Amazing work on reading this dificult book, and producing this series of videos. Congratulations for the effort and the results, it was gret. It would be wonderful one day in future, to see a sequel in this kind, for the "Difference and repetition". Thanks for sharing this, it helped a lot to understand a bit more of Deleuze's thought.
Fantastic series (pun intended) of videos on the LoS, my favorite of Deleuze's books and also the most playful in the spirit of Nietzche. One thing which you could emphasize is Deleuze's Realism, which some scholars have questioned that Deleuze has "moved away" from after DnR. I like to see DnR as mainly a critique of traditional metaphysics, while LoS as fleshing out the productive parts of DnR. One thing which you did not cover about the Realist part is that Deleuze doesnt demonstrate his realist philosophy by linking predicates to states of affairs, or word to object. His realism is to link Singularities (of the plane of world) to Infinities (expressed as pure verb). These are threshold points in nature, thought and word which mark a remarkable phase change in differences, like water boiling and transforming from one phase to another, or the speed of the horse as it moves from trotter to gallop, and language sort of maps onto reality through the infinities that grasp this points of change, inflexion topologically.
Sorry, I mispelled "Infinitives". Im currently going through Deleuze's The Fold and apply it not just to individuation but also as composites of singularities (into singular Event). im trying to visualize that events are like folds that gather singularities. The event of a marital breakup as composed of singularities expressed by a series of pure verbs (shouting, spilling of coffee on shirt, slapping, crying of baby), a pure transformation that passes a threshold and erupts onto the surface. This way of thinking isnt linear causatiom but a gathering or resonance. It draws together certain singularities and repels other singularities (calming of nerves, quieting of baby).
@@Spiritchaser93 Very interesting stuff! Yes the fold would pertain to the process of actualization of virtuals, where singularities are distributed and between which we pass (or with which we must compose). Great point about D's realism. I may not necessarily formulate it as mere verbal abstraction, but perhaps also in terms of an ethics: to meet the events of our lives, to be traversed by them, such that in hardships and fatigue we may find our true creative power (like Joe Bousquet showed us). Thank you for sharing these thoughts at any rate!
Material and Ideal are, like Spinoza said, two modes of reality. Both reflections/correlations of one another yet run parallel in causal chain. M1 to M2 to M3, I1 to I2 to I3. Who knows if there are an infinite modes of reality? Each mode is subdivided according to attributes, ie. qualities, quantitie, relations, modalities etc. But to divide presupposes a Whole from which to be divided. Now, Deleuze takes Spinoza's Nature are Whole but then says, its differentiation and development from the One does not entail a harmony (or Leibniz best of all possible worlds). Deleuze says, it is Sense (Real) that is the condition of ontology and epistemology, the immanent meta-structure of the world. Now, a likely Derridaen critique that the concept of Sense is a transcendental signifier, like Heideggers Dasein (which is more anthropomorphic), doesnt hold because Sense is of the World rather than the human as condition of possibility for the world. Deleuze's Sense is also closely related to Merleau-ponty's Flesh as reversible and intertwining (the relation between body and world that consitutes both, preceding the birth of subject n object).
@@Spiritchaser93 So sense would deny this dualism because both of them are modes that come from it? Like Sense would be the Whole that encompasses (or creates?) multiple modes?
@@ekitorfreire Yes, that's one way to put it. Even if we do not postulate Sense as the fundamental meta-structure of reality, the matter and mind are irreconcilable if we already divide reality up in this manner and somehow expect a good solution to show they interact with each other. First, if they are fundamentally distinct then how is it possible that they can affect each other? Second, if both matter and mind are irreducible to each other, then how do we even explain how each one comes about in the first place? The problem with dualism isn't just that it is an impossible problem to solve once we already carve reality up into 2 distinct parts and then expect to put them together back again, the problem is even justifying that matter and mind are the only two modes of being. When we think about Sense, its characteristics of being reversible (to touch as the condition for being touched, vice versa) and bi-directional but unequal (always creating difference between two differences - ie. rate of change between two rates of change), we begin to see why sense can be said to be the fabric that runs through the world, composed of points of intensities and singularities, like a field in which objects emerge out of and pass through.
@@Spiritchaser93 that's certainly groundbreaking to me, maybe because the whole scientific consensus is usually grounded on physicalism, which led me to always think that matter is the defyning factor for all of it. But is sense being taken as another mode of reality, equally plausible like idealist or materialist views, or is it actually reclaiming some authority above those too because of its particularity of denying a dualism?
@@ekitorfreire Sense would be that which comes prior to, and gives rise to, both idealist and materialist views (which are inadequate and not fundamental enough). We have to speak of individuating fields populated by singularities/thresholds around which bodies define themselves in relation to. Such fields are also the concern of fundamental physics today - we speak less of mass and velocity, but aggregates of matter and differences in velocity (change in speed). Its not another mode of reality, but one that is the grounds of reality (immanent rather than transcendent). How do we sense the being of a horse? And how does language map onto the reality of how we describe it? Deleuze's answer is genius. Instead of properties and propositions (both are static), Deleuze links singularities (thresholds) with infinitives (the verb). So in the case of a horse, one of the senses of horse is in its movement - as it gradually picks up speed, we recognize its phase changes as it crosses from one rate of change (trotting) to another (galloping). Its the pure verbs (to trot, to gallop, etc.) that latch onto bodies (the singularity between the horse's movement where it moves from having at least one leg on the ground to having no leg on the ground at any point in time). How about analyzing a dysfunctional marriage? The event of the marital breakdown is sensed by a series of singularities expressed in terms of infinitives (to spill , to shout, to slap, to flee), every event gathers together different senses. We can imagine it as it plays out linearly in time, the spilling of coffee on the baby, the yelling between parents, the slapping of wife). But Senses are also reversible, to slap, to spill is also to be slapped, to be spilled on, etc. Thats why Deleuze looks at Alice in wonderland, where Sense goes both directions. and the event of breaking up is paradoxically the event of amelioration if viewed from the reverse time. This is because the pure verb is bi-directional, and comes prior to and "determines" the flow of time. Rates of becoming are what create the perception of time, rather than the other way round. The time of Senses is time-less, universal, and empty because they require bodies to express or embody them. Perhaps one can understand Heidegger's poetic turn when he beseeches us to speak not of the "green tree" but the "greening of the greenable tree", where the ontological priority is in the verb first (to green) followed by the adverb, the adjective and least important of all is the noun (the tree).
![Difference and Repetition [part 1] The Interstellar Conversation](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f6ujTzYb-9k/mqdefault.jpg)
![Difference and Repetition [part 1] The Interstellar Conversation](/img/tr.png)
![Difference and Repetition [part 6] The Image of Thought](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/b4PEb0gJTpQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
Amazing work on reading this dificult book, and producing this series of videos. Congratulations for the effort and the results, it was gret. It would be wonderful one day in future, to see a sequel in this kind, for the "Difference and repetition". Thanks for sharing this, it helped a lot to understand a bit more of Deleuze's thought.
Thank you Jonas, I'm glad it was useful! D&R is a magnificent book indeed, thanks for the suggestion.
youre doing gods work! I cant express how much i appreciate your analyses and especially this series! May we go on into the deleuzian Zeitgeist!
Thanks a lot, I appreciate it!
Yoooooo new logic of sense analysis dropped 🔥
Cheers!
great series! thank you
Thank you for watching, appreciate it!
excited to check this one out later today after work. thank you, for I know it is well worth the wait.
Thank you for watching Naveed!
Fantastic series (pun intended) of videos on the LoS, my favorite of Deleuze's books and also the most playful in the spirit of Nietzche. One thing which you could emphasize is Deleuze's Realism, which some scholars have questioned that Deleuze has "moved away" from after DnR. I like to see DnR as mainly a critique of traditional metaphysics, while LoS as fleshing out the productive parts of DnR. One thing which you did not cover about the Realist part is that Deleuze doesnt demonstrate his realist philosophy by linking predicates to states of affairs, or word to object. His realism is to link Singularities (of the plane of world) to Infinities (expressed as pure verb). These are threshold points in nature, thought and word which mark a remarkable phase change in differences, like water boiling and transforming from one phase to another, or the speed of the horse as it moves from trotter to gallop, and language sort of maps onto reality through the infinities that grasp this points of change, inflexion topologically.
Sorry, I mispelled "Infinitives". Im currently going through Deleuze's The Fold and apply it not just to individuation but also as composites of singularities (into singular Event). im trying to visualize that events are like folds that gather singularities. The event of a marital breakup as composed of singularities expressed by a series of pure verbs (shouting, spilling of coffee on shirt, slapping, crying of baby), a pure transformation that passes a threshold and erupts onto the surface. This way of thinking isnt linear causatiom but a gathering or resonance. It draws together certain singularities and repels other singularities (calming of nerves, quieting of baby).
@@Spiritchaser93 Very interesting stuff! Yes the fold would pertain to the process of actualization of virtuals, where singularities are distributed and between which we pass (or with which we must compose). Great point about D's realism. I may not necessarily formulate it as mere verbal abstraction, but perhaps also in terms of an ethics: to meet the events of our lives, to be traversed by them, such that in hardships and fatigue we may find our true creative power (like Joe Bousquet showed us). Thank you for sharing these thoughts at any rate!
I can't really wrap my head around how it denies the material/ideal dualism.
Material and Ideal are, like Spinoza said, two modes of reality. Both reflections/correlations of one another yet run parallel in causal chain. M1 to M2 to M3, I1 to I2 to I3. Who knows if there are an infinite modes of reality? Each mode is subdivided according to attributes, ie. qualities, quantitie, relations, modalities etc. But to divide presupposes a Whole from which to be divided. Now, Deleuze takes Spinoza's Nature are Whole but then says, its differentiation and development from the One does not entail a harmony (or Leibniz best of all possible worlds). Deleuze says, it is Sense (Real) that is the condition of ontology and epistemology, the immanent meta-structure of the world. Now, a likely Derridaen critique that the concept of Sense is a transcendental signifier, like Heideggers Dasein (which is more anthropomorphic), doesnt hold because Sense is of the World rather than the human as condition of possibility for the world. Deleuze's Sense is also closely related to Merleau-ponty's Flesh as reversible and intertwining (the relation between body and world that consitutes both, preceding the birth of subject n object).
@@Spiritchaser93 So sense would deny this dualism because both of them are modes that come from it? Like Sense would be the Whole that encompasses (or creates?) multiple modes?
@@ekitorfreire Yes, that's one way to put it. Even if we do not postulate Sense as the fundamental meta-structure of reality, the matter and mind are irreconcilable if we already divide reality up in this manner and somehow expect a good solution to show they interact with each other. First, if they are fundamentally distinct then how is it possible that they can affect each other? Second, if both matter and mind are irreducible to each other, then how do we even explain how each one comes about in the first place? The problem with dualism isn't just that it is an impossible problem to solve once we already carve reality up into 2 distinct parts and then expect to put them together back again, the problem is even justifying that matter and mind are the only two modes of being. When we think about Sense, its characteristics of being reversible (to touch as the condition for being touched, vice versa) and bi-directional but unequal (always creating difference between two differences - ie. rate of change between two rates of change), we begin to see why sense can be said to be the fabric that runs through the world, composed of points of intensities and singularities, like a field in which objects emerge out of and pass through.
@@Spiritchaser93 that's certainly groundbreaking to me, maybe because the whole scientific consensus is usually grounded on physicalism, which led me to always think that matter is the defyning factor for all of it. But is sense being taken as another mode of reality, equally plausible like idealist or materialist views, or is it actually reclaiming some authority above those too because of its particularity of denying a dualism?
@@ekitorfreire Sense would be that which comes prior to, and gives rise to, both idealist and materialist views (which are inadequate and not fundamental enough). We have to speak of individuating fields populated by singularities/thresholds around which bodies define themselves in relation to. Such fields are also the concern of fundamental physics today - we speak less of mass and velocity, but aggregates of matter and differences in velocity (change in speed). Its not another mode of reality, but one that is the grounds of reality (immanent rather than transcendent). How do we sense the being of a horse? And how does language map onto the reality of how we describe it? Deleuze's answer is genius. Instead of properties and propositions (both are static), Deleuze links singularities (thresholds) with infinitives (the verb). So in the case of a horse, one of the senses of horse is in its movement - as it gradually picks up speed, we recognize its phase changes as it crosses from one rate of change (trotting) to another (galloping). Its the pure verbs (to trot, to gallop, etc.) that latch onto bodies (the singularity between the horse's movement where it moves from having at least one leg on the ground to having no leg on the ground at any point in time). How about analyzing a dysfunctional marriage? The event of the marital breakdown is sensed by a series of singularities expressed in terms of infinitives (to spill , to shout, to slap, to flee), every event gathers together different senses. We can imagine it as it plays out linearly in time, the spilling of coffee on the baby, the yelling between parents, the slapping of wife). But Senses are also reversible, to slap, to spill is also to be slapped, to be spilled on, etc. Thats why Deleuze looks at Alice in wonderland, where Sense goes both directions. and the event of breaking up is paradoxically the event of amelioration if viewed from the reverse time. This is because the pure verb is bi-directional, and comes prior to and "determines" the flow of time. Rates of becoming are what create the perception of time, rather than the other way round. The time of Senses is time-less, universal, and empty because they require bodies to express or embody them. Perhaps one can understand Heidegger's poetic turn when he beseeches us to speak not of the "green tree" but the "greening of the greenable tree", where the ontological priority is in the verb first (to green) followed by the adverb, the adjective and least important of all is the noun (the tree).