Deleuze does indeed speak of communication between forces or events--
communication as a form of frequency or resonance. The kind of communication
being singled out as an "illusion" (as D&G write in WIP?) is the
transmission of meaning from subject to subject. D&G write that it is
this frequency, or communication, between Events that actualized, or
produces, subjectivity.
As for the Derrida stuff: Massumi does not single out Derrida. I did.
Massumi singles out Baudrillard and Barthes. I siingled out Derrida because,
whether or not he 'critiques' Saussure, is modus operandi is still
Saussurian: identity = negative difference. (This is the ewquation that
Massumi gives with regard to Saussurian semioticians that i like very much,
and is certainly applicable to Derrida.) Again, Massumi does not single out
Derrida. If someone is being unfair to Derrida it is me. But i don't think
i am. I think most who have done a good deal of work on Deleuze and
D&G realize that they are not that close to other poststructuralists.
They are thoroughgoing energetic materialists that believe it is ludicrous
to reject all of Western metaphysics prior to Heidegger's great (and i'm
still saying Hegelian) destruction of non-Greek and authentic ontology.
D&G are metaphysicians, so is Derrida. We all are. Now, on the communication
stuff and Derrida: Derrida like D&G does not explicity reject or accept
the kind of communication described above as an illusion.But he does
take Saussure's negative difference and use it as the FOUNDATION for his
philosophy (it is a foundation; it is the foundation that renders all
else foundationless according to Derrida). It just so happens that
Saussure's negative difference fits Heidegger's IDENTITY AND DIFFERENCE,
so Derrida can 'critique' Saussure for being logocentric and phonocentric
(because he priveleged language over writing and tried to believe in
presence). But Derrida, although he does not necessarily reject or
accept what D&G call illusionary communication, uses a theory, or method,
that applies negative difference (negative deterriatorialization in ATP)
to identity and thereby removes expression from content. I belive this
to be a very fair assesment of Derrida from D&G's perspective. If you
accept that signs have not content or force, oyou can play in neagtive
difference forever and criticize D&G for not doing the same. As Massumi
does point out, but not singling out Derrida, again i am, when one
analyzes only the expressive side of content, you neglect that power
relations are the force of content itself. If you believe that identity =
negative difference then you stay with Derrida nad not D&G.
Nathan, you have read D&R, you are aware that Deleuze is dealing with
a materialist ontology of force. Do you think this is not quite different
from what Derrida is doing? I know that others (Derrideans included)
believe we can't be energetic materialists because its part of the Western
tradition that needs to be completely deconstructed. D&G obviously do
not feel that this is necessary. They are not outside the tradition, but
neither is Derrida or anybody else. To sum up, Derrida essensializes
negative difference and deferment tha constitutes the way we think and
form identities; D&G essentialize force, matter, energy, power, and desire
that constitutes everything, not just humans. Everybody 'essentializes'
too.
chris
------------------
communication as a form of frequency or resonance. The kind of communication
being singled out as an "illusion" (as D&G write in WIP?) is the
transmission of meaning from subject to subject. D&G write that it is
this frequency, or communication, between Events that actualized, or
produces, subjectivity.
As for the Derrida stuff: Massumi does not single out Derrida. I did.
Massumi singles out Baudrillard and Barthes. I siingled out Derrida because,
whether or not he 'critiques' Saussure, is modus operandi is still
Saussurian: identity = negative difference. (This is the ewquation that
Massumi gives with regard to Saussurian semioticians that i like very much,
and is certainly applicable to Derrida.) Again, Massumi does not single out
Derrida. If someone is being unfair to Derrida it is me. But i don't think
i am. I think most who have done a good deal of work on Deleuze and
D&G realize that they are not that close to other poststructuralists.
They are thoroughgoing energetic materialists that believe it is ludicrous
to reject all of Western metaphysics prior to Heidegger's great (and i'm
still saying Hegelian) destruction of non-Greek and authentic ontology.
D&G are metaphysicians, so is Derrida. We all are. Now, on the communication
stuff and Derrida: Derrida like D&G does not explicity reject or accept
the kind of communication described above as an illusion.But he does
take Saussure's negative difference and use it as the FOUNDATION for his
philosophy (it is a foundation; it is the foundation that renders all
else foundationless according to Derrida). It just so happens that
Saussure's negative difference fits Heidegger's IDENTITY AND DIFFERENCE,
so Derrida can 'critique' Saussure for being logocentric and phonocentric
(because he priveleged language over writing and tried to believe in
presence). But Derrida, although he does not necessarily reject or
accept what D&G call illusionary communication, uses a theory, or method,
that applies negative difference (negative deterriatorialization in ATP)
to identity and thereby removes expression from content. I belive this
to be a very fair assesment of Derrida from D&G's perspective. If you
accept that signs have not content or force, oyou can play in neagtive
difference forever and criticize D&G for not doing the same. As Massumi
does point out, but not singling out Derrida, again i am, when one
analyzes only the expressive side of content, you neglect that power
relations are the force of content itself. If you believe that identity =
negative difference then you stay with Derrida nad not D&G.
Nathan, you have read D&R, you are aware that Deleuze is dealing with
a materialist ontology of force. Do you think this is not quite different
from what Derrida is doing? I know that others (Derrideans included)
believe we can't be energetic materialists because its part of the Western
tradition that needs to be completely deconstructed. D&G obviously do
not feel that this is necessary. They are not outside the tradition, but
neither is Derrida or anybody else. To sum up, Derrida essensializes
negative difference and deferment tha constitutes the way we think and
form identities; D&G essentialize force, matter, energy, power, and desire
that constitutes everything, not just humans. Everybody 'essentializes'
too.
chris
------------------