I feel a great need to interject over this communication issue. It seems
to me that at least in Deleuze's work (as I've said before, I'm not read in
D&G), communication is neither downplayed, rejected, nor separated from the
concept of force. DIFF & REP make this very clear. For example:
"A system must be constituted on the basis of one or more series, each series
being defined by the differences between the terms which compose it. If we
suppose that the series communicate under the impulse of a force of some kind,
then it is apparent that this communication relates differences to other
differences, constituting differences between differences within within the
system" (p. 117).
Further:
"Every phenomenon refers to an inequality by which it is conditioned. Every
diversity and every change refers to a difference which is its sufficient
reason...Every phenomenon flashes in a signal-sign system. In so far as a
system is constituted or bounded by at least two heterogenous series, two
disparate orders capable of entering into communication, we call it a signal.
The phenomenon that flashes across this system, bringing about communication
between disparate series, is a sign" (p. 222).
See also pp. 145-146 regarding the violent communication between faculties that
does not reinforce common sense but rather breaks it down; also the stuff on
dark precursors, and how such signal-sign systems are systems of simulacra (p.
277).
Now communication in this sense must certainly not be understood as the
transmission of meaning. It rather involves the interrelation of forces, and
the affectivity that defines the will to power. As Deleuze states in NIETSCHE
AND PHILOSOPHY, the will to power manifests itself in force as the capacity for
being affected [and I'll add, being affected at a distance]. Further, the more
ways a body can be affected, the more force it has. This is why the will to
power applies itself to all objects: "The fact is that the will to power rules
even in the inorganic world, or rather that there is no inorganic world.
Action at a distance cannot be eliminated, for one thing attracts another and a
thing feels itself attracted. This is the fundamental fact...In order for the
will to pwoer to be able to manifest itself it needs to perceive the things it
sees and feel the approach of what is assimilable to it" (Nietzsche in N&P, p.
63).
Chris mentioned a few weeks back, when this debate arose, that Derrida
repeatedly says that communcation does not exist, and yet goes on to describe
communication. But what sort of cummunication is Derrida describing? If it's
the 'communication' by which the play of differAnce relates differences to one
another without invoking an underlying 'sameness', then it's really not as far
off from Deleuze as some would like it to be. Again, I am aware of Deleuze's
critique of Saussure, but to my knowledge neither he nor D&G have extended such
a criticism to Derrida (who is also critiquing Saussure). In short, I haven't
yet read Massumi (but don't worry folks, eventually between teaching and doing
a Ph.d., I'll get to it), but I suspect that it's not a very fair reading of
Derrida or 'post-structuralism' more generally (and again the disclaimer: I AM
NOT SAYING DELEUZE AND DERRIDA SHOULD BE EQUATED, ONLY THAT IT DOES NO GOOD TO
TRY TO SEPARATE THEM BY UNFAIRLY READING ONE OF THEM).
Nathan
widder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------
to me that at least in Deleuze's work (as I've said before, I'm not read in
D&G), communication is neither downplayed, rejected, nor separated from the
concept of force. DIFF & REP make this very clear. For example:
"A system must be constituted on the basis of one or more series, each series
being defined by the differences between the terms which compose it. If we
suppose that the series communicate under the impulse of a force of some kind,
then it is apparent that this communication relates differences to other
differences, constituting differences between differences within within the
system" (p. 117).
Further:
"Every phenomenon refers to an inequality by which it is conditioned. Every
diversity and every change refers to a difference which is its sufficient
reason...Every phenomenon flashes in a signal-sign system. In so far as a
system is constituted or bounded by at least two heterogenous series, two
disparate orders capable of entering into communication, we call it a signal.
The phenomenon that flashes across this system, bringing about communication
between disparate series, is a sign" (p. 222).
See also pp. 145-146 regarding the violent communication between faculties that
does not reinforce common sense but rather breaks it down; also the stuff on
dark precursors, and how such signal-sign systems are systems of simulacra (p.
277).
Now communication in this sense must certainly not be understood as the
transmission of meaning. It rather involves the interrelation of forces, and
the affectivity that defines the will to power. As Deleuze states in NIETSCHE
AND PHILOSOPHY, the will to power manifests itself in force as the capacity for
being affected [and I'll add, being affected at a distance]. Further, the more
ways a body can be affected, the more force it has. This is why the will to
power applies itself to all objects: "The fact is that the will to power rules
even in the inorganic world, or rather that there is no inorganic world.
Action at a distance cannot be eliminated, for one thing attracts another and a
thing feels itself attracted. This is the fundamental fact...In order for the
will to pwoer to be able to manifest itself it needs to perceive the things it
sees and feel the approach of what is assimilable to it" (Nietzsche in N&P, p.
63).
Chris mentioned a few weeks back, when this debate arose, that Derrida
repeatedly says that communcation does not exist, and yet goes on to describe
communication. But what sort of cummunication is Derrida describing? If it's
the 'communication' by which the play of differAnce relates differences to one
another without invoking an underlying 'sameness', then it's really not as far
off from Deleuze as some would like it to be. Again, I am aware of Deleuze's
critique of Saussure, but to my knowledge neither he nor D&G have extended such
a criticism to Derrida (who is also critiquing Saussure). In short, I haven't
yet read Massumi (but don't worry folks, eventually between teaching and doing
a Ph.d., I'll get to it), but I suspect that it's not a very fair reading of
Derrida or 'post-structuralism' more generally (and again the disclaimer: I AM
NOT SAYING DELEUZE AND DERRIDA SHOULD BE EQUATED, ONLY THAT IT DOES NO GOOD TO
TRY TO SEPARATE THEM BY UNFAIRLY READING ONE OF THEM).
Nathan
widder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------