions, or the genesis of actual occasions, the physico-mathematical genesis, is something that Whitehead will not renounce, provided that this genesis fully respects the requirement that Isabelle signals, specifically that is must not be a genesis such that the actual occasion would derive, flow or result from its genetic components. It must be a genesis that takes account of this, that the only law of the actual occasion is always to be a novelty in relation to its components.
                         
                                                                                           And it is precisely this genesis of novelty that is essential, genesis of novelty as such, that is, that implies no reduction of the new to the former. It is this very genesis that Whitehead, because he knows so much math and physics, is going to create in conditions that, in fact, make of him and his philosophy one of the rare philosophies – in my view, with Bergson’s – to have operated a fundamental linkage with modern science.


                              In this, we have to ask Isabelle each time, does that work, or does it not? He starts from something, he gives himself something. We are in the problem of the genesis of occasions, or the genesis of conjunctions. A conjunction in something new, of the type: there’s a concert this evening. It’s a novelty, and you won’t engender it; it is not a result. It is not the effect of a cause. A genesis is not causal. So then, what is it? Where does it come from? I am adding a question mark to all my sentences. It comes from “many,” you will excuse my accent, I’ll never be able to pronounce it. I say it in English… I would say it comes from the multiple, but a pure and random multiplicity. He gives it a name in Process and Reality, it’s the pure state of disjunctive diversity. He gives himself any disjunctive diversity whatsoever (une diversité disjunctive quelconque). The word disjunctive is very important since one starts from the opposite of conjunction. Disjunctive diversity, what is it? I don’t know. We’ll see. What matters is that at each of these steps, there is a kind of adjustment with Leibniz that is astounding, such that all of this is a prodigious reading of Leibniz, at the same time that it brings forth a new Leibniz for us. It’s a new actual occasion. Astounding. It comes in this way from “many”, a random multiplicity defined by the disjunctive diversity. Isabelle, do you grant me that?
 
                                     Second point, that is going to be the first step of the genesis. It will show us that, starting with this step of disjunctive diversity, something absolutely new is produced, the first step of novelty, sketched in this disjunctive diversity of infinite, limitless series, which tend toward no limit. Infinite, limitless series. It’s like the step, this first moment, it’s infinite divisibility. The disjunctive diversity, we will see how and why — there are many questions in what I am saying, I am setting out a map – undergoes a process of infinite divisibility that organizes infinite, limitless series [inaudible word]. So at this stage, a question: what are these limitless series, unlimited series, infinite series without limits? I will begin to answer by saying that this first step rests on an analysis of vibration. Ultimately, at the basis of the event, there are vibrations. At the basis of actual events, there are vibrations.

                        The first step was the “many”, any old vibrations, random vibrations.


                             For those who know Bergson, perhaps you recall the splendid ending of Matter and Memory: the basis of matter is vibration, and vibrations of vibration. The intersection with Bergson emerges at all sorts of levels, these philosophers are very close. Everything is vibration. Why does vibration already produce this initial order? It’s because every vibration has sub-multiples and extends on these sub-multiples. The property of vibration is to extend on these sub-multiples. In this I am not really speaking scientifically, it’s just so you can locate things in your head; that has a famous name in all domains, these are harmonics. In this I don’t need to underscore the wink at Leibniz. All this is important for your future. A color is a vibration, a sound is a vibration. As such, every sound has harmonics, every color has harmonics.
                   

                                                    My hypothesis is this: it is vibration that emerges in the “many,” but how does it emerge, there where we are pushed back… we have to answer, and I beg you please not to abandon me if I don’t answer everything, or else everything will collapse, and so fine. If everything collapses, we will say: we were wrong, Whitehead isn’t a great philosopher. Yet obviously Whitehead is a great philosopher, one of genius. So ok, a vibration is formed in the “many”, and with that moment, disjunctive diversity starts to be organized into an infinite, limitless series. We must assume that each vibration has sub-multiples, has harmonics into infinity, within pure cosmos. The cosmos was the “many”, that is, chaos. It was the chaos cosmos.

Third step:


infinite vibratory series… in other words, every infinitely divisible vibration has certain intrinsic characteristics. The intrinsic characteristics either concerning the nature of the envisaged vibration, or even – extrinsic characteristics – its relations with other vibrations. I would say that a sonorous vibration has characteristics of duration, height, intensity, timber. Color has characteristics, intrinsic and extrinsic, that are tint, saturation, value, the three great dimensions of color, of what color will be, but it’s open, we can always find a new one. For a long time, these three variables of color were noted: tint, saturation, and value. Since the end of the 19th century, we tend more and more to add to these the extent (l’étendue) of color to then define a very interesting new variable that also depends on extent and value, and that is called the weight of color.

You recall the vibration enters into infinite, limitless series; these are characteristics, or rather as Whitehead says, the quantities, the quantitative expressions capable of measuring them, of measuring these characteristics; the quantitative expressions able to measure these characteristics enter into series that converge toward limits. The vibratory series are not convergent and have no limits. It’s the first stage of genesis. Second stage of genesis: the series of intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics converge toward limits. This time we have an idea of converging series. The timbers are going to form a converging series; the intensities are going to form a convergent series; the heights are going to form a convergent series, etc. etc. The tints are going to form a convergent series. It’s beautiful. It’s a thing of very great beauty. It’s a genesis of the most… and it’ also so full of science, it’s a very modern way, but yet it’s very simple.

So the first stage, the “many” or the disjunctive diversity; second stage, the organization of infinite, limitless series with the vibrations and the sub-multiples of vibrations; third stage, formation of convergent series toward limits. Fourth stage, everything is ready: the actual occasion is the conjunction. The conjunction comes after the convergence. The conjunction is a meeting of two convergent series, at least. You have engendered the actual occasion, and that does not prevent the actual occasion, which is a conjunction, from being radically new in relation to the genetic series that engender it, in relation to two convergent series, at least. It [the conjunction] is completely new.




Hence, fifth [stage] then, from which the actual occasion is made – once we say that we must not confuse the elements of the actual occasion and the conditions of the actual occasion, I would say the requisites of the actual occasion. The requisites of the actual occasion are: the disjunctive diversity, the infinite, limitless vibratory series, the convergent series. These are the successive requisites of the actual occasion, that is, of the conjunction. So you have four terms: 1) the many, 2) the infinite, limitless series, 3) the convergence of series, that is, these are evidently not the same series that become convergent, these are new series; 4) the conjunction of series which yield the actual occasion; 5) what are the elements to be, and not the requisites, the elements of the actual occasion, that is, what is an actual occasion made of? Answer: it is made of prehensions. But what is a prehension made of, what are the elements of the prehension, what are the component elements and not the requisite conditions? So why does this matter to me?



Is this very clear as a schema? Realize that this refers to all kinds of things in math and in physics, it correspond to each person’s taste, you don’t strictly need to know anything to understand, or at least to feel it. As for “feeling” as Whitehead says, you can even see this world being formed; the “many” is a kind of soup, it’s the great soup, it’s what the cosmologists call “the pre-biotic soup,” the disjointed members, what Empedocles already called the membrae disjunctae. That links so well with everything that is important in philosophy. It’s the river that carries along the membrae disjunctae, the scattered members, an arm then a nose, it’s chaos. But we must assume that it’s not a nose, it’s an electron of a nose. So that in this soup are traced limitless series without convergence.



It’s so close to Leibniz. And then each one of these limitless series without convergence has a characteristic, and the characteristics of series enter themselves into convergent series.



                                               When they have entered into convergent series, then conjunctions are produced, like lumps in your soup. It’s an actual occasion precipitated by a lump; wow! An occasion, and you will notice that your lump is composed of prehensions. Well, is this clear, if not I will start it all over again! I am insisting on this; in my view, such a genesis escape the danger indicated by Isabelle, because the actual occasion is not at all presented as a passive result. Each time there is activity and retro-activity. The convergent series react on infinite series without convergence, the conjunctions react on the convergent series. At each level, there is emergence of a new type of activity. The series is an activity, the convergence of series is another activity, the conjunction another activity, etc… So there, she granted me the stage of “the many” or of the disjunctive diversity. We pass on to the second stage. Isabelle, when you wrote “States and Process”, did you already know Whitehead? Yes! My question is very simple. We don’t know very well what happened in the disjunctive diversity, but we grant ourselves vibrations. There is the formation of vibrations. Where do they come from, vibrations? On this point, I need Isabelle less. Can I say that these vibration form infinite series that convergent toward no limit, and it’s the case of a vibration in relation to its harmonics, assuming an infinity of harmonics within chaos? Can I say that, or else is it a physically stupid proposition?



Isabelle Stengers: [Unfortunately still inaudible due to the distance from the microphone]

_________________________________________

10.14.2013

Last part of Charles Stivale's English translation of Claire Parnet's 1988-1989 interviews with Deleuze.





tHE Subtitles in this excerpt are based on the pioneering translation work of Charles Stivale. See the link to his work below
















 to see all of the available videos of Gilles Deleuze    paris philo



tHE Subtitles in this excerpt are based on the pioneering translation work of Charles Stivale. See the link to his work below
















_______________________________________