[__]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[__]
[] Erik Davis (oo) Cernunnos sez (cribbing the Fall): The only []
[] erikd@xxxxxxxxx __ thing real is waking and rubbing your eyes. []
[__]==================== ww ==============================================[__]
On Wed, 12 Oct 1994 WIDDER@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> 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).
I appreciate these remarks re: communication. I'm afriad that sometimes
we attach too much importance to the specific terminology in d*G and
avoid the continuities. Also, D's use and later refusal to use the word
"communication" must also be seen (in a slightly reactive way I'm afraid)
as responding to reigning ideologies which use such terms. This is very
apparent in WIP?, where the onslaught against common sense and
communication are clearly directed against various reigning liberal and
techno-rational regimes of truth in our increasingly virtualized
"information age."
I suspect that a great deal can be uncovered if we continue to
aggressively link up d*g's models/language/tactics with theever-becoming
earth. So is the emisssion and capture of pheremones a "communication"?
No, but neither is it a mechanical necessity (though it is in a sense a
machine). It is certainly a signal in a field always already constituted
by difference, and more specifically by a set of differences that can be
catalyzed (actualized) by certain forces. Because the field that is
actualized--or rather changed and maintained by actualization--is an
unbounded field of virtual becomings, this actualization is never under
the iron grip of necessity, yet also embraces the fate of the actual (D
has words to this effect somewhere).
So let's get immanent: what are these words doing here on this luminescent
screen? Gently and powerfully tugging and tapping the buzzing chaods in my
brain-field (which is as incorporeal as actual). Man's error lies perhaps
in the proximity of language to the incorporeal simulacra and its
incorporeal play of differences--mistaking these virtualities for a soul,
a subject, a legislature of reason, a thought that is different that the
orchid's thought--when it is really just another blooming of these
infinitely extendable yet infinitely bounded bodies. *How does d&G's
materialism account for the incorporeal?* If Plotinus is right, and rocks
are alive, perhaps we have sublte bodies after all? Becoming is certainly
incorporeal, at least initially, and the force lies in taking it for
absolutely real.
But I'll stop before I get all fuzzy...
erik
------------------