Radio DelEuZe: the best of luck to

8.8.09

the best of luck to

The best of Luck and work
to Corry Shores
at
the
Upcoming

Deleuze
Studies
Conference ~

As always we are confident in your ability, presentation, and expression. As one says in the theatre " Break a LEg!" "Give 'em hell~"

Speed away with ideas like lightening and inventive thought and expression
in the moment, and as you speak.

Below is an excerpt from the August 8 posting at Pirates and Revolutionaries describing some of the questions being posed
by Mister Shores:

"Melodies of Time: Deleuze’s Anti-Husserlian Theory of Phenomena

[The following is material for my presentation at the International Deleuze Studies conference]

Melodies of Time:

Deleuze’s Anti-Husserlian Theory of Phenomena

Many great minds of the 20^th century mark their start in Husserl’s phenomenology, Heidegger, Derrida, Levinas are but a few. Deleuze follows an alternate philosophical lineage. His theory of phenomenal temporality bypasses Husserl. He does so in part by finding the concept of intensity to implicitly underlie Spinoza’s, Hume’s, and Bergson’s notions of duration. And for that reason, I think Deleuze was more able than Husserl to explain intensely phenomenal experiences. To distinguish the different theories of phenomenal time, I employ the following distinctions.

1) Continuous vs. discrete.

Does time flow as an unbroken continuum? Or is it made of discrete atomic instants that fall in succession?

2) Intensive vs. extensive.

Do we experience the now moment as extending outward towards the past and future? Or is the present an indivisible limit marking the definitive boundary between the past and future?

3) The Law vs. the Wild.
Do lawful regularities govern what consciousness will next experience? Or do phenomena forever journey into the unpredictable wild?

___________________________
Reading this series of queries and questions proposed
I am sure that those
auditors
listening
will
learn and enjoy
extracting novel
idea and approach
to these ever
intertwined
and considerate
spheres of interest ~

Go O
Pirate
Researcher
with your
treasure
and bullion

and surprise
all and
sundry

~

My only regret is that I won't be there, but this is not a true regret but merely a wistful longing
and yet a cheerful disposition and confidence
in the event,

and in your own

capable moment ~

Alors

~.

__________________________________________

__________AnD What I most detested was Hegelianism and dialectics.

_____

__________AnD

What I most detested was Hegelianism and dialectics.

And : The question of speed is important and also very complex. It doesn't mean the first in the race: you can be late through speed. Speed is to be caught in a becoming_ which is not a development or an evolution. One must be like a taxi, queue(ligne d'attente), line of flight, traffic jam, bottleneck, green and red lights, slightly paranoid,brushes with the police. To be an abstract and broken line, a zigzag which glides 'between'. The grass and speed. What you misnamed style just now_ charm or style_ is speed.

And :One only discovers worlds through a long, broken flight.

_AnD______as_______for___

As for the method of deconstruction of texts I see clearly what it is, I admire it a lot, but it has nothing to do with my own method. I do not present myself as a commentator on texts.

For me, a text is merely a small cog in an extra-textual practice. It is not a question of commenting on the text by a method of deconstruction, or by a method of textual practice, or by other methods; it is a question of what use it has in an extra-textual practice that prolongs the text ..

Professor D Challanger speaking

in Clinical Critical terms as the hat was in the wind

How else?

How else can one write of those things which one doesn't know, or knows badly? It is precisely here that we imagine having something to say. We write only at the frontiers of our knowledge, at the border which separates our knowledge from our ignorance and transforms the one to the other.
Only in this manner are we resolved to write. To satisfy ignorance is to put off writing until tomorrow -or rather, to make it impossible. Perhaps writing was a relation to silence altogether more threatening that that, which is supposed to entertain with death.
_______________________

Difference and Repetition.