Deleuze for the Desperate #3 Haecceity
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.พ. 2016
- Third in the series, this one discusses the haecceity. The term has been used to describe close working relationships, but it has wider applications. The discussion also helps to begin to grasp terms like 'event', 'assemblage', 'singularity' and 'rhizome'.
Transcript available on: www.arasite.org/deltranscript3haecc.html
![แฉ [2/4] 12 ก.ค. 67 เจ้าของไวรัลดังในโซเชียล 'ลิลลี่ เหงียน' ฝันอยากเข้าวงการ โดนหลอกสารพัด | GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7zntQK2U8-8/mqdefault.jpg)
loving these videos Dave. been watching them on down-time at work and all this talk of rhizomes and assemblages is a savoured antidote to fluorescent lights and reams of less than inspiring data. thanks so much. read D&R as an undergrad and been struggling through Anti-Oedipus for the past few months and this is really help me think through stuff.
Good for you Laurence Manning. Work is a curse!
Thanks so much for this Dave! I am an undergrad student studying at an arts conservatory, miles away from any talks of rhizomes and haecceity and even "theory" as many would throw a general label on certain fields of humanities study. Hell, the only philosophy course my university even has is an online "Intro to Philosophy" semester class with vague outlines of major arguments from every philosophical subfield. Even so, I am trying to study philosophers "above my intellectual pay grade" so to speak, and your videos have been tremendously helpful. You remove all the self-imposed cobwebs from D&G so well! I appreciate your honesty.
Thanks for this Miles Tiller -- very encouraging.I am glad it is making some sense. I am delighted to see people still pursuing a bit of 'syllabus independence' .Very best of luck with your own projects
These are so wonderful and down to earth - and wonderfully down to earth...
Thank you! 👍😎 Look forward to anything or anyone else you decide to dip into...
Very kind. Thanks. I have a website with written files on many topics if you need them: www.arasite.org/
Good stuff. I'd be interested to see videos on Deleuze's "Nietzsche and Philosophy" and the Spinoza book.
Hi. Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure I could do the whole books. My approach is based on key concepts, so I could do one on the eternal return in Nietzsche. I'm not sure how to focus the work on Spinoza. I have notes on both books (only the readable one on Spinoza): www.arasite.org/delniet.html and www.arasite.org/delspin1.html. Good luck.
@@DaveHarrisreDeleuze ty
Great stuff. Thanks Dave. (and the visuals are a perfect accompaniment.)
Many thanks Souljahna -- glad you like the videos
Boulez example is quite clear to me as he was a proponent of total serialism. This means that all parameters of music (duration, timbre, dynamics, pitch) were subject to some series or matrices that intersect or diverge to create the sounding result. As the series that denotes what durations are to follow intersect with the series that denote which pitches are to follow one another, with the series that denotes how loudly each one is to be played, with the series that denotes what instrument is to play it, the sounding result - haecceity - comes to be. Much like a (in this case metaphorical) mapping of latitudes and longitudes in four dimensions (in this case). The series in fact bear a resemblance to Deleuzean virtuality, being a series of ordinal differences.
Great video, enjoyed it a lot!
That is really useful! Thank you very much! I think I might be able to perceive a glimmer of light here. I shall think on. I am very grateful to you. Best of luck with your own work. Dave
Thanks for this. You should definitely continue the series. Always good to hear someone's perspective and explanation on D and G's work.
Sorry for the very late reply, Derry Puppins. I must have overlooked you. Thanks for the encouragement
"Haecceity" give glimpses of a castilian word that have a incredible resemblance: hacer. To make, do a thing. In other words, make an individual, in a process of individuation. Be a singularity, in a sense, don't remake yourself, but make your self in resemblance, in a repetition, chugging the book. Be a cow in other sense, more animal, but furthermore pre-individual.
Readings of Nietzsche, Bergson and Simondon can have a big impact on a desire of an understanding of Deleuze, and works in the opposite sense as well.
Thanks for this Ferenc Molnar-Gabor. I also think looking up Duns Scotus, cited by Deleuze as a formative influence, can help. In particular it clarified for me why the usual term 'accident' will not do as an equivalent for haeceeity. In medieval theology, there could be no accidents since God was omnipotent, so some term was needed to explain apparently accidental and individualised combinations of factors. I think Deleuze shares the view that everything is caused ultimately, so there can be no 'accidents'. What do you think?
Thank you. This was the only word they used that I felt actually stumped on.
Yes, me too Sour Gout. It made more sense after I pursued the theological implications (a bit) via Duns Scotus.
began reading 1000 plateaus in my second semester at school of the ary institute of chicago ,spring 1988. never stopped reading this book (and many other books from art school such as Borges,
It needs persistence! Every time I find something new though. It's an intriguing (and cheap) hobby at bottom
@@DaveHarrisreDeleuze I think I've noticed an emphasis on syntax, or a similar writing style, in works of Batille, Baudrillard, Derrida, and now D & G. After hearing what you said about the style of writing of D & G, I was wondering if this was something intrinsic to continental philosophy, and if so, are these similarities between French philosophers deliberate or more of an organic development?
@@shannonm.townsend1232 I don't know if it would help but Deleuze has a short video on "S is for style" among his "ABC book" videos on TH-cam. With subtitles.
A big thanks ! P.S. I think that the fifth example is related to D. H. L., instead of T.E. L. and the Woolf's novel is certainly "Flush".
Thanks for this quend charlie. I'll re-check
I have often thought of the dialectic as being a type of Haecceity, in that it is (at a basic level) made up of two (contradictory) individuations, which are pointed towards an effect. A dialectic is in this sense is a moving thing, as opposed to a static dichotomy of a concept wherein each static part "meets up" to form a new product (i.e. the synthesis). D&G themselves make note in Anti-Oedipus that capital (the amorphus concept of the capitalist assemblage, as I read it) is one such "body-without-organs".
When I first started reading anti-oedipus I was very thrown by the language. But a few chapters in I took a break and read Capital (by Marx of course), and upon returning I was struck by how similar the writing was in terms of its understanding and relations. Given that Guattari was the more militant and radical of the Haeccity that was Deleuze and Guattari, I think the two fit very well. As you noted in your essay here, Guattari is often slightly left out of the conversation; but he is particularly important to understand the radical political connections to Marxism, and broader anti-capitalism, in my opinion.
Interesting, Oscar Fitzpatrick. I think the politics is indeed marxist of a sixties and increasingly libertarian kind --much more in Guattari than in Deleuze -- but there is also criticism of French 'scientific' or 'structuralist' marxism of the time, as in Althusser.The haecceity and other concepts could be seen as a criticism of the idea that itis always 'oposites' that are brought together in a necessarily structured way. I like Capital too, I must say. Anti-Oedipus also attacks Freud as offering an eternal structure for the Unconscious ( the Oedipal triangle), and Levi-Strauss and Lacan for structuralist notions of language.
Hegel's dialectics with subtitles and drawings: th-cam.com/video/mh_KE4VwPDk/w-d-xo.html
2:25 is guttari sat on deleuze's lap?
Wouldn't be at all surprised
Thanks
You are welcom
Hi Dave - is there somewhere where you've stored , or listed the links provided in this video, and / or the others?
Hi Joshua. The links connect with my website www.arasite.org, or specifically with the Deleuze page on the site: www.arasite.org/deleuzep.html
Thanks!
Very clear & well-parsed series, thank you. Do D & G layout literally 1,000 "plateaus" in these 600+ pages?
Yes.
No -- typical hyperbole!
how does all this link in with the likes of Foucault, his discours(s) and post-structuralism... interestingly Foucault has been used a lot in Education although again he doesn't really mention it much at all... wonder which french philosopher will be the next flavour of the month?
Deleuze didn't see himself as a "post-structuralist,"and most people agree with him about it. FWIW :-)
Good videos, but sound quality at times is weak.
Apologies tomsteive -- works OK on my kit though
Please add auto sub to all videos i am not native it is hard to follow for me
Hi Pygmalion. I have transcripts for all the videos on my website (links are given on the videos or see www.arasite.org/deleuzep.html). They are better than subtitles I find.
I am sorry, but I think this misunderstands much and smears the paint. You needed to begin with Duns Scotus and then show how D inverts the valorizations of that Aristotelian version of individuation.
Many thanks for your comment Prof Fineman. You will appreciate that mine is a very basic and general introduction to Deleuze for those who are struggling to engage. Beginning with some unsmeared 'Duns Scotus', presumably in the Latin, would be a very different project and much longer and more involved,presumably for specialists . Is there anywhere in your own work that you could direct us to a more productive route, especially for beginners?
The problem with any quick intro to D is that the "common sense" versions of language then tend to be still in force. As these are the tacit and hegemonic forms of conceptualization, they cannot be undone quickly or easily and his ideas are not those. So, talking about D tends to be misleading. If I were trying to help someone see haecceity in another way, I might begin with "Leibniz's Law": the indiscernability of identicals. It quickly leads to the quandary of haecceity: if we have two "identicals," how do we tell them apart? Well if their essences match (to use one vocabulary), then we must use their accidents of relation or "impurity": "on the left" or "marred." But then that which the object nominally is not, makes it this one. So, what is essential to individuation appears to be the accidental, but then I am what I am not or....etc.
@@DaveHarrisreDeleuze Oh, see below. I prefer Dan, not Prof Fineman.
@@danielfineman2851 Thanks for the comment again. Of course there can be no adequate quick using 'common sense' without reducing critical concepts. I would not see this just in terms of the heroic struggle against hegemonic forms but as a central problem encountered by all working pedagogues --how to persuade students to engage with concepts that risk and disturb their common sense understandings but which are necessary nonetheless to lead to an adequate grasp of academic discourse.They are sometimes called 'threshold concepts'. All academic subjects present them, of course: I have never really survived the conceptual challenge of encountering negative or minus numbers in mathematics and their implications as in imaginary numbers, although, of course, I cope.
Deleuze's book, and the excellent online lecture, are about my ways to access to Leibniz so far, I am afraid and I shall have to go back and explore more deeply your suggested discussion of indiscernibles. Deleuze's material reawakened my mathematical vertigo, incidentally, with its notion of the relation between changes in x and y dimensions in the calculus persisting even when the numerical values of x and y are zero.
Many students of my acquaintance refuse these challenges, and cope with a variety of strategies like those described in the work of P Bourdieu -- ranging from disengagement from what they take as a pointless and elitist glass bead game to cynical mimicry and plagiarism. Sometimes, academic staff collaborate in the illusion so actual discourse in universities becomes a matter of staging imaginary dialogues between mutually constructed ideal subjects.
Online offerings can only suggest a shotgun approach to help students here, including reassuringly calm visuals and normalising and reassuring phatic interludes mixed with challenge. The level of challenge will obviously vary and be perceived differently by novices and professors.
I would welcome any advice you can offer.
Apologies --one or two typos seem to have persisted in the above