i definitely think repetition plays a productive role in becoming. But
repetition is repetition of difference. the actual present does not resemble
the virtual past, although it is in 'reciprical determination' with it.
this is the creative dynamic tht constitutes all becomings, human or
otherwise, and renders metaphor and analogy superfluous. The unfolding
of the virtual in the actual, which as Jon pointed out is also a
process of differenciation rathar than differentiation, is a productive
and creative actualization. This is why when one becomes a dog it is actually
a dog that one becomes. One arranges particles in such a way as to
create a singular (haecceity) dog becoming. But this is done by way of
repetition or habit. According to Deleuze, Time, in Bergsonian terms
as a KIND of duration, coexists with the present. In becoming one
places oneself in the past, but in so doing creates a future-present that
is singular and absolutely real actualization of the virtual. Again,
the virtual is not the possible. The possible is opposed to the real. The
virtual is real and different. This is not psychological but ontological.
The virtual is real existence.But one never goes back to the same virtual,
for Time is irreversible. "We must nevertheless be clear at this point
that Bergson does not us the word 'unconscious' to denote a psychological
reality outside of consciousness, but to denot a non-psychological reality--
being as it is in itself. ...Only the present is 'psychological'; but
the past is pure ontology; pure recollection has only ontolgical
significance" (BERGSONSIM, p. 56). Repetition or habit is therefore th
ontological actualization of the virtual, but this actualization is
nevertheless a differenciation of the differentiated. The actual may
have temporal sense, but the present coexists with the past and is temporal
by virtue of this coexistence. The present is an empty abyss; the virtual
past/future is the creative dynamic of becoming. One could look at
psychological conceptions of memory as capitalisms trick of convincing
us that to be is to have. Deleuze and Guattari suggest that we niether
'be' nor 'have' but become, and become, and become... The world of
becoming is machinic; the world of having in order to be is human, all too
human. Nomadic machines couple with other machines and continually transgress
the very limits that constituted their past becomings. But when one truly
becomes a nomadic machine the 'their' gets thrown out. Marx and Nietzsche
enter into a communist-overman machine and production to have is replaced
by production for the joy of becoming: AUTOPRODUCTION. Values change
such that identity becomes a joke and humans find their true 'identity':
productive becoming with the earth. "I am all the names of history!" Or
something like that Nietzshce screamed. becoming is not psychological
but cosmic.
i could go on and on but i will stop now.
chris
------------------
repetition is repetition of difference. the actual present does not resemble
the virtual past, although it is in 'reciprical determination' with it.
this is the creative dynamic tht constitutes all becomings, human or
otherwise, and renders metaphor and analogy superfluous. The unfolding
of the virtual in the actual, which as Jon pointed out is also a
process of differenciation rathar than differentiation, is a productive
and creative actualization. This is why when one becomes a dog it is actually
a dog that one becomes. One arranges particles in such a way as to
create a singular (haecceity) dog becoming. But this is done by way of
repetition or habit. According to Deleuze, Time, in Bergsonian terms
as a KIND of duration, coexists with the present. In becoming one
places oneself in the past, but in so doing creates a future-present that
is singular and absolutely real actualization of the virtual. Again,
the virtual is not the possible. The possible is opposed to the real. The
virtual is real and different. This is not psychological but ontological.
The virtual is real existence.But one never goes back to the same virtual,
for Time is irreversible. "We must nevertheless be clear at this point
that Bergson does not us the word 'unconscious' to denote a psychological
reality outside of consciousness, but to denot a non-psychological reality--
being as it is in itself. ...Only the present is 'psychological'; but
the past is pure ontology; pure recollection has only ontolgical
significance" (BERGSONSIM, p. 56). Repetition or habit is therefore th
ontological actualization of the virtual, but this actualization is
nevertheless a differenciation of the differentiated. The actual may
have temporal sense, but the present coexists with the past and is temporal
by virtue of this coexistence. The present is an empty abyss; the virtual
past/future is the creative dynamic of becoming. One could look at
psychological conceptions of memory as capitalisms trick of convincing
us that to be is to have. Deleuze and Guattari suggest that we niether
'be' nor 'have' but become, and become, and become... The world of
becoming is machinic; the world of having in order to be is human, all too
human. Nomadic machines couple with other machines and continually transgress
the very limits that constituted their past becomings. But when one truly
becomes a nomadic machine the 'their' gets thrown out. Marx and Nietzsche
enter into a communist-overman machine and production to have is replaced
by production for the joy of becoming: AUTOPRODUCTION. Values change
such that identity becomes a joke and humans find their true 'identity':
productive becoming with the earth. "I am all the names of history!" Or
something like that Nietzshce screamed. becoming is not psychological
but cosmic.
i could go on and on but i will stop now.
chris
------------------