My feelings in reading the introduction to A Thousand Plateaus is that I want to fully understand and appreciate the work Deleuze and Parnet are doing, but it is difficult not to simply dismiss it as nonsense. I certainly think there is something interesting here and worth investigating, but the presentation of it as avant-garde literature makes that a hard project to tackle. I had a difficult time getting through it completely.
Deleuze and Parnet’s Many Politics was slightly easier to wrap my head around, although not by much. At least there seems to be some cohesive theory about the different lines here. What was perhaps most insightful for me was the line: “Politics is active experimentation, since we do not know in advance which way a line is going to turn.” That seems to highlight the postmodernists’ conception of chaos; despite the rigor of determinism there is still room for accidental chance that we cannot know in advance.
1. Deleuze states that there is no sciences of the State but there is abstract machines. Abstract machines are complex, some of which you may need to use various sciences and social sciences in order to execute the product. 2. I was confused when ideology not being a part of literature was mentioned. Of course assemblage is important in literature but ideology and assemblage are practically the same thing. I feel as though that statement was contradictory.
I found this to be one of the harder readings this semester, and often found myself having to re-read parts because I was reading the words without absorbing much of anything. My initial reaction is that this is written in a dramatically different style in a sort of post-modern self-referential way. The book itself seems to be, in addition to an explanation of their philosophies, an example of their philosophies. The introduction is named Rhizome, and clearly states that it both tries to explain and emulate the idea of a philosophy reaching out with tendrils, allowing a sort of dynamism otherwise impossible (or at least impractical) with a more traditional style.
Although it is not explicitly part of the text, I did look up the “piano piece” pictured at the top of the introduction and was amused to see that, in addition to being functionally unplayable, it is a part of the larger catalog of Sylvano Bussotti whose work is so exceedingly avant-garde that calling them so might be an understatement.
The first reading was difficult for me to get through but the Deluze and Parnet's Many Politics was very intresting to me. I like the concept that we have the three lines that run throughout our lives. The first being our segmented lives (where we see our accomplishments and progressions) the second being line in our communities and close groups and the third being the line a gravity as it is refered to in the reading.
My main question about the 3rd line is do they give it a god like quality? The fact that it is the most simple but also ambiguous gives it a mysterious and powerful feeling. I notice they do not refer to this line as fate but im still a little confused about its definition.
Deleuze makes a fair argument that within any given language, their are common abstractions. He uses the example "the sun is rising," in English. We know, as English speakers that the sun is not actually rising, but we also know what one means when one says "the sun is rising." He puts forth that some people think language is too abstract, but Deleuze argues that it is not abstract enough. We lose meaning when speaking across languages, especially across languages we don't understand. There isn't an abstract machine in language that is good enough for two languages to communicate seamlessly.
Deleuze analysis of the rhizome sounds like a natural representation of Leibniz monads. Accept, instead of the algebraic "fairyland" that Leibniz uses to describe the connectivity of everything, Deleuze writes as if things that interact operate within a system of rhizome, "the burrow is the animal rhizome." It seem that something which is an abstraction, yet naturally occurring, is a rhizome typed by the subject of the interaction.
I wonder if rhizome can be used as a verb. If I drive a car, do I rhizome that car to be a human rhizome? If I shake someones hand, did we rhizome together to make a greeting rhizome? "I rhizome you, you rhizome me."
The part where it is mentioned that ideology is not part of not part of literature is a little confusing to me and could be somewhat cleared up.
The ideas Deluze explains in his writing are quite difficult to understand but I was able to pick up on a few ideas he tried to explain. An example of an interesting one is the one about how our lives have two different parts. the idea that a[our lives can be separated between our personal progressions and out interaction with our community is a concept I had never thought of.
The more the readings venture into determinism the more fun the langue gets, however this may just be a personal preference. These pieces were very challenging to grasp. Although dispute this I was able to stitch together some basic ideas like since human beings will never be able to achieve a Heiddegerian totality of meaning precisely because a view from nowhere is impossible to achieve, meaning that no matter how "impartial" a subject believes they are they are still applying some sort of ideologically imposed set of hermetical values.
Since an objective view is impossible one should; at least in the field of state craft, allow for the maximum amount of views to exist. This is imperative for a genuine, sustainable alternative to capitalism to materialize itself.
My feelings in reading the introduction to A Thousand Plateaus is that I want to fully understand and appreciate the work Deleuze and Parnet are doing, but it is difficult not to simply dismiss it as nonsense. I certainly think there is something interesting here and worth investigating, but the presentation of it as avant-garde literature makes that a hard project to tackle. I had a difficult time getting through it completely.
ReplyDeleteDeleuze and Parnet’s Many Politics was slightly easier to wrap my head around, although not by much. At least there seems to be some cohesive theory about the different lines here. What was perhaps most insightful for me was the line: “Politics is active experimentation, since we do not know in advance which way a line is going to turn.” That seems to highlight the postmodernists’ conception of chaos; despite the rigor of determinism there is still room for accidental chance that we cannot know in advance.
1. Deleuze states that there is no sciences of the State but there is abstract machines. Abstract machines are complex, some of which you may need to use various sciences and social sciences in order to execute the product.
ReplyDelete2. I was confused when ideology not being a part of literature was mentioned. Of course assemblage is important in literature but ideology and assemblage are practically the same thing. I feel as though that statement was contradictory.
I found this to be one of the harder readings this semester, and often found myself having to re-read parts because I was reading the words without absorbing much of anything. My initial reaction is that this is written in a dramatically different style in a sort of post-modern self-referential way. The book itself seems to be, in addition to an explanation of their philosophies, an example of their philosophies. The introduction is named Rhizome, and clearly states that it both tries to explain and emulate the idea of a philosophy reaching out with tendrils, allowing a sort of dynamism otherwise impossible (or at least impractical) with a more traditional style.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is not explicitly part of the text, I did look up the “piano piece” pictured at the top of the introduction and was amused to see that, in addition to being functionally unplayable, it is a part of the larger catalog of Sylvano Bussotti whose work is so exceedingly avant-garde that calling them so might be an understatement.
The first reading was difficult for me to get through but the Deluze and Parnet's Many Politics was very intresting to me. I like the concept that we have the three lines that run throughout our lives. The first being our segmented lives (where we see our accomplishments and progressions) the second being line in our communities and close groups and the third being the line a gravity as it is refered to in the reading.
ReplyDeleteMy main question about the 3rd line is do they give it a god like quality? The fact that it is the most simple but also ambiguous gives it a mysterious and powerful feeling. I notice they do not refer to this line as fate but im still a little confused about its definition.
Deleuze makes a fair argument that within any given language, their are common abstractions. He uses the example "the sun is rising," in English. We know, as English speakers that the sun is not actually rising, but we also know what one means when one says "the sun is rising." He puts forth that some people think language is too abstract, but Deleuze argues that it is not abstract enough. We lose meaning when speaking across languages, especially across languages we don't understand. There isn't an abstract machine in language that is good enough for two languages to communicate seamlessly.
ReplyDeleteDeleuze analysis of the rhizome sounds like a natural representation of Leibniz monads. Accept, instead of the algebraic "fairyland" that Leibniz uses to describe the connectivity of everything, Deleuze writes as if things that interact operate within a system of rhizome, "the burrow is the animal rhizome." It seem that something which is an abstraction, yet naturally occurring, is a rhizome typed by the subject of the interaction.
I wonder if rhizome can be used as a verb. If I drive a car, do I rhizome that car to be a human rhizome? If I shake someones hand, did we rhizome together to make a greeting rhizome? "I rhizome you, you rhizome me."
The part where it is mentioned that ideology is not part of not part of literature is a little confusing to me and could be somewhat cleared up.
ReplyDeleteThe ideas Deluze explains in his writing are quite difficult to understand but I was able to pick up on a few ideas he tried to explain. An example of an interesting one is the one about how our lives have two different parts. the idea that a[our lives can be separated between our personal progressions and out interaction with our community is a concept I had never thought of.
The more the readings venture into determinism the more fun the langue gets, however this may just be a personal preference. These pieces were very challenging to grasp. Although dispute this I was able to stitch together some basic ideas like since human beings will never be able to achieve a Heiddegerian totality of meaning precisely because a view from nowhere is impossible to achieve, meaning that no matter how "impartial" a subject believes they are they are still applying some sort of ideologically imposed set of hermetical values.
ReplyDeleteSince an objective view is impossible one should; at least in the field of state craft, allow for the maximum amount of views to exist. This is imperative for a genuine, sustainable alternative to capitalism to materialize itself.