Read "Gilles Deleuze" by Frida Beckman available from Rakuten Kobo. Sign up today and get $5 off your first download. Although less of a public figure than. Called by many France's foremost philosopher, Gilles Deleuze is one of the leading thinkers in the Western World. His acclaimed works and celebrated. download Gilles Deleuze: Read Kindle Store Reviews - terney.info
|Language:||English, Spanish, Hindi|
|Genre:||Health & Fitness|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
Editorial Reviews. Review. "This is an excellent introduction to the writing and thinking of Gilles eBook features: Highlight, take notes, and search in the book; In this edition, page numbers are just like the physical edition; Length: pages ; Word Wise. Funambulist 03 Deleuze eBook - Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online. by Punctum. Gilles Deleuze Key Concepts michel foucault & gilles deleuze: philosophy as cultural - critical interventions into our contemporary concepts of sexuality, desire.
Smith, Minneapolis: There is a very important experience here for the painter: It is dramatic. Czanne seems to have effectively passed through this dramatic experience at its highest point. Clichs are always already on the canvas, and if the painter is content to transform the clich, to deform or mutilate it, to manipulate it in every possible way, this reaction is still too intellectual, too abstract: Lawrence wrote some superb passages on this ever renewed experience of Czannes: After a fight tooth-and-nail for forty years, he did succeed in knowing an apple, fully; and, not quite as fully, a jug or two.
That was all he achieved. It seems little, and he died embittered. But it is the first step that counts, and Czannes apple is a great deal, more than Platos Idea If Czanne had been willing to accept his own baroque clich, his drawing would have and really give a complete intuitive interpretation of actual objects is in some of the still-life compositions. Here he is inimitable.
His imitators imitate his accessories of tablecloths folded like tin, etc. Its the real appleyness, and you cant imitate it. The moment it looks like Czanne, it is nothing. Lawrence, Introduction to These Paintings [see Chapter 6, note 2], in pp.
The situation has hardly improved since Czanne. Not only has there been a multiplication of images of every kind, around us and in our heads, but even the reactions against clichs are creating clichs. Even abstract painting has not been the last to produce its own clichs: Grove Press, , p.
The fight against clichs is a terrible thing. As Lawrence says, it is already something to have succeeded, to have gotten somewhere, with regard to an apple, or a jug or two. The Japanese know that a whole life barely suffices for a single blade of grass. This is why great painters are so severe with their own work. Too many people mistake a photograph for a work of art, a plagiarism for an audacity, a parody for a laugh, or worse yet, a miserable stroke of inspiration for a creation.
But great painters know that it is not enough to mutilate, maul, or parody the clich in order to obtain a true laugh, a true deformation. Bacon is as severe with himself as was Cezanne, and like Cezanne, he lost many of his paintings, or renounced them, threw them away, as soon as the enemy reappeared. He passes judgment: Too sensational, too sensational to be felt. Even the bullfights, too dramatic. The series of Popes? I have tried very, very unsuccessfully to do certain records distorted records of The Funambulist Pamphlets: Velasquezs Pope, and I regret them, because I think theyre very silly.
What then, according to Bacon himself, should remain of Bacons work? Some of the series of heads, perhaps, one or two aerial triptychs, and a large back of a man.
Nothing more than an apple, or one or two jugs. Originally published on June 26th In their Treatise on Nomadology in A Thousand Plateaus , Deleuze and Guattari introduce their concept of holey space by the following injunction: Metallurgical India.
Transpierce the mountains instead of scaling them, excavate the land instead of striating it, bore holes in space instead of keeping it smooth, turn the earth into Swiss cheese. The excerpt to which Deleuze and Guattari are referring is in the first chapter about India where Faure describes the birth of Indian granite caves maybe the Ellora caves in Maharashtra:.
There at the shore of the sea, at the base of a mountain, they encountered a great wall of granite. Then they all entered the granite; in its shadows they lived, loved, worked, died, were born, and, three or four centuries afterward, they came out again, leagues away, having traversed the mountain.
Behind them they left the emptied rock, its galleries hollowed out in every direction, its sculptured, chiseled walls, its natural or artificial pillars turned into a deep lacework with ten thousand horrible or charming figures. It is in these monolithic temples, on their dark walls or on their sunburnt faade, that the true genius of India expends all its terrific force.
Here the confused speech of confused multitudes makes itself heard. Here man confesses unresistingly his strength and his nothingness. He does not exact the affirmation of a determined ideal from form. He encloses no system in it. He extracts it in the rough from formlessness, according to the dictates of the formless.
He utilizes the indentations and the accidents of the rock. It is they that make the sculpture. If any room is left he adds arms to the monster, or cuts off his legs if the space is insufficient. If an enormous wall of rock sug- gests the broad masses of monsters that he has seen rolling in herds, rearing their heads on the banks of the rivers or at the edges of the forests, he cuts the wall into great pure planes to make an elephant of it.
Faure lie, History of Art: Medieval Art, Garden City Publisher, This section focuses on three of the fourteen chapters composing that book; they are entitled: Apparatus of Capture The Smooth and the Striated These plateaus focus on two transformative processes that Deleuze and Guattari call smoothing and striating as two antagonistic operations and interpretations of territory. Smooth spaces are the territory of the nomads, while striated spaces are created by the sedentary.
Their conflict is a confrontation between the State and the War Machine, the logos and the nomos, chess and go, movement and speed, arborescence and rhizome, royal science and nomad science.
The whole chapter about Nomadology is built on those manichean antagonists and their incompatibility with each other.
Strategies of capture are therefore constantly elaborated by the State in order to appropriate the War Machine. This conflict is fundamental for architecture in the relationship this discipline has always maintained with military strategies. Deleuze and Guattari elaborate a definition of the smooth space and the striated space based on their absolute opposition at every level.
The following paragraphs will attempt to make an inventory of these two types of spaces. The State is a settled institution that establishes a set of rules and provides to its subject the assurance that the more they will conform to these rules, the more they will socially evolve within a pre-established hierarchy. The War Machine, on the contrary, is fundamentally non-civilizational in the way that it is not interested in the notion of progress.
Its structure can be organized in a protohierarchical way, but the latter remains sufficiently fragile to be easily overthrown in case of strong disagreement. The first symbols used to establish the confrontation between striated spaces and smooth spaces are made by attributing to each the principles of two games, chess and go.
Chess attributes a function and therefore a skill to each entity composing both armies. Its production is a strategy based on hierarchal relationships between these entities. As far as the practice of the warfield is concerned, both armies try to conquer the biggest part of land in order to exercise control over it. Conversely, the game of go is based on fast movements of territorialization and deterritorialization, intensifying a conflict in one zone, then leave to it to attack the next one.
The function and power of every pawn are the same, thus allowing interesting potential turnarounds. Both chess and go dramatize the opposition between two armies that operate symmetrically, with the same organization and strategy. It would be interesting to elaborate a set of rules for a game that would confront a nomadic War Machine like gos army and a State army like chess.
What Deleuze and Guattari call Royal Science is interesting for architects, since they use them as an example to express the essence of this sedentary discipline.
In fact, architects tend to avoid the notion of spontaneity and improvisation in favor of planning and control. That is why the architect maybe they ought to say the engineer appears in this regard as the paradigm of the royal scientist. They oppose to this the example of the Gothic journeyman who applies a nomadic science by improvising design directly on the construction site, depending on the forces felt in situ.
On the contrary, architects establish plans that are the direct expression of their transcendental control over the matter and architectures users. The examples of Orleans and Beauvais cathedrals are evoked as failures of the nomadic science to provide a perfect, safely built environment, allowing a dose of uncertainty in the design.
This notion is interesting in that the State cannot accept this degree of un-control, based on its original promise of security, contained in the social contract.
The fact that these two cathedrals have been built according to nomadic sciences principles and eventually collapsed is a manifesto for considering risk and danger as a fully integrated part of the lethality of life and the awareness of it. Indeed, agriculture first brings value to the land; this results in parcelization and ownership. Agriculture additionally brings a population to become sedentary and therefore increase the need for implementation of new tools.
This process of innovation is called progress and is the base of a civilizations growth. Architecture embodies the striation, and thus defines the limits of the land. Private property is claimed and wars can begin.
This narrative is perfectly expressed by the myth of creation of Rome. Romulus established the limits of the city by digging a trench or building a wall, depending on the version. When his brother Remus leaped across it, Romulus killed him as a sentence for the original violation of private property in Roman history.
Architecture creates an inside separated from the outside; its property is being claimed by people or institutions. Lines of property are being virtually traced and architecture materializes them into violent devices actively controlling bodies.
The wall is quintessential and paradigmatic in this regard and operates at every scale, from the domestic wall of an apartment to the United States border with Mexico and other various scales of gated communities.
The original citys limit from Romulus, however, disappeared during the 19th century to let the city diffuse and spread into a quasi-total ambient milieu. The following paragraph will show how the urban warfield became a territory submitted to processes of striation and smoothing since the 19th century.
This fifty-six year period in French history saw three revolutions emerging from Parisian urban fabric. He actively took part in two revolutions and was imprisoned during the Commune, making him an icon of the resistance against the Versailles government. In , he wrote a small manual entitled: Esquisse de la marche suivre dans une prise darmes Paris Draft of a Strategy for an Armed Uprising in Paris , which establishes an extremely precise protocol of modification of the warfield in order to optimize it for the weaker, yet hopefully victorious, side of an asymmetrical urban conflict my translation: This labor done, we put the two lateral barricades together by piercing the thick walls that separate the houses situated at the front of the defense.
The same operation is executed simultaneously in the houses on the two sides of the barricaded street up to its end, then backwards, on the right and left, along the parallel street, on the defenses front and back. Openings have to be created on the ground floor and top floor in order to obtain two ways; this work is done in the same way in four directions.
All the blocks of houses of the barricaded streets should be pierced in their perimeter, in such way that fighters be able to enter or exit by the back street, out of sight and out of reach of the enemy. The interior of the blocks generally consists of courtyards and gardens. One could open access between these spaces, as they are usually separated by weak walls. It should be compulsory on the bridges, whose importance and specific situations expose them to the most serious attacks.
It would be useful to organize companies of non-fighters such as workers, masons, carpenters, etc. When, on the frontline of defense, a house is more particularly being threatened, we demolish the ground floor staircase and we make an opening in the various rooms floor of the second floor in order to shoot potential soldiers who would invade the ground floor to place bombs.
Boiling water can also play an important role. If the attack encompassed a large area of the front line, we cut the staircases and pierces the floors in all the exposed houses. La Fabrique, , The urban modifications for which Blanqui advocates apply processes of striating and smoothing the space. In fact, the construction of barricades with the paving stones he established very precise calculations of the amount of paving stones needed adds another layer of striation to the city, and thus subverts its normal functionality.
On the other hand, piercing holes through the walls associated with the destruction of staircases denies the physicality of architecture and thus smooth the urban space. Through these processes, the city is assimilated as a single malleable matter that can be acted upon and reconfigured according to the needs of the insurgent army. The ability of the insurgents to act on this matter, and manipulate the warfield in favor of their strategies has a lot to do with their victories in and The second example of French State strategies of counterinsurrection occured in in Algiers Casbah, where the first operations of the FLN were organized.
The chronology is important. At first, the warfield is used by Algerians who apply what will later be Deleuze and Guattaris definition of speed: Whoever is carrying out a mission for the FLN strikes intensely, then immediately disappears in the urban maze of the Casbah.
However, soon after this first series of operations, the French paratroopers manage little by little to capture the War Machines principle by following the strategies of Colonel Marcel Bigeard, officer in charge of the counter insurrection.
Acting directly on the Casbahs materiality and infiltrating the organization of the FLN, they succeeded in absolutely suppressing any resistant force in Algiers in Nevertheless, the resistance had lasted long enough to successively provoke a national mobilization leading to Algerian independence in A final example of urban striation and smoothing in a conflict situation was studied by Eyal Weizman in a article entitled Lethal Theory, analyzing the strategy of the Israeli general Aviv Kochavi in the siege of Nablus Palestnian 1 FLN: Kochavi developed a theory he called inverted geometry that avoids the camps streets in order to move through the walls of the dense urban fabric and surprise potential Palestinian fighters.
This technique reduced the spectacular damages in the camp to deep scars within homes, invisible from outside and insignificant to the international community. Rather than submit to the authority of conventional spatial boundaries and logic, movement became constitutive of space. The three-dimensional progression through walls, ceilings, and floors across the urban balk reinterpreted, shortcircuited, and recomposed both architectural and urban syntax. Verso, The State that succeeded the capture of the War Machine is a state who established war as its main contingency, its population being entirely composed of potential soldiers military service being compulsory for almost every Israeli citizen.
The elaboration of the oppression of Palestinians led the Israeli army to associate a striation of the space by its walls, colonial settlements and roads and to adopt a nomadic behavior, swarming out from its border, infesting Palestinian land and folding itself back in its own territory. This coexistence of State and War Machine may be related to the status of the Jewish People involved in what Deleuze calls a common becoming due to their persecution through the ages.
When Israel became a State however, it established a normalizing benchmark that internalizes some of its subjects and oppresses the others. American Farmers Visit Britain. Lend-lease Equipment in Action, United Kingdom Ministry of Information Photo Division Photographer. Public domain - Page Public domain.
Barricades rue Saint-Maur in Paris 25 June Photograph by Thibault. Barricade rue Royale during the Paris Commune Photograph unknown.
Ali la Pointes house after having been bombed with him in it by the French paratroopers October Photograph by Saber Creative Commons - Page Reproduction of holes in a Havana building during the Cuban Revolution. Still from the film Che: Part 1 by Steven Soderbergh Originally published on May 9th It intends to question the notion of machine through a Marxist approach.
The main thesis of this concise and important book is the critique of Deleuze and Guattaris definition of a machine as an assemblage and Marxs reading of a system like capitalism as non-transcendental.
Nowadays, it is almost normal for Westerners to be critical of capitalism; however, this criticism is always directed towards those who would impose a transcendental goal to the system. This vision of capitalism has the advantage to virtually exclude the critique from the system and therefore to consider their criticism as sufficient. Of course, such exclusion is an illusion, because capitalism is inherently an immanent system, an assemblage, a machine.
As Michel Foucault demonstrated, capitalism does not reproduce the medieval scheme of sovereignty, based principally on a continuous state of war, which was considering human lives as a good consumable by the transcendental power.
Instead, capitalism manages and controls lives in order to maintain an extraction of work production on a continuous basis.
In order to explain the difference between immanent assemblage and transcendental machine, Gerald Raunig uses the two examples of machine in Kafkas Penal Colony and the love machine of Alfred Jarrys Supermale In order to fully understand his text, I have to explain what these two machines are about. In the Penal Colony is a short story by Kafka that introduces an execution machine that kills the condemn person by inscribing the nature of his crime on his torso with blades.
The machines inventor is also the executioner who is so obsessively proud of his invention that he eventually dies by using the machine on himself in order to show it to the narrator. The Supermale is a science fiction novel written by Alfred Jarry. The supermale, is a man able to perform a staggering number of intercourses, even during a frenetic race between a team of cyclists and a train. The supermale ends up being killed by the machine with which he makes love.
Raunig insists on the fact that, in these two stories, the human is merely the raw material for the machine, rather than being a part of it. We can envision both stories as our erroneous representation of capitalism. The transcendental abstract machine, which remains isolated at the level of the outline, which does not succeed in conjoining with concrete concatenations, is only a special case.
Lethal The Funambulist Pamphlets: Its case is similar to the love machine, which falls in love with the supermale, then turns around and kills the lover: The supermale dies like the officer in the penal colony in the machine, not as its component, one of its gears, but as its raw material.
And yet the union of the mechanized human and humanizing technical machine persists at the stage of a one-dimensional exchange relationship in transcendental abstraction. For machines, which like the judgment pronouncing-executing machine in The Penal Colony and the lovingkilling machine in Supermale cannot extend and expand in a montage, the logical end is selfdemontage, self-destruction. The MIT Press , Originally published on April 1st Foucaults structuralist descriptions of discipline are supposedly well-known by architects.
The architectual paradigm of the Panopticon is quoted everywhere and became indissoluble from Foucaults work in architectural theory, despite the richness of the rest of his work. However, the panopticon, as thought by Jeremy Bentham, is interpreted by Foucault as the paradigm of a society of discipline and does not apply anymore to the current organizational scheme of the Western world. In the text cited in the title of this chapter, Gilles Deleuze, Foucaults friend and admirer, summarizes the current paradigm in Foucauldian terms and calls it the society of control.
Deleuzes short essay, more developed in his book dedicated to Foucault, insists on the shift from a disciplinary society to a society of control. Deleuze uses Franz Kafkas novel The Trial as a perfect example of this change of paradigm. Kafka introduces the choice offered to his main character, K. In the disciplinary societies one was always starting again from school to the barracks, from the barracks to the factory , while in the societies of control one is never finished with anything the corporation, the educational system, the armed services being metastable states coexisting in one and the same modulation, like a universal system of deformation.
Deleuze gives another example to illustrate how control exercises its power on the bodies: Felix Guattari has imagined a city where one would be able to leave ones apartment, ones street, ones neighborhood, thanks to ones dividual electronic card that raises a given barrier; but the card could just as easily be rejected on a given day or between certain hours; what counts is not the barrier but the computer that tracks each persons position licit or illicit and effects a universal modulation.
This very simple example carries some tremendous human implications when the example is applied literally in the case of the dozens of Israeli checkpoints inside the West Bank, for example. This is also the case when applied figuratively, in Western societies with which we are more familiar, where the concept of freedom cannot be understood outside of a policed capitalist system. By his extremely precise descriptions of this systems mechanisms, Foucault acts violently against it.
These mechanisms are actually nothing else but decoy and camouflage apparatuses. Sometimes interviewer reaches the level of the interviewed one could think of the hours of interviews with Alfred Hitchcock by Francois Truffaut for example.
In , Antonio Negri published an interview with his friend Deleuze about the notions of control and becoming. This topic is obviously always appropriate, but the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and hopefully the forthcoming ones in Libya and Iran, make Deleuzes words even more striking. When many Westerners wonder if those revolutions are to be considered a good thing, as nobody knows where they are going, one can follow Deleuze and affirm that what is really important is the revolutionary becoming of people.
Applied to these recent situations, what needs to be celebrated above all are the seventeen days spent by the people of Egypt on the Tahrir Square, forming a temporary communist society, celebrated by Alain Badiou. As Deleuze concludes the beautiful conversation, our ability to resist control, or our submission to it, has to be assessed at the level of our every move.
In Foucault  and in The Fold , processes of subjectification seem to be studied more closely than in some of your other works. The subjects the boundary of a continuous movement between an inside and outside. What are the political consequences of this conception of the subject?
If the subject cant be reduced to an externalized citizenship, can it invest citizenship with force and life? Can it make possible a new militant pragmatism, at once a pietas toward the world and a very radical construction. What politics can dor of events and subjectivity. How carry into history the splen can we conceive a community that has real force but no base, that isnt a totality but is, as in Spinoza, absolute? It definitely makes sense to look at the various ways individuals and groups constitute themselves as subjects through processes of subjectification: Even if they, in turn, engender new forms of power or become assimilated into new forms of knowledge.
For a while, though, they have a real, rebellious spontaneity. This has nothing to do with going back to the subject, that is, to something invested with duties, power, and knowledge.
One might equally well speak of new kinds of event, rather than processes of subjectification: They appear for a moment, and its that moment that matters, its the chance we must seize. Or we can simply talk about the brain: I think subjectification, events, and brains are more or less the same thing. What we most lack is a belief in the world, weve quite lost the world, its been taken from us.
If you believe in the world you precipitate events, however inconspicuous, that elude control, you engender new space-times, however small their surface or volume. Its what you call pietas. Our ability to resist control, or our submission to it, has to be assessed at the level of our every move. We need both creativity and a people. Originally published on February 22nd A theory is exactly like a box of tools.
It has nothing to do with the signifier. It must be useful. It must function. And not for itself. If no one uses it, beginning with the theoretician himself who then ceases to be a theoretician , then the theory is worthless or the moment is inappropriate.
We dont revise a theory, but construct new ones; we have no choice but to make others. It is strange that it was Proust, an author thought to be a pure intellectual, who said it so clearly: It is in the nature of power to totalize and it is your position; and one I fully agree with, that theory is by nature opposed to power. As soon as a theory is enmeshed in a particular point, we realize that it will never possess the slightest practical importance unless it can erupt in a totally different area.
This is why the notion of reform is so stupid and hypocritical. Either reforms are designed by people who claim to be representative, who make a profession of speaking for others, and they lead to a division of power, to a distribution of this new power which is consequently increased by a double repression; or they arise from the complaints and demands of those concerned.
This latter instance is no longer a reform but revolutionary action that questions expressing the full force of its partiality the totality of power and the hierarchy that maintains it. This is surely evident in prisons: If the protests of children were heard in kindergarten, if their questions were attended to, it would be enough to explode the entire educational system.
There is no denying that our social system is totally without tolerance; this accounts for its extreme fragility in all its aspects and also its need for a global form of repression.
In my opinion, you [Foucault] were the first in your books and in the practical sphere to teach us something absolutely fundamental: We ridiculed representation and said it was finished, but we failed to draw the consequences of this theoretical The Funambulist Pamphlets: The quote from Proust that started this passage provided that Deleuze did not make it up in a strategic production of knowledge is fundamental in the creation of any form of theory, and even beyond, in the creation of any ethics.
I understand the notion of ethics here in a Spinozist way: In other words, the notion of truth or good can only exist in relation to a subjective system of interpretation. It would be a mistake, however, to confuse this statement with the post-modern usual affirmation according to which everything is relative and therefore equal.
Such a discourse of truth severely injured the importance of the political debate in the Western World. A system of interpretation gains as much value as it acquires coherence, and the potential antagonism created between those systems requires them to be understood in a logic of combat.
If I were to use an example that is important to me, I would say that the system of interpretations that is being developed by an Orthodox Jewish settler in the West Bank appears to me coherent. Nothing is for him or her more important than this act of God: These two systems are so contradictory yet both coherent in themselves that they cannot establish the bases of any form of understanding between them. They therefore have to collide and throw as much energy into this combat as the constituted ethics requires them to do.
Another example, to go back to Deleuze yet stay within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, would be to evoke his concept elaborated with Guattari of the War Machine. In fact, the War Machine, as thought by them, is a strategic formation against the State Apparatus. Clearly, in their understanding of combat both Deleuze and Foucault were engaged in that sense the Palestinian people has to constitute such a formation to fight against the State-organized oppression that they suffer.
Based on this text, I had the occasion to reveal to my former professor, Catherine Ingraham, that her book, Architecture and the Burdens of Linearity Yale University Press, , was also taught in this military theory institute. She was shocked that her writings could be used for such martial purposes. These unwanted effects of ones theoretical work are highly problematic.
They are ambiguous, as they are more likely to occur through a philosophy whose system has been deliberately left open to uses and interpretation.
It is certainly the case for Deleuzes philosophy, but itis also true for Foucault, who referred to the notion of toolbox evoked by Deleuze in the previous excerpt.
In the following passage in the French newspaper Le Monde , Foucault writes: All my books are little tool-boxes. If people want to pen them, to use this sentence or that idea as a screwdriver or spanner to short-circuit, discredit systems of power, including eventually those from which my books emergedso much the better.
Originally published on September 10th The very useful tumblr Concrete Rules and Abstract Machines recently chose an excerpt of Deleuzes lecture on Spinoza at Universit de Vincennes in This short text questions the notion of body and outline as interpreted by the Stoics that can be considered as a base for Spinozas question: The sentence that both illustrates this question and characterizes Deleuzes powerful and poetic style is: A sunflower seed lost in a wall is capable of shattering that wall.
It looks like it this not the case so far, but it is still too early to say The other example Deleuze gives to distinguish between body and power puissance is the forest.
Of course the tree itself is a body but the forest is a power, power to make the trees continue, up to the moment at which it can no longer do so. Cours Vincennes Does everything have an outline?
Bateson, who is a genius, The Funambulist Pamphlets: Take the expression outside the subject, that is to say beyond the subject. Does that mean that the subject has an outline? Otherwise what does outside the limits mean? At first sight it has a spatial air. But is it the same space? Do outside the limits and outside the outline belong to the same space? Does the conversation or my course today have an outline?
My answer is yes. One can touch it. Lets return to the stoics. Their favorite example is: A thing with such a small an outline. How does the sunflower seed go, does that mean how far does its surface go?
No, the surface is where the seed ends. In their theory of the utterance nonc , they will say that it states exactly what the seed is not. That is to say where the seed is no longer, but that tells us nothing about what the seed is. They will say of Plato that, with his theory of ideas, he tells us very well what things are not, but he tells us nothing about what things are. The Stoics cry out triumphantly: Bodies and not ideas. Things are bodies, that means that things are actions.
The limit of something is the limit of its action and not the outline of its figure. An even simpler example: At last you succeed and little by little the forest thins out, you are pleased. You reach a spot and you say, whew, heres the edge. The edge of the forest is a limit. Does this mean that the forest is defined by its outline? Its a limit of what? Is it a limit to the form of the forest? Its a limit to the action of the forest, that is to say that the forest that had so much power arrives at the limit of its power, it can no longer lie over the terrain, it thins out.
There was a tendency, and this time the limit is not separable, a kind of tension towards the limit. Its a dynamic limit that is opposed to an outline limit. The thing has no other limit than the limit of its power [puissance] or its action. The thing is thus power and not form.
The forest is not defined by a form, it is defined by a power: The only question that I have to ask of the forest is: That is to say, how far will you go? That is what the Stoics discover and what enables them to say: When they say that everything is a body, they dont mean that everything is a sensible thing, because they do not emerge from the Platonic point of view. If they were to define the sensible thing by form and outline, that would hold no interest.
When they say that everything is a body, for example a circle does not extend in space in the same fashion if it is made of wood as it does if it is made of marble.
Further, everything is a body will signify that a red circle and a blue circle do not extend in space in the same fashion. Thus, there is a tension. When they say that all things are bodies, they mean that all things are defined by tonos, the contracted effort that defines the thing.
The kind of contraction, the embryonic force that is in the thing, if you dont find it, you dont know [connaissez] the thing. That is what Spinoza takes up again in the formulation what can a body do?
Originally published on July 15th The following short excerpt comes from one of Gilles Deleuzes lectures about Spinoza in Vincennes the Parisian autonomous University during the s. This constitutes a good illustration of the various modes of knowledge evoked in the previous chapters. Sur Spinoza. Cours Vincennes. Nobody can deny that to be able to swim is a conquest of existence, it is fundamental you understand: I conquer an element; it is not so obvious to conquer an element.
I can swim, I can fly. What does that mean? It is very simple: Then, you have the infinite set of water molecules that compose the wave; it composes a wave and I say: Water molecules already belong to a body, the aquatic body, the ocean body, etc. What is the first type of knowledge? It is: I dare, I wade in, so to speak.
What does that mean to wade? To wade, that is very simple. They are shock effects, meaning, I dont know anything of the relationships that compose themselves or decompose themselves, I receive the extrinsic parts effects. The parts that belong to me are being shaken, they gister a shock effect coming from parts that belong to the wave.
Therefore sometimes I laugh, sometimes I weep, depending on whether the wave makes me laugh or knocks me out, I am within the passion affects: Ok Ouch Mummy the wave beat me up, cry that we shall not cease to sound until we dont come out of the first type of knowledge since we shall not cease to say: Peter hurt me as to say: The stone hurt me or the wave hurt me.
It is the same level , it is the first type. On the contrary, I can swim; it does not necessarily means that I have a mathematics, physics, or scientific knowledge of the waves movement, it means that I have a skill, a surprising skill, I have a sort of rhythm sense. What does that mean, the rhythm, it means that my characteristic relationships, I know how to compose them directly with the waves relationships, it does not happen anymore between the wave and myself, meaning it does not happen anymore between the extensive parts, the waves wet parts and my bodys parts; it happens between the relationships.
Relationships that compose the wave, relationships that compose my body, and my skill when I can swim, to present my body under some relationships that compose themselves directly with the waves relationships. I dive at The Funambulist Pamphlets: I avoid the coming wave, or on the contrary I use it, etc All this art of the relationships composition Originally published on December 17th Lets continue to explore Spinozist conceptology and focus on a distinction difficult to make in English where the word power includes and therefore erases the distinction between two meanings whose difference is fundamentalfor Spinoza.
I will differentiate between two Latin terms, potentia and potestas in French, puissance and pouvoir. Savage Anomaly, written by Antonio Negri in when he was in prison, examines this complex question. The original subtitle of this book is saggio su potere e potenza in Baruch Spinoza essay on potestas and potential in Baruch Spinoza. Unfortunately, Michael Hardt, Negris friend and translator of the English version did not find a way to translate this directly and added a different subtitle, The Power of Spinozas Metaphysics and Politics.
I first want to explain the difference between potestas and potentia in a simple way by defining the former as a relationship to another body and the latter as a capacity or an intensity, to use a Deleuzian terminology. Potestas needs a referent to dominate or to be dominated by it. On the contrary, potentia is a relationship to the whole world Spinoza might say God but since his god is immanent, this is the same thing in the The Funambulist Pamphlets: In the Abcdaire J for Joy , Deleuze helps us understand this distinction while explaining the concept of joy and sadness my translation: There is no bad power puissance , instead we should say that what is bad is the lowest degree of power puissance.
And the lowest degree of power puissance , is power pouvoir. I mean, what is malice? Malice consists in preventing someone from doing what he can, malice consists in preventing someone from doing, from effecting his power puissance.
Therefore, there is no bad power puissance , there are malicious powers pouvoirs. Perhaps all power pouvoir is malicious by nature. Maybe not, maybe it is too easy to say so  Power pouvoir is always an obstacle to the effecting of powers puissances. I would say, all power pouvoir is sad. Yes, even if those who have the power pouvoir are very joyful to have it, it is a sad joy; there are sad joys.
On the contrary, joy is the effecting of a power puissance. Once again, I dont know any power puissance that is malicious. The typhoon is a power puissance , it enjoys itself in its very soul butit does not enjoy because it destroys houses, it enjoys because it exists. To enjoy is to enjoy being what we are, I mean, to be where we are.
Of course, it does not mean to be happy with ourselves, not at all. Joy is the pleasure of the conquest conqute , as Nietzsche would say. But conquest in that sense does not mean to enslave people, of course. Conquest is, for example, for a painter to conquer color. Yes, that yes, that is a conquest, yeah, here, this is joy. In other words, and to go back to the notion of joy as we know it in a familiar sense, the moment of true joy that we probably all experienced one day like Deleuzes typhoon occurs when everything around us and in us seems to connect in a harmonious manner: Whoever experienced this feeling would have trouble imagining that such pure happiness could occur when expressing a domination towards another individual.
Using the play on words that Deleuze almost suggests to us, the sad joy he evokes might be observed more particularly in Sade where pleasure is achieved through the absolute domination of one body over another. However, that pleasure in its orgasmic and violent characteristics does not seem to resonate within Spinozas concept of joy.
The French word jouissance would probably be more appropriate, but here, again, the English language lacks a word to express it. Let us go back to the Savage Anomaly and how A. Negri associates the philosophy of the Ethics with the more pragmatic in the sense of Machiavelli Theologico-Political Treatise and Political Treatise Negris thesis is that the two latter texts should not be interpreted the same way as Thomas Hobbes Leviathan and Jean-Jacques Rousseaus Social Contract , as it has been repeatedly done.
While these two books presupposes a human nature fundamentally bad in Hobbes, fundamentally good in Rousseau and dramatizes a sort of mythical original event for which individuals would have ceded some of their rights to compose a society, Spinoza does not dramatize anything and thus probably does not historicize anything either ; he simply examines the relationships of the multitude with its government.
For him, The State constitutes the multitudes effectuation of its potentia. Whether the government is an embodiment of The State or not is almost irrelevant. Of course, if The Funambulist Pamphlets: Let us not forget, however, that the formulation of the multitudes desire often constitutes an imperfect understanding if not, sometimes, a complete misunderstanding of its potentia since the latter is related to the whole world and cannot be fully articulated and expressed. Spinoza, who was horrified by the assassination of the De Witt Brothers by a crowd in , knew too well that the expression of the multitudes desire has sometimes more to do with potestas than with potentia.
A legitimate political act would therefore constitute an act that would formulate its desire as close as possible to the essence of its potentia. Understanding the relation to the world is therefore a crucial point for our attempt to act politically, to be joyful. Originally published on March 26 This additional chapter dedicated to the exploration of Spinozas conceptology will be, once again, influenced by Deleuzes interpretation of Spinoza. Deleuze spent the first part of his career creating his own philosophy through interpreting others Hume, Nietzsche, Bergson.
These interpretations are intensely personal. There are other ways of approaching the philosophy of Spinoza, but I am not as familiar with them. We have not yet explored the concept of substance, which is for Spinoza the only and necessarily perfect thing that exists and that can be considered as a whole under the name God. Expressed in a very simple way maybe too simple , and borrowing Leibnizs concept of monad, we see the world as a gigantic assemblage of infinitely small pieces of matter calling them atoms would be erroneous but useful to make it understandable that are all involved in a more or less fast movement.
These small elements of matter compose bodies that are perpetually striving to persevere in being Ethics, part 3, prop. This property is called conatus.
These bodies are continuously interacting with each other and thus systematically affect each other. What it means in a very simple way is that when you cut a piece of butter with a knife, the knife afThe Funambulist Pamphlets: Spinoza distinguishes several degrees of knowledge modes of perception depending on how we, as bodies, get affected by other bodies see my essay Architectures of Joy for more on that.
Deleuze uses the example of the wave to make himself understood in his description of these three degrees. Somebody who is said not to be able to swim is someone who does not experience the wave in another way than a very passive one. The second degree of knowledge is expressed by someone who is said to be able to swim. While this second degree is strictly empirical one has to experience the wave, adjust, experience again, adjust again, etc.
It consists in an understanding tending but probably never reaching towards perfection of the totality of relations operating in matter. In other words again, simplifying involves a certain degree of inaccuracy but it allows a first level of understanding , this degree of knowledge can be seen as a sort of visual or tactile layer superimposed on ones vision which would bring such a resolution than one would be able to perceive the infinitely small parts of matter and the various vectors of forces applied to it.
This mode of perception is therefore only a horizon and cannot really be fully acquired but, if we keep using the example of the wave, we can probably say that the best surfers are probably close to this degree of knowledge of the sea. As fallible bodies, we cannot compose harmonious relations with every body we encounter.
Such truth is, for Spinoza, the essence of the Genesis mythical mystery. Despite the period in which he lived, his philosophy makes it impossible for us to think that he was creationist however, calling him an evolutionist would be even more blatant anachronism; he rarely thinks in terms of history. In his famous epistolary exchange with Bleyenberg, he nonetheless plays the game, interpreting the Biblical myth to unfold his conceptual work.
Spinoza accuses the three biblical religions of having told this story through a judgmental approach: God forbids Adam to eat the fruit, he eats it, he is punished. Spinoza approaches the same narrative through a different optic.
God tells of course, the personification of God does not correspond to anything in Spinozas philosophy Adam that the apple is poisonous in other words, Adam has the intuition or the instinct that the apple is bad for him , he eats it anyway and becomes sick.
The fruit was poisoned, i. The result of this encounter is that Adam is sick, or should we say, to use Spinozist terminology, he lost a bit of his power potentia , he experiences a sad affect. Each of these encounters between bodies, results either in a joyful affect that constructs a sort of third body for a moment, composed of the two original ones in the state of symbiosis, or a sad affect that decomposes the relations of both bodies not necessarily in a symmetrical manner, however. Spinozas letters to Bleyenberg are known as the letters about evil.
Yet, the notion of evil, and therefore the notion of moral is foreign to Spinozas philosophy. The latter The Funambulist Pamphlets: Rather, there is the experience of each affect as potentially and effectively harmonious and disharmonious with our own material assemblage, i. Originally published on March 27 The scream evoked in the title refers to the concept of philosophical scream that Deleuze invents to define a phrase written or pronounced by a philosopher that contains the essence of his lifes work.
The scream has to be understood in two senses at least, that is the way I interpret it: In the case of Spinoza, according to Deleuze, this scream is expressed in Ethics, part 3, prop. However, no one has hitherto laid down the limits to the powers of the body, that is, no one has as yet been taught by experience what the body can accomplish solely by the laws of nature, in so far as she is regarded as extension.
No one hitherto has gained such an accurate knowledge of the bodily mechanism, that he can explain all its functions; nor need I call attention to the fact that many actions are observed in the lower animals, which far transcend human sagacity, and that somnambulists do many things in their sleep, which they would not venture to The Funambulist Pamphlets: Again, no one knows how or by what means the mind moves the body, nor how many various degrees of motion it can impart to the body, nor how quickly it can move it.
According to Deleuze, the approach of the body and therefore of individuals to what it can do rather than to what it is, is the main difference between an ethical philosophy and a moralist one.
One has to understand that Spinoza does not consider an individual as the scheme where a soul would be hosted by a body. Each body is an assemblage of substance, and chemistry that makes us think should be considered as a very similar process to the one that makes us run, dance orwalk on a tight rope.
Just like we need to forget the idea of the soul being hosted within the body vessel, we need to stop thinking of the body as a set of organs contained within an epidermic enclosure that prevents them from escaping.
We are an assemblage of substance, of matter that the bios life is holding together for a while. This matter, just like any other in the world, is subjected to movements of speed and slowness. The way we compose these internal movements with the ones that surround us precisely defines our relation to the world. A cross-reading of Deleuzes lectures allows a better understanding of this way of thinking: In his seminar about Cinema: The Movement Image in , he talks about the movement of matter in the philosophy of Henri Bergson.
What is moving? Matter is moving. It means to pass from one form to another. Form does not get to transform, it is matter that goes from one form to another. That is a continuous idea in Platos work: But when water gets hotter, a fluid matter, water, goes from one form to another, from the cold form to the hot form; it is not the cold that becomes hot.
Forms themselves are immobile or they have movements in thoughts, but the finite movement consists in a matter that passes from one form to another. A horse gallops, you have two forms: You will then say that gallop is the operation for which the horsematter matire cheval , the horses body in its mobility does not cease to go from form A to form B and from form B to form A. What Spinoza means by expressing our ignorance about what a body can do is, of course, not an absolute.
We know some of the things that a body can do based on the second degree of knowledge that we all experience on a daily basis we would not be able to move at all otherwise. We might even have a small glimpse at what the third degree of knowledge might be see the previous chapter for an explanation of the degrees of knowledge ; however, we can never achieve a perfect understanding of the world according to this same third degree of knowledge and will therefore never fully know what a body can do.
Our ability to gain control and decisiveness over the movement of the matter assemblage again, that concerns what we simply call the intellect just The Funambulist Pamphlets: Originally published on March 30th The French word dlire, turned into a concept by Deleuze and Guattari in Anti-Oedipus , carries a meaning that its English equivalent, delirium, does not: I will therefore use the French verb dlirer instead of its imperfect English translation: Deleuze summarizes the argument of Anti-Oedipus as the fundamental distinction between the unconscious interpreted as a representative form Sigmund Freuds vision and the unconscious interpreted as a production of desire.
It is the same distinction as between a theater and a factory. This changes everything, since the realm of representation involves a phenomenology that activates itself through symbols and a form of cultural semiotics, whereas the notion of production involves universal operations of material manipulation and transformation. This is why Freudian psychoanalysis tends to focus or at least to start from the familial realms, such as the Oedipus comple, and why an anti-Oedipus argument starts from the universal.
The second part of Anti-Oedipus calls the Freudian totalitarian obsession with the family, familialism, and evokes the imperialism of Oedipus: Oedipus restrained is the figure of the daddymommy-me triangle, the familial constellation in person.
But when psychoanalysis makes of Oedipus its dogma, it is not unaware of the existence of relations said to be pre-Oedipal in the child, exo-Oedipal in the psychotic, para-Oedipal in others.
The pre-exo-para-Oedipal dimensions are precisely what leads to a universal consideration of the unconscious, and therefore of desire and delirium. Rather, we dlire about the whole world, one dlire about history, geography, tribes, deserts, peoples, races, climates, thats what we dlire about.
Delirium is geographical-political. In other words, the desire that delirium embodies constitutes our relationship to the world in its entirety.
It does not mean that the realm of the Oedipal family extended to the world; that is not what the geographical dimension of the delirium means: Rather, it is a present synesthetic experience of the world in its entirety; that means, including our own body. We should not wonder what the signification of our dreams is, but rather, which forces of the world are we embedded into when we dream.
Deleuze often talks about the great creators authors, artists, filmmakers, philosophers as people who have tried more or less successfully to transcribe through a medium the great thing of life of which they had a glimpse. There is something almost religious in this notion of great thing, and we should perhaps understand it this way, as strange as it may sound.
The phenomenon of trance, recurrent in various religions, is not so far from delirium. Etymologically, trance means a fear of coming evil or a passage from life to death; but perhaps the trance is nothing else than an intense manifestation of life through which a more articulated experience of the world is accomplished. Showing of 7 reviews.
Top Reviews Most recent Top Reviews. There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later. Paperback Verified download. This is a good place to start.
I like that the author gives suggestions at the end on where to go next. I have always liked Deleuze and its interesting that Lacan pretty much disowned Guattari over Anti-Oedipus. At times, Deleuze's own suggestions of philosophy feel rather liberating and he does make me rethink Platonism, showing that there are multiple directions and viewpoints.
I''m not sure this is Schopenhauer or Hegel rivalry, but it does show that rivals are rivals and Lacan hated the thing what Deleuze was doing. Over time, many have said that Deleuze's books are weird inaccessible or useless. Deleuze once said it would be better to read "10, Plateaus" as a record player. Deleuze does have an ability to work his way into your mind and this book provides a brief introduction to showcase, why Deleuze is worth reading in this day and age.
You had the big three in Deleuze, Foucault, and Derrida. But Deleuze was well liked by his students There is no Deleuze now or Focualut, who more or less had his own flaws and shortcomings, but philosophy is making it up as we go along. So good book for beginners. This book got me hooked on Deleuze for about a year. Again a very good book!!! Kindle Edition Verified download. As a philosophy professor who teaches primarily undergrads, I frequently have students approach me with a desire to read authors such as Deleuze.
Given the density of his writings, a secondary lit assist is nearly a necessity. I've recently read nearly every purported intro text on Deleuze again for a project of my own and Colebrook's text still stands out as the best place to start. I have indicated the degree to which I have appreciated this download and how it his been of value to me.
Hope you have the same experience that I did and that it will be beneficial to you. One person found this helpful. I was hesitant about this book before I read it primarily for two reasons. The first was that I knew Claire Colebrook was largely interested in what might broadly be termed Gilles Deleuze's aesthetics his theories of literature and film in particular which is not the aspect of Deleuze that I am most interested in. I am a graduate student in philosophy and my interests are primarily ontological and metaphysical so I was worried that this text might not be terribly relevant to my interests.
The second was that I have found it has often worked better for me when I am dealing with a difficult philosopher to simply dive right into the deep end and try to learn to swim that way rather than easing myself in through introductory texts. I have often found that the introductory texts do not make a whole lot of sense unless you have at least some experience reading the philosopher first hand.
In regard to my first concern I was pleasantly surprised by Claire Colebrook's book. She does spend a fair amount of time analyzing Deleuze's theories of literature and film, however, she also spends a great deal of time elucidating Deleuze the philosopher, and even her discussions of his theories of literature and film often had important philosophical implications and were interesting in their own right.
I really thought the entire book was very interesting. In regard to my second concern Claire Colebrook's book has transformed my philosophy to some degree. I have tried to learn Deleuze the hard way on my own in the past by simply diving into his texts and have never made much progress. There is still somewhat of an unbridgeable gap between reading an introductory text and reading a philosopher first hand.
What I mean by that is simply that the introductory text still does not make reading Deleuze easy. To continue the swimming metaphor, an introductory book can bring you to the edge of the pool but it cannot walk you step by step into the deep end. Eventually you have to make the leap and it is still going to be a struggle. The book does a very good job summarizing the general thrust of Deleuze's philosophy but when it comes to the details and actually reading his texts it is still very difficult, even after having read this book, to untangle Deleuze's terminology.
All in all I think this is probably the best introductory book on Deleuze around. I have tried others like Todd May's which I will be reading in the next couple of weeks and reviewing, and Ronald Bogue's which I have read sections of, and I thought over all that Claire Colebrook's book was quite a bit more accessible than the others I have tried. So if you are looking for a book that will give you some sense of what Deleuze is up to in his philosophy I would highly recommend this book. Just do not expect too much from it.
Reading Deleuze is difficult and it probably always will be. Ultimately I still think there is going to have to come a time when you simply jump into the deep end and learn how to swim.
But perhaps books like Claire Colebrook's can at least give you some idea of the kinds of motions you are going to have to make as you are trying to learn the metaphor of learning to swim seems especially apt in this case since it is a metaphor Deleuze himself uses when he discusses the nature of learning.
Colebrook's contibution to understanding Gilles Deleuze's thinking is especially of interest to anybody starting the study of Deleuze's and Guattari's philosophy. Their philosophy is very hard to grasp, if that is possible at all, by just starting with their original works. I am very greatful to Claire Colebrook and others for "lifting the lawn".
Well, after a couple of years of dabbling into Deleuze, something keeps pulling me back, I think I finally found the book that provides the needed clarity to see Deleuze and his ideas "as if a butterfly pinned to a piece of carboard. Now back to Anti-Oedipus and the revolution ahead!
See all 7 reviews.
site Giveaway allows you to run promotional giveaways in order to create buzz, reward your audience, and attract new followers and customers. Learn more about site Giveaway. This item: Gilles Deleuze: Set up a giveaway. What other items do customers download after viewing this item? An Introduction Kindle Edition. Todd May. Customers who viewed this item also viewed. An Introduction. Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Deleuze and Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus: Deleuze and Guattari's 'A Thousand Plateaus': A Reader's Guide Reader's Guides.
Eugene W. There's a problem loading this menu right now. Learn more about site Prime. Get fast, free shipping with site Prime.