In response to how in and of itself there is still a stable subjectivity -
I'm wrestling with Deleuze myself, I hope some other people will bring up
responses but let me try this:
Imagine trying to find a stable meaning, and walking around your apartment
you see all these things that you know came from somewhere but you don't
know where: there is furniture but to say who it was built by would be
something Hume would call a cause, you can't see it you can't just know it,
so you start throwing everything out the window, the furniture, pots pans,
everything. You've even ripped the rugs out and taken everything off the
walls, everything has been thrown out because you couldn't decide with any
sense of sureness where they came from (you know, but the knowing is a
supposition). The furniture is like ideas (meaning). So your walking
around this empty, enclosed room and something catches your eye, turning
you realize your still in the room. This may sound a little strange but
what that person in the room, like the narrator of this story is an effect
of time. We don't describe meanings as much as temporality.
That stable subject is time. But its hard even noticing that subject in
the first place. Cinematic theory is contingent upon someone watching the
movie, the work of feminist film-theorists have brought in the question
of who the person watching the film is. Is a woman going to watch a film
differently than a man - yes, and how... but what is a woman and we find
ourself at a necessity in theorizing, the stablility of the viewer or
theorizer.
I hope ths helps, I would be disappointed if some of my posts seemed
'confrontational,' I'm new to Deleuze but I personally found Deleuze
to be more 'fulfilling' when I threw out the subjectivity.
David Rieder
------------------
I'm wrestling with Deleuze myself, I hope some other people will bring up
responses but let me try this:
Imagine trying to find a stable meaning, and walking around your apartment
you see all these things that you know came from somewhere but you don't
know where: there is furniture but to say who it was built by would be
something Hume would call a cause, you can't see it you can't just know it,
so you start throwing everything out the window, the furniture, pots pans,
everything. You've even ripped the rugs out and taken everything off the
walls, everything has been thrown out because you couldn't decide with any
sense of sureness where they came from (you know, but the knowing is a
supposition). The furniture is like ideas (meaning). So your walking
around this empty, enclosed room and something catches your eye, turning
you realize your still in the room. This may sound a little strange but
what that person in the room, like the narrator of this story is an effect
of time. We don't describe meanings as much as temporality.
That stable subject is time. But its hard even noticing that subject in
the first place. Cinematic theory is contingent upon someone watching the
movie, the work of feminist film-theorists have brought in the question
of who the person watching the film is. Is a woman going to watch a film
differently than a man - yes, and how... but what is a woman and we find
ourself at a necessity in theorizing, the stablility of the viewer or
theorizer.
I hope ths helps, I would be disappointed if some of my posts seemed
'confrontational,' I'm new to Deleuze but I personally found Deleuze
to be more 'fulfilling' when I threw out the subjectivity.
David Rieder
------------------