Michael Here's the piece you asked for. It's from 'On
Philosophy' -Pourparlers- p.204. I sending to the list in case
it may come in handy to anyone else.
'This study of the images of thought, to be called noology,
would be the prologomena to philosophy. The nature of
postulates in the image of thought is the true oject of -
Difference and Repetition-.And I was haunted by this question
in -Logic of Meaning [or is it Sense?]- where height, depth
and surface are coordinates of thought. I take it up again
in -Proust and Signs-, since Proust opposes the whole power of
signs to Greek thought, and then we come upon it again in MP
with Felix, because the rhizome is the image of thought which
spreads under that of the trees. In this question we have, not
a model, not even a guide, but a referent, a cross-reference
to bring constantly into effect: the state of knowledge
[research] into the brain.
There exists a privileged connexion between philosophy and
neurology, you can see it with the associationists, with
Schopenhauer or Bergson. Computers are not what inspire us
today, but the microbiology of the brain: it presents itself
as a rhizome, grass rather than a tree, "an uncertain system"
[in english], with mechanisms of probability, semi-aleatory,
quantic. We do not think according to the knowledge that we
have of the brain, but any new thought etches out unknown
furrows in the brain, it twists, folds or splits it. Michaux
is a miracle in this respect. New connections, new clearways,
new synapses are what philosophy mobilises when it creates
concepts, but they also form a whole image whose objective
material likeness or source of power the biology of the brain
discovers by its own methods.
------------------
Philosophy' -Pourparlers- p.204. I sending to the list in case
it may come in handy to anyone else.
'This study of the images of thought, to be called noology,
would be the prologomena to philosophy. The nature of
postulates in the image of thought is the true oject of -
Difference and Repetition-.And I was haunted by this question
in -Logic of Meaning [or is it Sense?]- where height, depth
and surface are coordinates of thought. I take it up again
in -Proust and Signs-, since Proust opposes the whole power of
signs to Greek thought, and then we come upon it again in MP
with Felix, because the rhizome is the image of thought which
spreads under that of the trees. In this question we have, not
a model, not even a guide, but a referent, a cross-reference
to bring constantly into effect: the state of knowledge
[research] into the brain.
There exists a privileged connexion between philosophy and
neurology, you can see it with the associationists, with
Schopenhauer or Bergson. Computers are not what inspire us
today, but the microbiology of the brain: it presents itself
as a rhizome, grass rather than a tree, "an uncertain system"
[in english], with mechanisms of probability, semi-aleatory,
quantic. We do not think according to the knowledge that we
have of the brain, but any new thought etches out unknown
furrows in the brain, it twists, folds or splits it. Michaux
is a miracle in this respect. New connections, new clearways,
new synapses are what philosophy mobilises when it creates
concepts, but they also form a whole image whose objective
material likeness or source of power the biology of the brain
discovers by its own methods.
------------------