Gilles Deleuze's Difference & Repetition Discussed by John David Ebert 1/2
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- If you regularly enjoy the quality content that John David Ebert consistently offers on this TH-cam channel, please consider becoming a Patreon supporter today. Every contribution counts, and your support will allow for him to continue to offer audiences the best of the best when it comes to providing media, arts, cinema and literary analysis on an ongoing basis. / johndavidebert ~mmailler
The rest of this discussion is now available only on Google Play at: play.google.co....
My new book "The New Media Invasion" can be ordered here: www.amazon.com/...
![Difference and Repetition [part 2] Masks and Sacred Geometry](/img/n.gif)
The circle of the pretentious - materialists.
Ow. This made more sense than reading Deleuze straight, but it stil hurts.
lol!
how do books beat each other? Is this a baseball game I didn't know about?
3 syntheses of time (habit -- presence of the past into the present through contraction, contract past into present ... larval selves ...multiple me's ; bundles of excitations ; Jung, archetypes ; ... materialism metaphysics / ontology ; passive synthesis of memory (proust) ... memory, fractured "I" ... "past present" ...memory. "present present" ... return of the past (cyclical) ; traditional circle of time ... THIRD SYNTHESIS : rupture / cutting of circle and habit, breaks circle of novel/new
Have you checked out Nick Lands work. Some of its gibberish but his early work and his latest work on Kant are really quite something profound. He's a reactionary in the strictest sense but his thought comes straight from Deleuze and Nietzsche to more modern sensibilities and climate. It's ironic Deleuze being a leftist as a lot of his thought is very anti egalitarian its definitely not liberal thought.
The problem with complexity theory is it’s proven barren for origin of life research. Matter doesn’t spontaneously organize itself into more complex forms. Deleuze’s rejection of the possibility of a transcendent cause seems like an example of dogmatic materialism, not too different from Richard Dawkins or whoever.
Nietzsche, eternal return, "Man with No Qualities" (Robert Musil), identity blown to pieces, rupture all sense of self, complete rupture ... Badiou (novel and new as singularity .. "Being and Event"), introduce totally new into it ; Deleuze : rupture sense of self vs Badious, *new event subjectivizes individual* (nice) ; not for Deleuze ... deconstructed ; through process of eternal return, old returned in new way (Seine renewed) ; past back into the present ; lays groundwork for Deleuze [whew!]
Good video. Perhaps you would be interested in stressing out the links between Deleuze and Husserl (concerning time consciousness, retention, passive synthesis, etc.). Thanks!
I love lectures from the floating head and arms
This guys dome peice is elite
lots of ideas, rich, amazing, plateaus, on stage as philosopher, "discoursed", enraptured with metaphysics, complex theory of morphogensis (how forms come into being), self-organization from noise, phase changes, chaos, matter to self-organize, difference de-previleged, overturning of platonism, "everything in it is new", privileging the same, repetition to do with time, repetition of a new series, that reproduces old series, while producing the new ...
Brett Sanders fancy seeing you here! Can I request you do a video on how to play Earth Moon Transit by duster?
Contraction is obviously taken from the metaphysics of Nicholas of Cusa, but Deleuze is developing it into a radical humean position. Contraction seems somewhat hocus pocus ontology but Deleuze would agree that we should simply look at biology and what biologists reveal is what he means by contraction, i.e. physical processes unfolding in time. Contraction exists at every level no matter how micro or macro you viewpoint is, a single blood cell or the entire process of bloodflow in a human body.
Nice shot out to Finnegans wake; I know of one particular passage where Joyce evokes this recursive idea of thoughts coming into being via the brachman (sp?) Which I think corresponds to the deluezian idea of individuation via extension -- however, this is all very new, and not so much fresh, in my own thinking. I will try and find this passage and forward it along. I recall it occurs somewhere toward the end of the first book. There is for sure a correlate within the (I think) Nestor chp of Uly
I was distracted by your referring to Deleuze as a Marxist. Deleuze never public embraced Marxism. Guattari was a Marxist, a Communist, but Deleuze studiously avoided adopting the label. What leads you to believe Deleuze was nevertheless actually a Marxist? And why does it matter? I found nothing in your presentation here that would be informed or illuminated by Deleuze's commitment to Marxism, assuming without deciding that he was was in fact a Marxist.
I also wonder about the problem of causality as you present it. For Hume, causality is a principle of association, albeit a complex one. It is not a structure of the mind any more than contiguity is a structure of the mind. It is a, how should I say, tool(?) that the mind uses to form its understanding of the world. It is thus not inherent in the external world (after all, "relations are external to their terms"), nor is it a structure of the mind. It is instead an organizing principle, a principle of association. This seems to me an exemplary distinction between Hume and Kant.
I'm also wondering about how Bergson figures into Deleuze's theory of time--a present past. Bergson's present as an infinitessimal that drags the past along with it as memory, opening into a virtual future. The past is always present just as the present is always past. The paradox could be resolved by seeing the first clause as psychological and the second as ontological.
These are just thoughts from you video. What incited me to searching for discussions was my difficulty with Deleuze's comparison of Hegel with Leibniz in Chapter 1 of Difference and Repetition in his discussion of orgiastic representation (in contrast to organic representation). I didn't find anything about that here, but what I did find was interesting and, I think, helpful. Thank you.
Yes, I don't really understand Deleuze being referred to as a Marxist either. While (IIRC) he had socialist tendencies and sympathies, he did actively avoid embracing/identifying as a Marxist as he found much of Marxism too arborescent an ideology (rigid, binary and hierarchical) and also that it prioritised identity over difference. It can also be witnessed how a lot of Marxist and postmodern thought is in disagreement, this likewise applies to Deleuze.
@@Thatsit36 I just wrote a long post about Guattari springboarding off your reply. Then I realized I was writing in a comment section about Difference and Repetition. [embarrassed and annoyed]. Suffice it to say, your comments about arborescent ideology are especially applicable to Guattari's criticisms of Soviet Marxism and the French Communist Party.
Guattari was always working within the context of Marxist activites. Deleuze not so much. Of course in 1960s France, academics couldn't avoid interacting with Marxists. Deleuze, like Foucault, managed to get along with them by not saying much about it. He was sympathetic with their concerns, but their fight wasn't his fight.
Very interesting. I only recently learned Gilles Deleuze existed. It is very nice to find this explanatory video. The lecturer is very capable. Your passion and knowledge of philosophy serves you well and your listeners well. Please keep it up. Have you any such videos on Heidegger's ontology of being. I'm interested in watching many more of your philosophy lecturers.
+James Bath, check out Peter Wolfendales work if you get the chance, specifically his dissertation, which is an extensive analysis of the role of Being in heideggers work. He also has a couple of essays on Deleuze's metaphysics and how deleuze finesses a metaphysics that takes the measure of heideggers critique of ontotheology and manages to construct a non ontotheological metaphysical system
DivisionbyZer0 Thanks for the tip friend. I have heard of Deleuze and read a little of his work a few years ago. And of course Heiddegger who has always intrigued me. I do want to revisit them. Thanks for bringing them back to my attention.
Deleuze's man without qualities is like the nietzschean untimely, the man without qualities does have qualities and its amazing how clear they are and how distinct the character of the pure metaphysician is. Empty time is the pure metaphysical self, Giordano Bruno or Margeurite Porete burning at the stake a potential that is in all of us.
If you blow my mind any more, I think I might become "The man with no qualities." This whole video is so sane that it might just cross over into a new phase shift of insanity
This is very good. But why is it so difficult to grasp.
Who's from Trad
its interesting that just the movement of your hands seems to explain the same thing
a great summary thankyou
This is wonderful.
John, Can you recommend me, any postmodern novels. I know that you know a lot of them.
I would absolutely love to hear you reflect on Eugene Gendlin's Process Model!
Regarding Deleuze and Freud, please find Christian Kerslake’s book, Deleuze and the Unconscious, which documents in detail the influence of Jung on Deleuze’s early development. As with many others, including psychoanalysts, the demands of intellectual acceptance requires the occlusion of Jung’s influence, even though it remains in the background as a gravitational influence-to continue the cosmological metaphor.
Thank you, very insightful introduction
Really? Not Wittgenstein, what would be your thoughts about Wittgenstein?
Great but odd you make no reference of D's debt to Bergson for his memory concepts including contraction, duration, multiplicity, differences in kind, creative evolution of eye, elan vital woven into an philosophy of intuition ? etc.
I would watch this recommended but after reading half of Difference and Repetition I believe Deleuze is one of the few I've read in philosophy who it does great injustice and is probably misleading to watch a video explanation of. You must read it for yourself. If you need a video explanation of it you're susceptible to manipulative interpretation and shouldn't bother trying to find meaning in it. Reductionism will not suffice for Deleuze, you simply must be in the spirit to grasp it.
“History is not even possible without some form of repetition” sounds just like Rick Tarnas’s book, Cosmos and Psyche, and “diachronic” cycles.
in what way are the larval selves existant? if they are attempts through habits to maintain past in present, are they not indicators of some sort of insanity?
Given we are presented with these syntheses
(passive synthesis of time- habit (contraction of reality-past into present) and its corresponding larvel cells (multiple me's)
active synthesis of memory -(fractured I)
empty synthesis-rupture of habit and memory
I am just curious when a philosopher like deleuze arrives on the scene with these new ways of packaging cognitive phases or stages, is his re-branding informed by new scientific discoveries
difference is just the Jewish version of being.
or is it based on some redundency in former attempts at classifying or describing by Kant or Hume which he actually bothers to explain.
Thanks for mentioning Haydn’s music. I share his birthday (along with Descartes). Just watched an excellent new doc on him on Prime. “In Search of Haydn.”
Heidegger the greatest philosopher of the first half of the 20th century? No, that is Wittgenstein. "Geniuses" in French philosophy in the 20th century like Foucault and Derrida? Hah! No, they are all (post-)Saussurean thinkers, imagining that concepts are psychological or social 'entities', and therefore not worth spending time on.
Found the Analytical "philosopher"
Can one be a genius and a marxist at the same time?
uh huh
Yes
very amazing video because this text of D's is very little studied and almost no one has read it
5 years later & 30 thousand views!
great inf. , thanks!
1:45 - heidergger best philosopher of 20th century(mid.)?
not in my school , not even an entire hour dedicated to his philo. in my EXISTENTIaL class?
Ed Thoreum not usually taught in existentialism. Heidegger is controversial, he was briefly a nazi. At this point he’s not terribly well loved, especially in the analytic tradition, but I think he’s worth reading. But you have to be careful not to just find yourself absorbed into his thought.
Thank you so much! I have learned a lot from your videos on contemporary philosophy.
But one thing I have found rather difficult to grasp is Deluze conception of ontology of "sense" rather than "essence". If you could explain has to what he means by this, it would a huge favour!
Thanks in Advance.
Deleuze controversially posits that sensation can be done transcendentally and not merely empirically. What is sensed is difference in itself, that which can only be sensed (not represented). It is this sensation that grants access to time without space. Essences belong to things. Things can only be thought in extension, which in a sense contaminates the thought of difference in itself.
@@aboxintheblack9530 Thank you! Lol it seems I have been waiting for almost too long (3 years!) for this answer.
When you say time without space, do you have bergsons concept of duree in mind?
@@sudhamshunarayan5220 yes
Greatest continental philosophers. Lets not forget the other camp is pretty vibrant too...
.75x speed corrects the unecessarily fast pace of his speech
I would like some of my friends who are like us; check your videos out. You know that I do not have stupid friends
Wow great talk, thanks so much. Just getting into this stuff of the recent age. at the beginning sounds a little like Bergson? ... Contraction of the past into the present moment, what consciousness is. Really appreciate your talk.
Have you ever read paul verillio?
Thank you! I will watch part 2. I think that things are contracted into our selves. To come up with a phrase to sum it all up is surely very hard. I didn't realize the place this had in modern philosophy was so dignified. Nietzsche's Eternal Return probably feels like just a moment in time that tries to grasp things from the distant past and hold it in the present as much as one can. Having kids is like a philosophical test: how much can you remember of yourself to pass on?
Wonderful of you to post this but what happened to part 2?
he left a bunch of part 1's on youtube, but these days you have to pay for the part 2's unfortunately. i think you can find them on google play or itunes
Here
th-cam.com/video/Fg73bstE4Xo/w-d-xo.html
patience
The reason I ask is that even if I bother to master the jargon and the novel emphasis which characterises his work, It is not clear what led him to conclude what he has about these syntheses
sacredsoma read the book
Wow this really helped me with chapter 2 which has been kicking my ass!
THANK YOU
floating head
Thanks
Thanks.
Yeah, Yeah, just stop with the hands.
friendship ended with deleuze, now derrida is my best friend
I am doubting, after listening to these videos, this person has read and understood anything approaching Deleuze, much less giving some reliable facts about a profound philosopher such as GD. He is throwing around jargon, nonsense.
Not right
For starters, Deleuze is not a materialist. How exactly would problem-ideas fit into such an ontology? What of the virtual? This talk is misleading, a liberal pinch of salt is required; alternatively, save yourself fifteen minutes.
Marxist = materialist. But I agree that it would more apt to say he was a realist (particularly when it comes to the virtual).
@@dettoist Deleuze described himself as a "transcendental empiricist." He was clearly not a "materialist" inasmuch as he spent a lot of time talking about an interior world. He was not a "realist," siding with the nominalists that attributes are spoken of univocally, not analogically.
It's easy for me to see Deleauze as in the empiricist line. I have some difficulty explaining the transcendental part, especially after he began speaking in terms of pure immanence.
construct3 He means “transcendental” in the Kantian sense. This must be distinguished from “transcendence” (as opposed to immanence). Kant’s “transcendental idealism” is an idealism that deduces the necessary conditions of experience from empirical givens (i.e., on the basis of our empirical experience). Kant says (paraphrasing) “experience has these characteristics, so we can conclude that such-and-such must be true (otherwise the experience we have would not be possible).” Kant’s transcendentals (the categories, space and time as the forms of outer and inner sense, etc.) don’t constitute a metaphysically “other” realm or register (that would be transcendent); rather, they are “transcendental” in the strict sense that we cannot directly experience these things, but we can know them to be true by critique of (applying reason to) experience. Deleuze says Kant is an “enemy,” but undoubtedly what Deleuze means by “transcendental” is essentially Kantian. There’s one crucial difference in his understanding of the term: for Kant, the transcendental is what is deduced on the basis of “any possible experience”; for Deleuze, it is what is known on the basis of “actual experience.” This is important, but less so than the bedrock distinction between transcendence and transcendentality. In my opinion, it’s the “empiricism” part of Deleuze’s phrase that is trickier to explain; he is not an idealist, but he often speaks like one. I think the key here is to understand his complaint that the transcendental field as Kant describes it is too closely modeled on the subject of experience. So when Deleuze discusses transcendental Ideas, he manages to escape idealism precisely because these Ideas are fundamentally irrational.
deleuze was not a materialist, hit stop at 2:30 cuz its over.
back this up. because he seems to be.
At the very least, a realist.
Yes Deleuze is a materialist: He believes there is a reality that exists outside the contents of one's mind.
+Cody Warren sure he is. But he thinking a deep infrastructure of time and how processes themselves envelop their own registration, as well as their own consumption, in how they are dispersed into resonances with one another in such a way that each process is a concrete embedded perspective on the construction of the plane of immanence itself. Deleuze basically sees death as the beating virtual heart of the entirety of the generation of the cosmos, and thus he commits to a minimal non anthropocentric panpsychism which many scientific or reductive materialists could not countenance.
can divisionby0 explain in easier terms? please/thankU
That (the position you described) is a realistic position, not a materialistic one. Materialism holds that there exists only one substance, which is material. @@dettoist