Paul wrote:
>Here is an example of one of the passages I had in mind regarding the Other-
>structure and its relationship to good and common sense (tacit). Upon Reading
>"Tournier and a World Without Others" again, I find that flight towards the
>Other does not escape these structures; however, this is a semantic issue.
oh gosh, it is really a complex and difficult text. I read twice, bits here
and there, and got amazed by the intensified relations that Deleuze makes.
The moment I felt the concepts were flashing, I got overwhelmed with
perplexity. The strings of his argument need slow and patient handling. A
priori-other, structure- Other, O/other, O/others, concrete other, real
terms in concrete fields, otherwise-Other, presence-absence Others and other
profused transformers. Multiplication of concepts that just reveal the thin
description of the current studies on the Other. (Chris today brilliantly
described his experience with existing narrow cultural studies).
>What must be discovered, it seems, is the Double that no longer treats the
>Other as a possible world in the same sense (that is, as a possible world
>giving my world consistency and structuration). Hence, what you are calling
>the Other, is what I would call the Double.
It is the double otherwise-Other? Yes, I think the double can be the concept
that we are pointing at in the previous discussions. In D&R, Deleuze did not
make such detailed differenciation regarding the Other. Anyway, I am
rereading it now more carefully as I am expecting that some thoughts of the
Other can be incorporated in my current work.
amd
>Here is an example of one of the passages I had in mind regarding the Other-
>structure and its relationship to good and common sense (tacit). Upon Reading
>"Tournier and a World Without Others" again, I find that flight towards the
>Other does not escape these structures; however, this is a semantic issue.
oh gosh, it is really a complex and difficult text. I read twice, bits here
and there, and got amazed by the intensified relations that Deleuze makes.
The moment I felt the concepts were flashing, I got overwhelmed with
perplexity. The strings of his argument need slow and patient handling. A
priori-other, structure- Other, O/other, O/others, concrete other, real
terms in concrete fields, otherwise-Other, presence-absence Others and other
profused transformers. Multiplication of concepts that just reveal the thin
description of the current studies on the Other. (Chris today brilliantly
described his experience with existing narrow cultural studies).
>What must be discovered, it seems, is the Double that no longer treats the
>Other as a possible world in the same sense (that is, as a possible world
>giving my world consistency and structuration). Hence, what you are calling
>the Other, is what I would call the Double.
It is the double otherwise-Other? Yes, I think the double can be the concept
that we are pointing at in the previous discussions. In D&R, Deleuze did not
make such detailed differenciation regarding the Other. Anyway, I am
rereading it now more carefully as I am expecting that some thoughts of the
Other can be incorporated in my current work.
amd