David wrote:
> Malgosia wrote: "We grow up in a certain intellectual atmosphere,
> and this plays a role in what we think about and how we think about it.
> Certain aspects of this atmosphere are created via the instututions
> through which the culture propagates and maintains itself. I call
> these aspects 'ideology.'"
> I would agree with this statement as with any that sounded right,
> but the point that I'd wanted to bring up was that this statement,
> like all subject statements have a foundation, it represents a belief
> or an idea - and before getting back into a circularity, before saying,
> well, that's the point, I'de be interested in supplementing ideolgy
> discussions with the following: How can we use ideological theories
> (and theories about ideology) to understand Deleuze when the theories
> presuppose a stable subject/ivity?
I guess the reason why I keep endlessly re-phrasing what is a very
commonplace notion of "ideology" is because I cannot understand how,
in and of itself, it presupposes any kind of stable subjectivity.
Consequently, I don't see why there couldn't be ample ways to theorize
this commonplace notion without presupposing a stable subjectivity,
and I would imagine that it has been done in a number of different
ways. I don't want to force people into undesirable detours, and
I don't think I need to understand this for reading _Cinema_1_, but
if someone was interested in explaining this recurrent mention of
stable subjectivity in connection with my account, I would listen
eagerly. I now rest convinced, finally, that this recurrence is not
due to the insufficiency of my explanation.
- malgosia
------------------
> Malgosia wrote: "We grow up in a certain intellectual atmosphere,
> and this plays a role in what we think about and how we think about it.
> Certain aspects of this atmosphere are created via the instututions
> through which the culture propagates and maintains itself. I call
> these aspects 'ideology.'"
> I would agree with this statement as with any that sounded right,
> but the point that I'd wanted to bring up was that this statement,
> like all subject statements have a foundation, it represents a belief
> or an idea - and before getting back into a circularity, before saying,
> well, that's the point, I'de be interested in supplementing ideolgy
> discussions with the following: How can we use ideological theories
> (and theories about ideology) to understand Deleuze when the theories
> presuppose a stable subject/ivity?
I guess the reason why I keep endlessly re-phrasing what is a very
commonplace notion of "ideology" is because I cannot understand how,
in and of itself, it presupposes any kind of stable subjectivity.
Consequently, I don't see why there couldn't be ample ways to theorize
this commonplace notion without presupposing a stable subjectivity,
and I would imagine that it has been done in a number of different
ways. I don't want to force people into undesirable detours, and
I don't think I need to understand this for reading _Cinema_1_, but
if someone was interested in explaining this recurrent mention of
stable subjectivity in connection with my account, I would listen
eagerly. I now rest convinced, finally, that this recurrence is not
due to the insufficiency of my explanation.
- malgosia
------------------