I didn't know that we were in a flame of any kind Mike. I do think that
your first post is compossible with Deleuzian Time but its not the direction
in which i'm trying go. But having said this, i would like to write what
it is i'm writing about relative to Deleuze, Derrida, semiotics and
the negative.
I believe a good way to discuss the differences between Deleuze and Derrida
would be to discuss their concepts of how subjectivity comes about. Doubtless
Derrida and Deleuze go further than most in conferring the "death of man."
But they go in very divergeant paths in conferring this death. I am without
remorse arguing from Deleuze and Guattari's perspective (or what i think
to be their perspective). Much of what I am going to write can be found
in Brian Massumi's USER'S GUIDE, and i refer you to that work if you have
major questions about the validity of what i'm going to write. But
if you are familiar with D&G, it should come as no surprise.
(1) SIGNS, ENERGY, EARTH: THE PRIMAL SCENE. From D&G's perspective,
subjectivity cannot be effectively explained through sign systems alone.
A sign system, like subjectivity itself, is an "effect," an expression,
of Becoming. Now, D&G admit that sighn systems are important, but they alos
emphasize that all systems, semiotic or otherwise, are thoroughly hetero-
geneous and should be analyzed as temporal phenomena, not as somthing that
conditions an entire strat or plane. For Deleuze and Guattari it is simply
not practical and erroneous to view language as a system than governs the
entire "human" world. It was the earth and its relationship with an
infinite number of cosmic forces that created the form we think of as
language. Therefore language is a fusion of Homo sapien DNA with cosmic
and gelogic forces. This is called "geophilosophy."
(2) SIGNS DO NOT DIFFER AND DEFER. RATHER, THE TIME SPACE (DIS)CONTINUUM
IS FRACTAL. D&G believe that theories of the signifier simply do not
explain sign systems. Derrida's semiotic theories are usefull in that they
point out that signs are NOT communicational (see "Signature Event Context"
"Differance," "Freud and the Scene of Writing" all of Derrida's work) but
rather create chemical reactions within the synaptic fissures of the brain
that then produce automated responses. Here lies the major disagreement.
For after Derrida writes that signs are NOT communicational, that signs
do not have "meaning," he goes on and oon about how signs differ and deger
with each other to achieve meaning through their negative difference with
other signs. This is what Deleuze calls the illusion of the negative that
results from from the attempt to critique representation and communication
with another theory of how signs come to represent ad communicate. Derrida,
being the Hegelian/Saussurian/heideggerian that he is, has attempted to make
everything into what it is not. ie, Hegelianism has become Saussurian
semiotics: identity = negative difference. Deleuze, however, argues that
nothing results from the negative because the negatve is literally the only
think that is not. Difference is positive. Difference is the endless
bifurcation of energy waves coalesced into matter. It is upon this principle
that Deleuze's critique of philosophies of identity and representation
is based. "Difference is not negation. On the contrary, the negative is
difference inverted, seen from below. Always the candle in the bovine eye.
Difference is inverted by the requirements of representation which
subordinate it to identity. Then, by the shadow of problems, which give
rise to the illusion of the negative" (DIFFERENCE & REPETITION, p. 235).
Signs do not differ and defer; this is the illsusion of theories of
communication (See the plateaus in ATP on linguistics).
If there is any interest in this I would be happy to go on. But its taking
up a lot of "space," so i will stop for now.
chris dacus
cnd7750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------
your first post is compossible with Deleuzian Time but its not the direction
in which i'm trying go. But having said this, i would like to write what
it is i'm writing about relative to Deleuze, Derrida, semiotics and
the negative.
I believe a good way to discuss the differences between Deleuze and Derrida
would be to discuss their concepts of how subjectivity comes about. Doubtless
Derrida and Deleuze go further than most in conferring the "death of man."
But they go in very divergeant paths in conferring this death. I am without
remorse arguing from Deleuze and Guattari's perspective (or what i think
to be their perspective). Much of what I am going to write can be found
in Brian Massumi's USER'S GUIDE, and i refer you to that work if you have
major questions about the validity of what i'm going to write. But
if you are familiar with D&G, it should come as no surprise.
(1) SIGNS, ENERGY, EARTH: THE PRIMAL SCENE. From D&G's perspective,
subjectivity cannot be effectively explained through sign systems alone.
A sign system, like subjectivity itself, is an "effect," an expression,
of Becoming. Now, D&G admit that sighn systems are important, but they alos
emphasize that all systems, semiotic or otherwise, are thoroughly hetero-
geneous and should be analyzed as temporal phenomena, not as somthing that
conditions an entire strat or plane. For Deleuze and Guattari it is simply
not practical and erroneous to view language as a system than governs the
entire "human" world. It was the earth and its relationship with an
infinite number of cosmic forces that created the form we think of as
language. Therefore language is a fusion of Homo sapien DNA with cosmic
and gelogic forces. This is called "geophilosophy."
(2) SIGNS DO NOT DIFFER AND DEFER. RATHER, THE TIME SPACE (DIS)CONTINUUM
IS FRACTAL. D&G believe that theories of the signifier simply do not
explain sign systems. Derrida's semiotic theories are usefull in that they
point out that signs are NOT communicational (see "Signature Event Context"
"Differance," "Freud and the Scene of Writing" all of Derrida's work) but
rather create chemical reactions within the synaptic fissures of the brain
that then produce automated responses. Here lies the major disagreement.
For after Derrida writes that signs are NOT communicational, that signs
do not have "meaning," he goes on and oon about how signs differ and deger
with each other to achieve meaning through their negative difference with
other signs. This is what Deleuze calls the illusion of the negative that
results from from the attempt to critique representation and communication
with another theory of how signs come to represent ad communicate. Derrida,
being the Hegelian/Saussurian/heideggerian that he is, has attempted to make
everything into what it is not. ie, Hegelianism has become Saussurian
semiotics: identity = negative difference. Deleuze, however, argues that
nothing results from the negative because the negatve is literally the only
think that is not. Difference is positive. Difference is the endless
bifurcation of energy waves coalesced into matter. It is upon this principle
that Deleuze's critique of philosophies of identity and representation
is based. "Difference is not negation. On the contrary, the negative is
difference inverted, seen from below. Always the candle in the bovine eye.
Difference is inverted by the requirements of representation which
subordinate it to identity. Then, by the shadow of problems, which give
rise to the illusion of the negative" (DIFFERENCE & REPETITION, p. 235).
Signs do not differ and defer; this is the illsusion of theories of
communication (See the plateaus in ATP on linguistics).
If there is any interest in this I would be happy to go on. But its taking
up a lot of "space," so i will stop for now.
chris dacus
cnd7750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------