Radio DelEuZe: compare plane of ... to plane of epoch in S __Sartre's presupposition of an impersonal transcendental field restores the rights of immanence.10 When immanence is no longer immanent to something other than itself it is ble to speak of a plane of immanence. Such a plane is, perhaps, a radical empiricism: it does not present a flux of the lived that is immanent to a subject and individualized in that which belongs to a self. It presents only events, that is,

1.3.10

compare plane of ... to plane of epoch in S __Sartre's presupposition of an impersonal transcendental field restores the rights of immanence.10 When immanence is no longer immanent to something other than itself it is ble to speak of a plane of immanence. Such a plane is, perhaps, a radical empiricism: it does not present a flux of the lived that is immanent to a subject and individualized in that which belongs to a self. It presents only events, that is,

possible worlds as concepts, and other people as expressions

of possible worlds or conceptual personae.

The event does not relate the lived to a transcendent subject = Self but, on

the contrary, is related to the immanent survey of a field
without subject;

the Other Person does not restore transcendence
to an other self but returns every other self to the
immanence of the field surveyed. Empiricism knows only
events and other people and is therefore a great creator of
concepts.

                                                     Its force begins from the moment it defines the
                                                                    subject: a habitus, a habit, nothing but a habit in a field of

                                           immanence, the habit of saying I.

Spinoza was the philosopher who knew full well that
immanence was only immanent to itself and

The history of philosophy is comparable to the art of the
portrait. It is not a matter of "making lifelike," that is, of
repeating what a philosopher said but rather of producing
resemblance by separating out both the plane of immanence
he instituted and the new concepts he created.

These are
mental, noetic, and machinic portraits.

Although they are
usually created with philosophical tools, they can also be
produced aesthetically.

Thus Tinguely recently presented
some monumental machinic portraits of philosophers, working
with powerful, linked or alternating, infinite movements
that can be folded over or spread out, with sounds, lightning
flashes, substances of being, and images of thought according

to complex curved planes.I" However, if it is permissible to
criticize such a great artist, the attempt does not quite seem
to hit the mark.

Nothing dances in the Nietzsche, although
elsewhere Tinguely has been quite able to make machines
dance.

The Schopenhauer gives us nothing decisive, whereas
the four Roots and the veil of Maya seem ready to occupy the
bifaceted plane of the World as will and representation.

The
Heidegger does not retain any veiling-unveiling on the plane
of a thought that does not yet think.

Perhaps more attention
should be given to the plane of immanence laid out as abstract
machine and to created concepts as parts of the machine.
In this sense we could imagine a machinic portrait of
Kant, illusions included (see schema).

(CP where is the picture

CD its in the book! I cant get it.)

( I found it CD)

'I'h(" ("OlllpOIWIl(S 01" the schema are as follows: I) the "I
t hiuk " :IS all ox head wired for sound, which constantly
repeats Self = Self; 2) the categories as universal concepts
(four 6'Teat headings): shafts that are extensive and retractile
according to the movement of 3); 3) the moving wheel of the
schemata; 4) the shallow stream of Time as form of interiority,
in and out of which the wheel of the schemata plunges;
5) space as form of exteriority: the stream's banks and bed;
6) the passive self at the bottom of the stream and as junction
of the two forms; 7) the principles of synthetic judgments
that run across space-time; 8) the transcendental field of
possible experience, immanent to the "I" (plane of immanence);
and 9) the three Ideas or illusions of transcendence
(circles turning on the absolute horizon: Soul, World and
God).

This account gives rise to many problems that concern philosophy
and the history of philosophy equally.

Sometimes the layers of the
plane of immanence separate to the point of being opposed to one
another, each one suiting this or that philosopher.

Sometimes, on the

contrary, they join together at least to cover fairly long periods.

_________________________________________________

I have to go out. Giving something tonight. CP Okay> ~

Come back to this later

bring the tinguely! it might help!

__________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.