I looked into the 7 1/2 hours interview with Gilles Deleuze called the "Abecédaire" that was recorded in 1988, just before the historic events of the Perestroika. It's a luscious documentary of a grumpy old man who happens to be one of the strange figures of continental philosophy contemporaine.

I enjoyed watching and listening to him in original french (with  german subtitles) while he talked about seemingly random topics, sorted from A to Z, like the famous french Encyclopédia. Ranging from A for Animal to D for Desire to G for Leftist (Gauche) Politics to L for Literature to to T for Tennis to Z for ZigZag; on his line of flight he touches a vast span (and depth) of territory and leaves a trace of light yet to go out.

 

I 'd like to share bits and pieces that stayed with me for some (unconscious) reason.

For now, to get a taste of his unique style, here's the only bit with english subtitles I could find on the web, it's the introduction and the first letter A for Animal:

Views: 463

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

T for Tennis

 

in this chapter, Monsieur Deleuze tells us about his fascination for tennis since an early age. Only when the war came, at the age of 14, he had to give it up due to his condition of health.

 

Since then, lots has changed in this sport.

There seems to be a development in sports in at least three variables:

Tactis (think about football), technique (e.g. hurdles or shotput) and force (via training, drugs or else).

 

There have always been inventive geniuses in sports. There is the non-creative kind who is a formidable applier of known styles, and there is the creative kind who creates a new stroke and a new style.

 

Ivan Lendl was a world champion, but always implemented already known techniques, never creating his own style.

The first real creative genius in Tennis was Bjorn Borg in the 1970s. He brought on the Tennis for the Masses, he started the 'Proletarisation' of the sport, in the sense he created a style that could be understood by everyone and Joe the Plumber.

His style: Baseline strikes, Top Spins, Lobs. Everybody was able to copy this (if not as successful as Borg himself). With his long hair, his Jesus-Christ Look, he was an Aristocrat who came for the people to bring them the good news that you - YES YOU - can take up a racket and create your own luck.

According to Deleuze, Borg was another example for the rule "Look, you praise me for what I did, but I am still that far away from what I'm really capable of doing". So he never stopped to develop his style and technique.

His counterpart was Ian McEnroe, a pure Aristocrat. He invented strokes himself, but he took care that nobody could ever copy them from him. He had a way to "put" the ball where he wanted them to land, a kind of "Serve-and-volley", not unlike Borg, but with less mass-appeal.

 

There was also Jimmy Connors who had his own style of playing: very flat balls, right above the net, hit from a position far-from-equilibrium... a unique master of his own kind.

 

So it's always progressing like this: creative geniuses invent newness, epigones take it over, return to start and rebegin.

 

Last, Deleuze gives an example for a rather sloppy stroke who was a winner at its time: a rather weak return, with the ball landing right in front of the feet of the server, who is not able to do either a volley or a half-volley since the ball hits the ground at the moment it enters his racket range.

An australian player, Bromwich, was sucessful for a while with this move, before it became wider known. Today this return is a classic (which means it doesn't work as good as back then).

J for Joy

 

Deleuze took his musing on Joy and Sadness from Baruch Spinoza.

Paraphrasing Epikur, one should live his life joyful, try the best to actualize one's capabilities, while avoiding resignation, bad conscience and guilty feelings.

For Spinoza (and Deleuze), Joy is caused by everything that helps the actualization of a capability (french: puissance) of a person.

Sadness, then, means being disconnected from a capability that I think I am capable of, rightly so or not. "I could have done this, but... Ach! the circumstances..." -> Tristesse

Being incapable to realize my capability is always experienced as an impact of a force upon me.

Deleuze emphasizes that there are no bad capabilities, no bad forces of life. There are only low degrees of actualized capabilites, which are experienced as bad, which is power or force.

Using force means to hinder somebody to realize his full potential, to actualize his capability.

This is the definition of an evil force: hinder sombody from realizing his full potential.

The importance to understand the difference between force and capability is crucial.

Force always disconnects people from what they are able to do.

Thus, the bringers of sadness are the priests, tyrants, psychoanalysts and Judges of our times.

Nietzsche was somtimes accused of being an antisemite, for criticizing Israel in his writings. But when you really look at what he criticizes the Jewish People for, then it is one precise thing: he accuses them of having invented the concept of the priest. You can sense the admiration in his critique also. Nietzsche later broadened this critique in his Anti-Christian Pamphlets, as y'all might know.

What exactly defines the force of the priest? Foucault also talked about the new pastoral power in his musings about the history of thought. In fact, Priests invented the idea of humanity's unlimited debt. In primitive societies, one tribe owes another tribe somthing, maybe a goat, a banana, or a woman. But in modern societies, the debt has become unlimited, and can never be finally paid for, in fact we just witnessed the raise of a debt ceiling. Everybody knows there is no way to ever pay this money back.

Same with the priests. With the introduction of the original sin, the debt of man versus God becomes infinte and can never be paid back. "Repent, sinners, for you owe your god an infinte debt that you can never be free of." Unless you pay for it, with Gold. Remember that Martin Luther (and Jesus Christ himself) were infuriated when those two kind of debts were confounded.

 

Today, Psychoanalysts have become the new priests (says Deleuze). They are the Masters of the sad affects, and the patient owes them infinitely. "Repent, sinner, for you have desired your mother and killed you own father". Alright then.

 

To actualize a capability means to be joyful. A Typhoon or hurricane feels the joy of being when he is able to do what it do. But it's no self-satisfactory joy, it's not the joy to bring damage or death. It's more the satisfaction of conquer, as Nietzsche put it. Think about a painter-artist who conquers a color, for example. Van Gogh conquered Yellow already in the 1880's (and paid the price for it). Indeed somtimes a capability might be too big for one person. It can break your back.

 

Next. The lament is an expression of sadness, but don't be fooled, there is a hidden joy in it. The Lament is a major source for poetry for example. Its the Prophet, not the Priest, who laments. "This task is too big for me to bear, my lord! Why me? I am not capable! O Woe! What force is pushing me to do this" The lament is like a prayer, it is exalted. It is said with pride. "Don't you pity me, I'm fine. I will try to actualize this capability of mine, Inshallah, but at what price? Lament, Lament! Will it cost my health, my life, my sanity? Will it break me? It is too big for me" Thus is the lament of the galley slave who became free and is overwhelmed by his new-won freedom.

 

U for l'Un (the One)

or

U for the Universal

 

Interviewer: It is said that Philosophy and Science are dealing with Universals. But you always say that it's all about the Singularities. What kind of Paradox is at work here?

 

Deleuze: Well Science has nothin to do with Universals. I mean, let's consider empirical reproducable effects, they are not universal, for example the Newtonian Law "the apple falls to the ground". What is important here is not the universal law (which is secondary), but the singularity of the event of the falling down of the apple.

Of course every science has its own singularities: mathematics, biology, chemistry. For example the change of aggregate state in physics is a universal process, revolving around singularity points (zero degree celcius and so on).

In fact, Philsophy is not about Being, or Kommunikation or else. It's always about Singularites. In fact, I should say it's about ensembles of singularites, which I call multitudes.

The formula for a multitude is (n-1). The One is always that which must be subtracted.

There are supposed to be three kinds of Universals in Philosophy:

Universals in Contemplation, in Reflexion, and in Kommunikation.

All 3 are a bad joke. Grotesque. (sarcastic laugh)

A Philosopher in comtemplation is something utterly ridiculous (laughs/ coughs).

A Philosopher reflecting about things - nobody needs those anyway. Imagine a painter - is he in need of a philosopher who thinks for him about painting? Or a musician needs someone to think for him about music? No way.

And Kommunikation: this is the last resort of the universalists. Habermas is doing this right now. Philosophy is not about a Consensus in Kommunikation, not even based on so called 'Universals'. That's very funny for me. This is dealing only with the exchange of opinions, with interrogations.

No, Philosophy is about Creativity, about Concepts, nothing else.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2024   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service