French journalist Claire Parnet’s famous dialogues with Gilles Deleuze offer an intimate portrait of the philosopher’s life and thought. Conversational in tone, their . In the most accessible and personal of his works, Deleuze examines, through a series of discussions with Claire Parnet, such revealing topics as his own. In , a slim volume appeared in France co-authored by Gilles. Deleuze and Claire Parnet entitled Dialogues. This dual authorship contin- ued the.
|Published (Last):||16 May 2012|
|PDF File Size:||20.54 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.91 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Once clarified, what this seems to amount deleuxe is that French philosophers like saying what something definitely is, so that A is B, whereas English philosophers can see multiplicities more clearly by saying A and B. I suspect I have mostly noted her bits. The two parts of the later chapters are not ‘signed’,and both seemed to have written a bit. I doubt if anyone could have written the majority of the appalling second section of Ch 2 except Deleuze though see sample text below ].
Whitehead defined empiricism as the view that the abstract does not explain but must be explained. The view that the abstract is realized in the concrete always runs into difficulties because concrete is disunified, complex or monstrous [I just thought about this in terms of the dialohues relationship dfleuze theory and practice in education.
That almost always depends on theory as dialkgues universalist abstraction which always must encounter complexity in practice. Only some magic generated by the subject can reconcile them].
States of things are not unities or totalities but multiplicities. Multiplicities include various focuses, centres, or points which unify, totalize and subjectivate, but this involves a stopping of growth. What counts is what is between the elements, the relations which are not separable.
Multiplicities growth from the middle like rhizomes.
Extracting concepts which correspond to multiplicities involves tracing and analyzing the lines, seeing how they become entangled parneh connect, focus or avoid focus. The lines are becomings, not unities and not histories. Multiplicities are made of becomings, and of individuations without a subject, as with objects. Concepts exist empirically as well as rationally: Empiricism is a logic of multiplicities.
The aim is to show these multiplicities in different domains, in Freud, for example. It is hard to think of multiplicities in themselves which do not need the usual ways of dealing with things—instead, normal terms take on different meanings: Anglo American literature apparently gets close to these conceptions, and science, maths and physics also aim at multiplicity.
The book is a collection of musings or reveries [ramblings as well], between AntiOedipus and Thousand Plateausso between Guattari and himself and also between Parnet and himself. We wanted a rhizome rather a tree with binary logic. I must say I find Deleuze evasive or arrogant in taking this view. Participants were invited to correct the diqlogues to get to the idea in TP that pluralism equals monism, that dualisms are the enemy.
We can see pluralism at work here. There are connections with Anglo American thinking. Chapter one A Conversation: What is it For? It is hard to explain yourself to others. When asked a question, it is pagnet to find you have nothing to say, unless they are your own questions. Big general questions about the future go round in circles, while we want imperceptible becomings.
Becoming is geographical not historical, involving orientations. Revolutionary becomings are not the same as the fate of actual revolutions. Philosophy — becoming does not emerge from the history of philosophy, but rather through marginals who remain unclassified. Becoming is not a matter of imitation or conformity to a model; there are no starting and stopping points; there is no simple exchange of terms.
Conversations could outline becomings [doubtless what joint writing does as well]. As people undergo becoming, have a change in themselves. Nuptials are always against nature. There are no longer binaries either. The wasp and the orchid are an example [again] 2. A commentator on Mozart [not refd] says that the bird song in his music shows a single becoming or a-parallel evolution.
Becomings are imperceptible and can only be expressed in a style and contained in a life. It is not the actual words or expressions that matter, and words can always be replaced with eeleuze words: There are no metaphors, no literal words, no exact words.
We need extraordinary words, as long as they can be put to common use to designate entities. A lot of journalism produces just empty words, and some books seem to be written for the review.
A good way of reading involves treating the book as you would a record you listen to, a film or TV programme. There is no need to sanctify books as such. A style is an assemblage of enunciation. There has to be a need for this stammering. It follows from constructing a line of flight [examples include Kafka, Beckett and Godard, and a poet called Luca].
These people happen to be bilingual as well, but we can be bilingual even inside a single language, by reawakening a minor language, introducing heterogeneity. We can read this way too, as a kind of translation. Even mistranslations are good, as long as they lead to new usages and not new interpretations.
Life also consists of an awkwardness, a stammering, charm. Life is not history. Charm helps us see that people are combinations and chances, and this affirms life with strength and obstinacy, persistence in being. Charm shows that life is not personal. The only point of writing is to demonstrate life through combinations, showing the opposite of neurosis which mutilates and debases.
Work requires absolute solitude, no disciples, no schools. However this solitude is populated with encounters, becomings or nuptials. You can encounter anything and anyone, not as individuals and persons, but as effects. These encounters produce single becomings, blocs, a-parallel evolutions, double captures. Encounters involve stealing, but not plagiarism or copying, but creating something mutual even if asymmetric [a Bob Dylan lyric is cited pp Deleuze admires this and sees it as contriving yet improvising, the opposite of plagiarism but also the opposite of a master, lengthy preparation yet no rules].
Do not use writing to form judgements.
Dialogues (Gilles Deleuze) – Wikipedia
This is what questions and answers do. Better to develop ideas, not correct ideas [Godard is cited here, deoeuze 6 times 2: The idea is to pick up things [ better than the cut up, page 10, which still depends on probabilities rather than chance]. Fanny inspired him in this way with ideas coming from behind: An encounter with Foucault is also an encounter with sounds, gestures, ideas, attention, laughter and smiles [then some sentimental shit about his other friends] This desert is our only identity.
They had to throw themselves into scholasticism even after the Liberation. Sartre, however provided a breath of fresh air from the outside. The elements of power in the history of philosophy appeared, its conformism and repression. It intimidates people by demanding that students read everything and are still unable to compete with specialists. Even outsiders are vulnerable to this. There is a relation with the state. There is also the notion of a Republic of Spirits, a court of reason, the notion of being the official language of the state.
Thought outside of this image such as nomadism, becomings and the rest is denounced. Even if the state no longer requires xialogues, there are still academic disciplines which sanction it, including epistemology [does he mean methods? Psychoanalysis, especially when allied with linguistics [good stuff on this below]. Marx,Freud and Saussure [sounds like Foucault here]. Linguistics and imposing an image of language and thought through order-words [the style is getting a bit Tony Blair here with these sentences without verbs].
Deleuze parent preferred those who seem to have escaped the tradition [the ones he writes about—brief descriptions follow of Hume, Bergson, Spinoza and so on].
Follow the Author
All express positive and affirmative tendencies. Deleuze claims to have seen the links]. The encounter with Guattari changed a lot of things. It triggered a lot of becomings. Felix is a desert populated by groups and friends and becomings.
The desert expanded and became more populous, the amount of encounters increased, they stopped thinking of themselves as authors, they stole from each other.
They worked as a micro political multiplicity. In another example, Guattari was interested in black holes, while Deleuze was working on white walls or screens, blocks to lines of flight and how to overcome them. This shows how work proceeds to assemble ideas, not delwuze or juxtaposing them but establishing a line between them. This would be a real conversation.
Some questions can be servile or treacherous, and they tend to favour dualisms—between authors and their work, between the interviewer and the interviewee, even in a colloquium, where choices are often presented in dualist terms. Questions are often worked out in terms of probable answers, constituting a kind of grid for understanding. Television present some of the worst examples with its [populist ventriloquism — nearly, page 20]. It is a kind of forced choice, where limited options severely constrain possibilities.