Monism=pluralism. This is Deleuzes formula that goes back to Plato's Parmenides. The past, present and future have to be thought of as virtually coexisting due to the identity of identity and difference (hegel). When we follow Platos explanation of why taking monism by itself would make movement and change impossible and why taking pluralism by itself would make causal connection impossible, it is because monism=pluralism that we can say that three different aspects of time exist i.e. the past, present and future, and why we can also see them as unified as one duration. This unified or monistic side Deleuze describes by quoting St. Augustine, "there is a present of the past, a present of the future and a present of the present." The metaphysics of time, that is the duration of thinking about time, becomes copresent with and overlaps the bare material repetition of space. This causes thought and matter to fold in on each other in a sort of uncanny reflection which Deleuzes calls "the pure and empty form of time." Deleuzian metaphysics is one of the most beautiful creations in the history of philosophy.
naturphilosophie1 What I mean by beautiful is that Deleuzian metaphysics is the point where metaphysics becomes transparent to itself. I believe this transparency is what Deleuze had in mind when he made the cryptic statement that he saw himself as a "pure metaphysician". The transparency always remains distinct-obscure and the virtual is never fully actualized, although it is the actualization of the virtual which creates this effect of transparency of pure metaphysics.
Philosophy and Art is what gives us our creative mind meaning. It may not be as intuitive as what you think in a scientific framework but in most cases, philosophy and Deleuze's thinking help us be more open minded about how we view our own world. Sure you can't create something tangible out of a philosophical concept, in most cases, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Thanks so much. Your diagram helped me interpret and visualize the concept of a thick duration or the Jamseion specious present. I also like the pulse metaphor. Deleuze talks of unique times for all actualities: (depending on the number of singularities that inform the topological system more or less in different individuals or object?). I also like the micro / macro relations you described. They clicked with what I was able to gather from the book "A User's Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia" by Brian Massumi. I would love to take your coarse, but seeing as it started in January guess I'll wait till next time. Cheers Shawn
What you said was beautiful and very coherent. Whitehead’s very present in your language choices and the rhythm of speech you get into reminds me a bit of Merleau-Ponty. I feel much less sure it’s what Deleuze meant, which I don’t actually mean as a critique - just a reflection of how much I’ve been struggling to understand what Deleuze was saying in that passage for the last hour. I enjoyed your interpretation of “contraction” with regard to the way the past (and future?) is bundled into the present quite a bit… and your intuition about the pulsing rhythm of repetition is how I’ve felt inclined to interpret his use of that word, though I’m not sure how it tallies with a mode of time that’s ordinal (not demarcated with determinate periods of duration). I’m also finding it difficult to reconcile anything he said about time with his notion of difference in-itself, which seemed to breech out of conceptuality into… what? Pure repetition/difference.
The poet William Blake wrote: "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite". Without the sense perception or in other words without the self-controlled chaotic activity of the cortex the world will appear eternal and not discourses about it will take place.
Excellent ...I am being guided through very well for my thesis about nothingness &existentialism parallel in the case study of Waiting For Godot...Thank you! ,,:)
The past is only determinate in a physical sense, is it not? As in, the physical sense of things happening is determinate, but the explanation, the becoming of it, was not/is not determinate.
The idea of that which moves without moving seems to be the strongest inclination of my mind as I try to understand this. And also the latency or potency of that which has still not become. Almost as if the future meanings were cheer leading for their entrance in the explicit dance. Nothing perishes, all gets transformed. Can we still posit a singularity if all seems to "depend" from relation? Was time/space a solution for a hurdle posed by emerging antipodes?
If the present moment is a series of repeated instances, that would imply a discontinuous nature of the present, where there are spaces where the 'now' doesn't exist. Not sure how that would work...
Hello, Intriguing diagram. I was most intrigued by the spiral. This reminds me of the passive synthesis. I also saw sometimes Deleuze giving spiral diagrams. However what does the spiral mean in your diagram? Is this perhaps the 3 passive syntheses beginning at every point in time? How to see that they cross future and past points of time? If this is so then the diagram will be pretty complex to imagine I guess. Because in that case the passive syntheses start again at every point in time, but also visit every past and present point in time again. And last question; why does the spiral walk of the topside of the paper? I'm really curious to have an explanation.
i really like this man.. been a fan for years.. no real comment here.. just a general.. do you think you wouldve gained some wisdom just by iiving a non-philosophical life for one semester.. I just find that thaaat have realy ground me and giving me so much to take into consideration.. all the best to you..
So what? People have their own way of finding new possibilities of gaining creative ideas and sometimes reading writers and philosophers such as Deleuze can sometimes influence people to come up their own theories based on the things philosophers have written in the past. You may think Deleuzeian philosophy is just a bunch malarkey but maybe if you open your mind a little bit, you might get something out of someone like Deleuze.
Quite useful 👍. The diagram illustrating the idea needs some text and colour and some explanations. Probably this concept requires more than just 10 minutes.....
There is nothing wrong with being self reflexive, i have nothing against trying to finding meaning....The problem I find is that people think they need Deleuze to help them think freely and openly. There is something inherently misguided about discussing creativity without actually experiencing it. Actual creativity is more raw and scary.... when i hear Deleuzeian ideas being discussed its usually a big academic circle jerk for people who are too afraid of actually being creative.
first time viewer.. good stuff! you ask for suggestions...perhaps study more about fractals in the language of mathematics or programming, and/or folding mathematics. Those are paths of conceptual and visualizing Thought that seem open to you. also, one can study an actual rhizome...in nature; of which there are any number and my own preference is for ferns. as each stipe unfurls each spring, there is a fuzziness to it, and that fuzziness captures water/dew. just Google it, and the images and you see will show myriad spirals, whorls, and ephemeral droplets. it's a lovely expression of Springtime's renewal (you use an alternative word "resurrection") and "unfurling" of what we experience as Time, and it's rooted .... in a rhizome.
maybe i am just tired, but i find when people start talking about Deleuze they wander in their own heads endlessly with nothing grounded in solid reality. How do you test these ideas? Its fun to theorize about imagination but how about using it to create something tangible (and not just a diagram). The older i am getting i tend to marvel more at what goes on with science and engineering and less at what goes on with philosophy and art.
![Difference and Repetition [part 8] Asymmetrical Synthesis of the Sensible](/img/n.gif)
Monism=pluralism. This is Deleuzes formula that goes back to Plato's Parmenides. The past, present and future have to be thought of as virtually coexisting due to the identity of identity and difference (hegel). When we follow Platos explanation of why taking monism by itself would make movement and change impossible and why taking pluralism by itself would make causal connection impossible, it is because monism=pluralism that we can say that three different aspects of time exist i.e. the past, present and future, and why we can also see them as unified as one duration. This unified or monistic side Deleuze describes by quoting St. Augustine, "there is a present of the past, a present of the future and a present of the present." The metaphysics of time, that is the duration of thinking about time, becomes copresent with and overlaps the bare material repetition of space. This causes thought and matter to fold in on each other in a sort of uncanny reflection which Deleuzes calls "the pure and empty form of time." Deleuzian metaphysics is one of the most beautiful creations in the history of philosophy.
naturphilosophie1 What I mean by beautiful is that Deleuzian metaphysics is the point where metaphysics becomes transparent to itself. I believe this transparency is what Deleuze had in mind when he made the cryptic statement that he saw himself as a "pure metaphysician". The transparency always remains distinct-obscure and the virtual is never fully actualized, although it is the actualization of the virtual which creates this effect of transparency of pure metaphysics.
Wonderful! Helped me grasp the idea a little more. I’ve been attempting to understand this for past couple days and feel like it’s finally clicking.
Philosophy and Art is what gives us our creative mind meaning. It may not be as intuitive as what you think in a scientific framework but in most cases, philosophy and Deleuze's thinking help us be more open minded about how we view our own world. Sure you can't create something tangible out of a philosophical concept, in most cases, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Thanks so much. Your diagram helped me interpret and visualize the concept of a thick duration or the Jamseion specious present. I also like the pulse metaphor. Deleuze talks of unique times for all actualities: (depending on the number of singularities that inform the topological system more or less in different individuals or object?). I also like the micro / macro relations you described. They clicked with what I was able to gather from the book "A User's Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia" by
Brian Massumi. I would love to take your coarse, but seeing as it started in January guess I'll wait till next time. Cheers Shawn
What you said was beautiful and very coherent. Whitehead’s very present in your language choices and the rhythm of speech you get into reminds me a bit of Merleau-Ponty. I feel much less sure it’s what Deleuze meant, which I don’t actually mean as a critique - just a reflection of how much I’ve been struggling to understand what Deleuze was saying in that passage for the last hour. I enjoyed your interpretation of “contraction” with regard to the way the past (and future?) is bundled into the present quite a bit… and your intuition about the pulsing rhythm of repetition is how I’ve felt inclined to interpret his use of that word, though I’m not sure how it tallies with a mode of time that’s ordinal (not demarcated with determinate periods of duration). I’m also finding it difficult to reconcile anything he said about time with his notion of difference in-itself, which seemed to breech out of conceptuality into… what? Pure repetition/difference.
The poet William Blake wrote: "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite". Without the sense perception or in other words without the self-controlled chaotic activity of the cortex the world will appear eternal and not discourses about it will take place.
Excellent ...I am being guided through very well for my thesis about nothingness &existentialism parallel in the case study of Waiting For Godot...Thank you! ,,:)
Excellent video! I feel like the term "feedback loop" applies somewhere here.
The past is only determinate in a physical sense, is it not? As in, the physical sense of things happening is determinate, but the explanation, the becoming of it, was not/is not determinate.
The idea of that which moves without moving seems to be the strongest inclination of my mind as I try to understand this. And also the latency or potency of that which has still not become. Almost as if the future meanings were cheer leading for their entrance in the explicit dance. Nothing perishes, all gets transformed. Can we still posit a singularity if all seems to "depend" from relation? Was time/space a solution for a hurdle posed by emerging antipodes?
If the present moment is a series of repeated instances, that would imply a discontinuous nature of the present, where there are spaces where the 'now' doesn't exist. Not sure how that would work...
Hello, Intriguing diagram. I was most intrigued by the spiral. This reminds me of the passive synthesis. I also saw sometimes Deleuze giving spiral diagrams. However what does the spiral mean in your diagram? Is this perhaps the 3 passive syntheses beginning at every point in time? How to see that they cross future and past points of time? If this is so then the diagram will be pretty complex to imagine I guess. Because in that case the passive syntheses start again at every point in time, but also visit every past and present point in time again. And last question; why does the spiral walk of the topside of the paper? I'm really curious to have an explanation.
Cheers. Nicely done.
i fucking love deleuzeans
‘Fantastic Fungi’ Netflix documentary nails it, what your wonderfully Shari g here…
is it just me or is the diagram structurally similar to a black hole / singularity ? except mirrored of course ...
i really like this man.. been a fan for years.. no real comment here.. just a general.. do you think you wouldve gained some wisdom just by iiving a non-philosophical life for one semester.. I just find that thaaat have realy ground me and giving me so much to take into consideration.. all the best to you..
This is awesome.
great recommendation, Julia.
So what? People have their own way of finding new possibilities of gaining creative ideas and sometimes reading writers and philosophers such as Deleuze can sometimes influence people to come up their own theories based on the things philosophers have written in the past. You may think Deleuzeian philosophy is just a bunch malarkey but maybe if you open your mind a little bit, you might get something out of someone like Deleuze.
Quite useful 👍. The diagram illustrating the idea needs some text and colour and some explanations. Probably this concept requires more than just 10 minutes.....
Good continental commentary.
There is nothing wrong with being self reflexive, i have nothing against trying to finding meaning....The problem I find is that people think they need Deleuze to help them think freely and openly. There is something inherently misguided about discussing creativity without actually experiencing it. Actual creativity is more raw and scary.... when i hear Deleuzeian ideas being discussed its usually a big academic circle jerk for people who are too afraid of actually being creative.
first time viewer.. good stuff! you ask for suggestions...perhaps study more about fractals in the language of mathematics or programming, and/or folding mathematics. Those are paths of conceptual and visualizing Thought that seem open to you. also, one can study an actual rhizome...in nature; of which there are any number and my own preference is for ferns. as each stipe unfurls each spring, there is a fuzziness to it, and that fuzziness captures water/dew. just Google it, and the images and you see will show myriad spirals, whorls, and ephemeral droplets. it's a lovely expression of Springtime's renewal (you use an alternative word "resurrection") and "unfurling" of what we experience as Time, and it's rooted .... in a rhizome.
Good and Interesting :9)
maybe i am just tired, but i find when people start talking about Deleuze they wander in their own heads endlessly with nothing grounded in solid reality. How do you test these ideas? Its fun to theorize about imagination but how about using it to create something tangible (and not just a diagram). The older i am getting i tend to marvel more at what goes on with science and engineering and less at what goes on with philosophy and art.