text:
Sean BOWDEN, Deleuze and Events.pdf
6ahhhhhh
SalvareSalvați Sean BOWDEN, Deleuze and Events.pdf pentru mai târziu
253 vizualizări312 pagini
La Conception Stoicienne Du Bonheur Et Du Desir
Alain - Théorie de la connaissance des Stoïciens
du morcellement à la totalité du corps signe
L'analyse du sujet
bonheur.pdf
Anne Gabrièle Wersinger.sextus empiricus logique
Zénon de Cition, Témoignages et Fragments, 1905
hume et le stoicisme
Les Principes de La Science Du Beau Par a.-ed. Chaignet
Exposé .
frfran
La Theorie Du Texte
STOICISME - Marc Aurèle, Pensées pour moi-même
Ogereau - Stoiciens
Morale Ancienne
zénon
les origines des preuves de dieu chez le stoiciens
Stoïcien sous la pluie
Brehier Chryssipe.pdf
UNIVERSIT DE PARIS VIII VINCENNES SAINT-DENIS
cole doctorale Pratiques et thories du sens (ED 31) quipe daccueil Laboratoire dtudes et recherches sur les logiques contemporaines de la philosophie (EA 4008) et
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
School of History and Philosophy
Thse de doctorat en philosophie (cotutelle internationale)
Sean BOWDEN
La priorit ontologique des vnements dans la Logique du sens de Gilles Deleuze
Thse dirige par : Stphane DOUAILLER (Paris VIII) et Paul PATTON (UNSW)
Le 17 novembre 2009 Jury : Alain BADIOU (ENS) Stphane DOUAILLER (Paris VIII) Paul PATTON (UNSW) Daniel W. SMITH (Purdue) James WILLIAMS (Dundee)
La priorit ontologique des vnements dans la Logique du sens de Gilles Deleuze Rsum
Lobjectif de cette thse est dexpliquer la manire dont Deleuze affirme, dans sa Logique du sens de 1969, la priorit ontologique des vnements sur les substances. La thse analyse surtout la faon dont Deleuze fonde cette affirmation en tablissant un rapport complexe et structurel entre les uvres reprsentatives de plusieurs des philosophes et des mouvements intellectuels privilgis dans Logique du sens, savoir, les Stociens, Leibniz, Albert Lautman, Gilbert Simondon, le structuralisme et la psychanalyse. On dmontre comment Deleuze construit un concept de lvnement ontologiquement primitif en dgageant des uvres de ces penseurs, dune part, un certain nombre de problmes vnementiels et, dautre part, un systme de concepts pouvant, avec certaines rserves, rsoudre ces problmes et fonctionner donc comme les composantes dun concept de lvnement dont dpend en dernire analyse toute substance. Nous concluons que le processus dassocier, dordonner et de mettre en rapport les vnements mondains caractrisant les choses en gnral cest--dire de dcouvrir les lois qui rgissent ces choses et de construire leurs concepts correspondants est luimme un vnement, toujours en cours, qui se produit dans un contexte intersubjectif et langagier. Ce sens-vnement peut tre dcrit en termes dune structure mobile des rapports entre vnements. lintrieur de cette structure, des vnements de tout ordre et diffrents niveaux se dterminent les uns les autres dterminer les choses en gnral, et sans rfrence quelque instance substantielle dj donne qui pourrait fixer cette structure de lextrieur.
Mots cls
Deleuze, Gilles (1925-1995) vnement (philosophie) Ontologie Stociens Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1646-1716) Simondon, Gilbert (1924-1989) Structuralisme Psychanalyse
The Ontological Priority of Events in Gilles Deleuzes The Logic of Sense Summary
The aim of this thesis is to examine the way in which Deleuze affirms the ontological priority of events over substances in his 1969 work, The Logic of Sense. In particular, the thesis analyses the way in which Deleuze grounds this affirmation by establishing a complex and structural relation between the works representative of several of the philosophers and intellectual movements which Deleuze privileges in The Logic of Sense, namely, the Stoics, Leibniz, Albert Lautman, Gilbert Simondon, Structuralism and Psychoanalysis. We will show Deleuze constructs a concept of the ontologically primitive event by extracting from the works of these thinkers, on the one hand, a number of event-related problems and, on the other hand, a system of concepts which are capable, with several important qualifications, of resolving these problems, and thus functioning as the elements of a concept of the event on which, in the final analysis, every substance depends. We conclude that the process of associating, ordering and bringing into relation the worldly events characterizing things in general that is, of discovering the laws which govern them and of constructing their corresponding concepts is itself an event, always already underway, which is produced in an intersubjective and linguistic context. This sense-event can be described in terms of a moving structure of relations between events. Within this structure, events of all orders and levels determine one another to determine things in general, and without reference to some already given substance which would fix this structure from outside.
Deleuze, Gilles (1925-1995) Events (philosophy) Ontology Stoics Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1646-1716) Simondon, Gilbert (1924-1989) Structuralism Psychoanalysis
Rsum substantiel en franais
La priorit ontologique des vnements dans la Logique du sens de Gilles Deleuze.
Objectifs et contexte intellectuel de la thse
Lobjectif de cette thse est dexpliquer la manire complexe dont Deleuze affirme, dans sa Logique du sens, la priorit ontologique des vnements sur les substances.1 La thse analysera surtout la faon dont Deleuze fonde cette affirmation en tablissant un rapport, dont on verra la nature prcise ci-dessous, entre les uvres reprsentatives de plusieurs philosophes et mouvements intellectuels, savoir, les Stociens, Leibniz, Albert Lautman, Gilbert Simondon, le structuralisme et la psychanalyse. On montrera comment Deleuze construit un concept de lvnement ontologiquement primitif en dgageant des uvres de ces penseurs, dune part, un certain nombre de problmes vnementiels et, dautre part, un systme de concepts pouvant, avec certaines rserves, rsoudre ces problmes, et fonctionner donc comme les composantes du concept de lvnement dont dpend en dernire analyse toute substance. La question se pose naturellement de savoir pourquoi nous avons choisi de concentrer notre attention sur ces figures intellectuelles en particulier. Sans doute Logique du sens pourrait-elle tre examine travers les lectures deleuziennes de Nietzsche et de Husserl, par exemple, ou mme de Lewis Carroll et dAntonin Artaud. Plusieurs commentateurs ont en effet dj constat et tudi limportance de ces derniers dans Logique du sens.2 Or, notre conviction est que, pour comprendre la philosophie
Gilles Deleuze, The Logic of Sense, trans. Mark Lester and Charles Stivale, ed. Constantin V. Boundas (New York: Colombia University Press, 1990). (Gilles Deleuze, Logique du sens, Paris : Les Editions de Minuit, 1969). Les rfrences cette uvre seront dsormais indiques par le sigle LS , suivi immdiatement du numro de la page, et places entre parenthses dans le corps du texte. 2 Sur limportance de Husserl dans Logique du sens, voir: Leonard Lawlor, Thinking Through French Philosophy The Being of the Question (Bloomington and Indianapolis : Indiana University Press, 2003), 84-85 et 130-131 ; et James Williams, Gilles Deleuzes Logic of Sense A Critical Introduction and
deleuzienne des vnements, il est plus pertinent danalyser ce que Deleuze retire des penseurs choisis pour cette prsente tude, et ceci pour plusieurs raisons. Premirement, Deleuze maintient dans son ouvrage sur Leibniz, Le Pli, paru en 1988, que les Stociens et puis Leibniz oprrent respectivement la premire et la seconde grandes logiques de lvnement.3 Une tude des uvres de ces philosophes sera donc indispensable toute comprhension de lapproche de Deleuze de lvnement dans Logique du sens. En deuxime lieu, comme on le verra dans les chapitres 3 et 4, la lecture deleuzienne des Stociens et de Leibniz fait appel plusieurs innovations conceptuelles labores par Lautman, Simondon et divers structuralistes. Finalement, le travail de Deleuze sur la psychanalyse occupe le dernier quart du texte de Logique du sens. Cest en rapport avec la psychanalyse que Deleuze construit son concept de gense dynamique de lvnement, ce qui vient complter celui de la gense statique de lvnement que Deleuze a plus tt tabli en faisant rfrence surtout Leibniz, mais aussi aux autres figures intellectuelles que nous avons choisi dexaminer. En somme, la dcision de nous concentrer sur les penseurs mentionns ci-dessus nous a t dicte par la nature mme de la tche que nous nous sommes fixe, savoir, expliquer laffirmation de Deleuze de la priorit ontologique des vnements sur les substances dans sa Logique du sens.4 Dans la mesure o la prsente tude examine le rapport entre la philosophie deleuzienne des vnements et ses sources philosophiques, elle peut tre lue comme un travail dhistoire de la philosophie. Par histoire de la philosophie est ici entendu, non pas une numration et comparaison des opinions philosophiques, ni une grande synthse de faon hglienne, mais, plus modestement, la cristallisation dun certain nombre dides et de problmes qui sont commun plusieurs penseurs appartenant diffrentes
Guide (Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press, 2008), 129-134. Sur limportance de Lewis Carroll, voir Jean-Jacques Lecercle, Philosophy Through the Looking-Glass : Language, Nonsense, Desire (La Salle : Open Court, 1985). Sur Artaud and Nietzsche, voir Michel Foucault, Theatrum Philosophicum , dans Language, Counter-Memory Practice, ed. Donald F. Bouchard, trans. Donald F. Bouchard et Sherry Simon (Oxford : Basil Blackwell, 1977), 171-172, 179-180, et 192-196 (Michel Foucault, Theatrum Philosophicum , Critique 282 (1970) : 885-908). 3 Gilles Deleuze, The Fold : Leibniz and the Baroque, trans. Tom Conley (London : The Athlone Press, 1993), 53. (Gilles Deleuze, Le Pli : Leibniz et le Baroque, Paris : Les Editions de Minuit, 1988, 71-72). Daprs Deleuze, une troisime grande logique de lvnement viendra avec Whitehead, mais puisque le systme philosophique de ce dernier nest pas abord dans Logique du sens, nous ne le traiterons pas ici. 4 Comme le remarque justement Paul Patton, Logique du sens aurait pu tout aussi bien tre intitule Logique de lvnement . Voir son Introduction dans Deleuze : A Critical Reader, ed. Paul Patton (Oxford : Blackwell, 1996), 13.
priodes historiques, et qui sont susceptibles dtre mis en rapport avec des proccupations intellectuelles contemporaines. Daprs Richard Rorty, faire de lhistoire de la philosophie de cette faon signifie trois choses. Premirement, il est question dune reconstruction historique de ce qua effectivement dit tel ou tel penseur. Deuximement, il sagit dune reconstruction rationnelle de ce que pourraient dire ces penseurs dans une discussion productive avec dautres penseurs de diffrentes poques, y compris la ntre. Troisimement, il exige une reconstruction contingente mais canonique du problme moteur qui se trouve chez tous ces penseurs et auquel on sintresse actuellement.5 En effet, comme on le verra, la thse explore ce quapporte Deleuze (ainsi que chacun des penseurs qui il se rfre) ltablissement et la rsolution de ce nous appellerons le problme de lvnement . Il convient toutefois de faire remarquer quil va au-del de la porte de la thse danalyser les diverses faons dont la pense contemporaine sintresse aux vnements ou aux processus. Cette prsente tude considrera cet intrt plutt comme allant de soi. Nous nous contenterons seulement de signaler que limportance des vnements dans la philosophie dite continentale se manifeste de manires trs diffrentes chez des philosophes comme Alain Badiou et Michel Serres par exemple ; ou encore chez des philosophes comme Bruno Latour et Bernard Stiegler, qui sont les hritiers dune tradition philosophique remontant Bergson, Bachelard et Simondon.6 Chez les philosophes anglo-saxons , la nature des vnements et des processus ont rcemment fait lobjet dintrt dans les recherches de nombreux pragmatistes , nopragmatistes et philosophes des processus , tels que Donald Davidson, Richard Rorty, Robert Brandom et Nicholas Rescher.7 Or, bien que nous ne puissions analyser ici la proximit conceptuelle de Deleuze ces autres philosophes de lvnement, nous esprons nanmoins que la thse rendra de telles tudes possibles dans lavenir,
Richard Rorty, The Historiography of Philosophy , dans Truth and Progress Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1998), 247-273. 6 Voir Alain Badiou, Being and Event, trans. Oliver Feltham (London and New York : Continuum, 2005). (Alain Badiou, Ltre et lvnement, Paris : Seuil, 1988). Sur Michel Serres, voir Jean Ladrire, Prface , dans Anne Crahay, Michel Serres: La mutation du cogito (Bruxelles : De Boeck, 1988), 15 : Luvre de Michel Serres, dune certaine manire, est tout entire habite par la pense de lvnementiel. Et elle appartient elle-mme cet ordre. 7 Nicholas Rescher identifie comme des philosophes des vnements ou des processus, non seulement ceux qui travaillent dans lombre de Whitehead, mais encore ceux qui travaillent dans le mouvement philosophique de pragmatisme, issu de Peirce, de James et de Dewey. Voir Nicholas Rescher, Process Metaphysics An Introduction to Process Philosophy (New York : SUNY, 1996), 1-26.
prcisment pour autant quelle arrive clarifier lapproche deleuzienne du problme de la primaut ontologique des vnements. La thse vise galement combler un manque dans lensemble des tudes ralises sur Deleuze. Comme le remarque juste titre Jean-Jacques Lecercle, jusqu tout rcemment, Logique du sens a largement t nglig par les commentateurs deleuziens. Daprs Lecercle, la raison pour cette ngligence est que Logique du sens semble trop structuraliste et trop psychanalytique lorsquil est juxtapos aux uvres crites avec Flix Guattari.8 Il maintient que Logique du sens est gnralement considre comme luvre dun Deleuze structuraliste, toujours sous linfluence de Lacan et de la psychanalyse, deux tendances regrettables dont sa rencontre avec Guattari lui a permis de se dbarrasser. Le vritable Deleuze, avant et aprs Logique du sens, Deleuze le vitaliste, messager du virtuel bergsonien, de la diffrence, des devenirs et des haeccits, nest pas trouve dans Logique du sens. Ce dernier texte tait un accident dans une carrire distingue tout autre gard.9 Limportance disproportionne accorde dans la littrature aux deux tomes de Capitalisme et schizophrnie textes dans lesquels Deleuze se montre trs critique au sujet du structuralisme et de la psychanalyse donne du poids largument de Lecercle. Mais on peut galement souligner la complexit de Logique du sens, tant dans sa forme que dans son contenu, comme un obstacle pour le commentateur. Dans sa forme, ce texte ne se compose pas de chapitres mais de relativement courtes sries , qui se rfrent les unes aux autres de manire multiple, indirecte et finalement non-linaire. Qui plus est, il appartient au lecteur lui-mme de dcouvrir et dtablir les rapports entre ces sries. Il est vrai que Deleuze nous fournit dans Logique du sens une explication du fonctionnement de sa forme srielle, mais nous devons tout de mme reconstituer cette explication en nous rfrant plusieurs sries interdpendantes (nous reviendrons
Voir Jean-Jacques Lecercle, Deleuze and Language (Bassingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 99-100. Jean-Jacques Lecercle, Preface , dans Williams, Gilles Deleuzes Logic of Sense, vii. La seule exception largument de Lecercle se trouve dans lOrgans Without Bodies de Slavoj iek. Prcisment en raison de la nature psychanalytique, structurelle, et pr-Guattarienne de Logique du sens, iek la comprend comme emblmatique de ce qui est de plus essentiel dans luvre deleuzienne. Toutefois, nous sommes daccord avec Daniel W. Smith que, malgr lintrt philosophique de sa lecture lacaniennehglienne de Deleuze, iek najoute pas beaucoup en fin de compte notre comprhension de Logique de sens, et lOrgans Without Bodies ne peut pas tre considr comme un commentaire au sens classique du terme. Voir Slavoj iek, Organs without Bodies On Deleuze and Consequences (New York : Routledge, 2004), 20 ; et Daniel W. Smith, The Inverse Side of the Structure: iek on Deleuze and Lacan , Criticism 46, 4 (2004) : 648.
ultrieurement sur le concept de srie). Quant au contenu du texte, les rfrences majeures de Logique du sens sont pour la plupart relativement peu connues ou mineures (les Stociens, Simondon, Lautman), ou bien ne sont pas considres comme des philosophes proprement parler (tels que les diffrents thoriciens structuralistes et psychanalytiques auxquels Deleuze se rfre). En outre, en raison du style dcriture allusif de Deleuze, il est souvent difficile de distinguer prcisment qui parle un moment ou un autre.10 Par exemple, lorsque Deleuze labore ses genses statiques , dans un vocabulaire provenant principalement de Leibniz, est-ce Deleuze qui parle ou bien Leibniz ? Ou encore, sil sagit dun mlange des deux voix, comment faut-il caractriser la ligne qui dmarque la pense leibnizienne de celle de Deleuze ? Aucun de ces problmes ne sont faciles rsoudre et prsentent une vritable difficult pour tout commentateur. Quelle que soit les raisons de cette lacune dans lensemble des tudes ralises sur Deleuze, elle est certainement frappante. La thse peut donc se lire, non seulement comme un travail dhistoire de la philosophie, mais encore comme une tentative de combler partiellement ce manque dans la littrature. Il convient pourtant de noter quune monographie consacre Logique du sens a t publie au moment o la thse tait en cours dachvement : Gilles Deleuzes Logic of Sense: A Critical Introduction and Guide, par James Williams. Or, cette prsente tude diffre de deux faons de celle de Williams. Tout dabord, comme le soulignent les titres de ses chapitres, Williams met laccent sur la manire dont Logique du sens traite plusieurs thmes qui sont chers aux philosophes : le langage, lthique, la pense et la nature mme de la philosophie. La prsente tude se ddie au contraire lexplication de laffirmation complexe de Deleuze dans Logique du sens de la priorit ontologique des vnements sur les substances. Deuximement, bien que Williams prenne soin de citer les sources de la pense deleuzienne, ainsi que dindiquer o la philosophie deleuzienne des vnements concide conceptuellement avec celles de plusieurs philosophes contemporains (y compris Donald Davidson et Jaegwon Kim), son mode de prsentation des arguments de Deleuze est dans une large mesure celui de la conversation, comme il sied un ouvrage dit dintroduction . De plus, Williams fait
Sur le discours indirect libre de Deleuze, voir Franois Zourabichvili, Deleuze Une philosophie de lvnement (Paris : PUF, 1994), 5-6.
usage de nombreux exemples clairants tirs de la littrature, du cinma et de la vie quotidienne. Cette thse tche en revanche danalyser certains des aspects les plus techniques des systmes de pense auxquels Deleuze se rfre dans Logique du sens et de juxtaposer ces analyses un examen dtaill de la faon dont Deleuze parle des vnements. Les deux entreprises sont donc assez diffrentes lune de lautre, tant en orientation quen dmarche, ce qui explique labsence de rfrences Williams dans cette thse. Cela ne signifie pas pour autant que les deux entreprises ne sont pas complmentaires, bien au contraire. Dune part, le travail de Williams aborde de nombreuses questions dont cette thse nest pas capable, cause de la priorit quelle accorde au problme de lvnement . Dautre part, les analyses techniques qui se trouvent dans cette thse claircissent quant elles un nombre dobscurits dans Logique du sens, obscurits que la nature mme de louvrage de Williams, comme un texte dintroduction, lempche dexaminer. Enfin, il est incontestable que cette prsente tude sera en tout cas plus facilement comprise par ceux ayant dj lu lIntroduction trs lucide de Williams. Notre travail bnficie ainsi immensment de la publication pralable de cette dernire. Deux autres ouvrages, rcemment publis et traitant de la Logique du sens, mritent galement dtre nots, mme si aucun des deux nest entirement consacr ce texte. Le premier Deleuze and Language de Jean-Jacques Lecercle contient une longue analyse de haute qualit de la Logique du sens comme partie dune tude plus vaste sur la philosophie du langage de Deleuze. Du point de vue de la tche quil sest fixe, Lecercle nous fournit un bon aperu des connexions conceptuelles qui lient Deleuze aux Stociens, au structuralisme et la psychanalyse, ainsi quune comparaison instructive entre les conceptions de lvnement appartenant Deleuze et Badiou. Ce qui manque pourtant la lecture de Logique du sens par Lecercle (au moins du point du vue de cette prsente tude) est une analyse dtaille de la manire dont Deleuze construit sa philosophie de lvnement en rapport avec Leibniz, Lautman et Simondon. Il est nanmoins clair que cest sur la question du langage, et non pas celle de la priorit ontologique des vnements, que Lecercle met laccent. En effet, cest prcisment cette orientation qui conduit Lercercle privilgier certaines des rfrences de Deleuze au lieu de ces philosophes-ci, dont nous maintenons quune comprhension de leurs uvres est essentielle pour toute comprhension de la philosophie deleuzienne de lvnement. ix
Le second texte traitant de Logique du sens est un chapitre de Logiques des mondes dAlain Badiou.11 Dans plusieurs pages trs denses, Badiou extrait de Logique du sens ce quil nomme les quatre axiomes deleuziennes de lvnement , quil contrastera avec quatre axiomes qui explicitent sa propre conception de lvnement. Ces axiomes deleuziennes (1) le devenir-illimit devient lvnement lui-mme , (2) lvnement est toujours ce qui vient de se passer, ce qui va se passer, mais jamais ce qui se passe , (3) lvnement est dune autre nature que les actions et passions du corps, mais il en rsulte , (4) une vie est compose dun seul et mme vnement, malgr toute la varit de ce qui lui arrive rassemblent dune manire trs prcise quelques-uns des aspects essentiels de lvnement chez Deleuze. Pourtant, malgr lintrt philosophique de cette distillation des axiomes fondamentaux de Logique du sens, et plus gnralement de la confrontation entre les conceptions respectives de lvnement chez Badiou et chez Deleuze, il est clair que Badiou nentre pas dans le genre danalyses dtailles quon sattendrait normalement trouver dans un commentaire. Or, de telles analyses textuelles ne sont pas du tout ce qui intresse Badiou dans Logiques des mondes. Il reste donc beaucoup plus dire sur Logique du sens pour expliciter la faon dont Deleuze affirme, en se rfrant aux divers penseurs quil privilgie dans cet ouvrage, la priorit ontologique des vnements sur les substances.
Mthode et structure de la thse
La vise de la thse et son contexte intellectuel ainsi tracs dans ses grandes lignes, il convient maintenant dindiquer comment Deleuze fonde ses assertions par rapport aux vnements, car la mthode philosophique de Deleuze influencera inluctablement notre mode de prsentation de son concept de lvnement. Nous avons remarqu ci-dessus que Deleuze construit sa philosophie de lvnement en tablissant un rapport entre les uvres de diverses figures de lhistoire de la pense de telle faon que non seulement, elles dressent le problme de lvnement, mais encore quelles rsolvent ce problme. Que peut-on dire alors de la nature de ce rapport ?
Voir Alain Badiou, Logiques des mondes Ltre et lvnement, 2 (Paris : Seuil, 2006), 403-410.
Dans lavant-propos Logique du sens, Deleuze nous fait comprendre que les uvres des figures intellectuelles auxquelles il se rfre sont mises en rapport par le moyen de la susmentionne forme srielle du texte. Il crit qu chaque srie [de Logique du sens] correspondent des figures qui sont non seulement historiques, mais topiques et logiques. Comme sur une surface pure, certains points de telle figure dans une srie renvoient dautres points de telle autre : lensemble des constellations-problmes avec les coups de ds correspondants, les histoires et les lieux, un lieu complexe, une histoire embrouille (LS, 7). Nous voyons clairement que trois notions sont ici imbriques les unes dans les autres : figures, sries et problmes. Que peut-on dire alors sur ces sries-chapitres, comment peuvent-elles faire renvoyer ces figures les unes aux autres, et comment ces renvois peuvent-ils dterminer un ensemble des constellations-problmes, coups de ds, etc ? Nous examinerons de faon dtaille le concept de sries dans les chapitres 2, 3 et surtout le chapitre 4. Nous pouvons nanmoins affirmer ici quune srie a trois caractristiques gnrales. Tout dabord, une srie est constitue de termes qui se rapportent rciproquement les uns aux autres, ce qui veut dire que chaque terme est ce quil est dans la srie en raison de sa position par rapport tous les autres termes de la srie. Deuximement, ce rapport de position entre les termes rciproquement dtermins qui constituent une srie est lui-mme dtermin par rapport (au moins) une seconde srie de termes rciproquement dtermins de type htrogne. Enfin, les deux sries se rapportent ainsi lune lautre par le moyen dun lment paradoxal . Cet lment nappartient aucune srie. Il se dfinit plutt comme ce par rapport quoi les termes dune srie se situent, non seulement dans leurs rapports rciproques, mais encore relativement la manire dont les termes de lautre srie se positionnent les uns les autres conformment leurs propres rapports rciproques. Autrement dit, la position relative de chaque terme vis--vis de chaque autre terme dpend en dernire analyse du rapport de chacun llment paradoxal. Dans quel sens alors faut-il comprendre les chapitres de Logique du sens comme des sries ? Nous pouvons dire en premier lieu que les noncs qui composent chacune des sries du texte sont les termes de cette srie. Une srie se compose donc dnoncs xi
qui font sens 12 au sein de cette srie en vertu leurs positions , les unes par rapport aux autres. Deuximement, la manire prcise dont les noncs constitutifs dune srie font sens ainsi, est elle-mme dtermine par rapport la faon dont les noncs qui composent (au moins) une seconde srie font sens , dans leurs rapports rciproques, au sein de cette seconde srie, et ainsi de suite. Finalement, les noncs de chaque srie se situent dans leurs rapports particuliers relatifs aux noncs dtermins de chacune des autres sries, en raison des rapports particuliers quentretient chaque srie un lment paradoxal qui nappartient aucune des sries proprement parler. Plus concrtement, comme nous le dmontrerons, llment paradoxal du texte de Logique du sens nest rien dautre que le problme de lvnement , cest--dire le problme de laffirmation de la priorit ontologique des vnements sur les substances. Nous verrons comment chaque srie du texte se rapporte, sa propre manire, ce problme central. Dune part, les termes-noncs de chaque srie se prsentent sous forme dune analyse dun certain nombre de problmes vnementiels et de solutions conceptuelles potentielles. En effet, le problme de lvnement peut tre analys en plusieurs sous-problmes dont les solutions conceptuelles ont leur tour diverses composantes. Dautre part, la manire dont chaque srie exprime le problme central de lvnement par lintermdiaire des sous-problmes vnementiels et des solutions partielles quelle renferme, est dtermine par la faon dont chaque autre srie lexprime travers ses propres sous-problmes et solutions. Cest ainsi que les 34 sries qui composent Logique du sens vont non seulement dresser mais aussi rsoudre le problme de lvnement. Qui plus est, cest ainsi que la forme srielle engendre un ensemble des constellations-problmes , qui correspond divers coups de ds , cest--dire les solutions partielles ces problmes. Que peut-on dire maintenant sur les figures qui se rapportent les unes aux autres travers les diffrentes sries de Logique du sens ? En fait, au sein de chaque srie, Deleuze suscite certains sous-problmes vnementiels et solutions conceptuelles dans lacte mme danalyser ce que tel ou tel aspect des uvres des penseurs quil examine apporte au problme central de lvnement. Cela revient donc au mme de dire que les
Nous utilisons lexpression faire sens comme un terme dart. Cela veut dire la fois, dans une acception passive, avoir un sens ou tre intelligible et, dans une acception active, faire du sens ou produire du sens .
noncs constitutifs des sries de Logique du sens posent et rsolvent collectivement le problme de lvnement, que de dire que les points de telle ou telle figure dans une srie renvoient dautres points de telle autre. Car ces points ne sont rien dautre que les problmes-solutions que les penseurs privilgis de Deleuze contribuent au problme global de lvnement. En fait, comme on le verra, ce systme de renvois est trs subtil : dans la mesure o lon avance dans sa lecture des sries de Logique du sens, dune analyse de tel ou tel penseur une autre, les problmes-solutions labors dans les sries antrieures seront progressivement affins, reproblmatiss, refonds et redtermins. Comme nous lavons dj not, cette forme complexe que prend laffirmation de Deleuze de la priorit ontologique des vnements, prsente une vritable difficult pour le commentateur. Ce quil nous faut est un mode de prsentation pouvant sextraire des subtilits de la forme srielle de Deleuze afin daccder une vue densemble des figures, problmes et solutions qui contribuent la philosophie des vnements labore dans Logique du sens. Lapproche de cette tude sera tout dabord, dans chaque chapitre, dexaminer en dtail les uvres dune des figures intellectuelles qui Deleuze se rfre, puis de montrer la manire prcise dont Deleuze se sert de tel ou tel aspect de ces uvres dans le texte de Logique du sens. La raison pour laquelle nous entrons pleinement dans les dtails des rfrences privilgies de Deleuze est de clarifier exactement qui parle dun moment un autre, et donc de ne pas nous perdre dans le style allusif de Deleuze. la lumire de ces analyses, nous pourrons alors distinguer entre les problmes vnementiels et solutions conceptuelles que Deleuze dcouvre chez tel ou tel penseur, et les notions originales quil fait entrer en jeu. En second lieu, dun chapitre de la thse un autre, ce qui veut aussi dire dune figure intellectuelle une autre, nous montrerons comment les problmes-solutions labors par rapport un penseur donn sont affins, r-problmatiss, tendus, etc par rapport aux autres. Une fois ce processus achev, nous serons enfin en mesure de faire un nonc clair et dfinitif concernant la philosophie deleuzienne des vnements, telle que cette dernire peut tre extraite de la mthode srielle et complexe de Logique du sens. Deux autres points doivent galement tre mentionns. Premirement, une des figures par rapport laquelle Deleuze construit sa philosophie des vnements est le xiii
mouvement intellectuel contemporain du structuralisme. Il convient de noter que plusieurs des concepts que Deleuze dveloppe en rfrence au structuralisme tels que srie et lment paradoxal ne sont pas seulement essentiels son approche des vnements, mais ils nous permettent aussi de comprendre le fonctionnement du texte de Logique du sens. Dans le chapitre 4, nous examinons comment ces concepts structuralistes contribuent en partie la philosophie deleuzienne des vnements, mais sans aborder la faon dont ils dcrivent aussi la machinerie textuelle de Logique du sens. Cest parce que, comme nous venons de laffirmer, ces concepts ne sont dtermins en dfinitive que par rapport aux problmes et aux concepts que nous examinerons dans dautres chapitres. Afin de ne pas confondre ces diffrents niveaux du discours, nous laissons pour la conclusion une discussion de la nature rflexive de Logique du sens. Le second point que nous devons faire remarquer est le fait que, bien que nous essayions autant que possible de comprendre la Logique du sens dans ses propres termes, afin de rsoudre un certain nombre de problmes, nous sommes obligs de nous rfrer plusieurs des ouvrages antrieurs de Deleuze : Diffrence et Rptition (1968), quoi reconnat le structuralisme ? (1967) et, dans une moindre mesure, La mthode de dramatisation (1967).13 Lutilisation de ces textes supplmentaires dans la thse est due au fait quils claircissent pour nous la manire dont Deleuze se sert de plusieurs penseurs et concepts qui, quoique cruciaux sa philosophie des vnements, sont traits de faon restreinte dans Logique du sens. Nous ne prtendrons pas que Deleuze crit essentiellement sur les mmes choses dans ces diffrents textes. Plutt, partir de ce qui nest adress que dans une forme abrge dans Logique du sens, et gardant lesprit notre fil conducteur qui est la priorit ontologique des vnements, nous montrerons comment ces tudes antrieures et plus approfondies de Deleuze de certain penseurs et concepts peuvent augmenter notre comprhension de ce texte-l.
Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, trans. Paul Patton (London : Athlone, 1994). (Gilles Deleuze, Diffrence et Rptition, Paris : PUF, 1968). How do We Recognize Structuralism? et The Method of Dramatization se trouvent dans Gilles Deleuze, Desert Islands and Other Texts 1953-1974, ed. David Lapoujade, trans. Michael Taormina (New York : Semiotexte, 2004). (Gilles Deleuze, Lle dserte et autres textes textes et entretiens 1953-1974, ed. David Lapoujade, Paris : Les ditions de Minuit, 2002).
Rsum des chapitres
Chapitre 1 : Deleuze et les Stociens Le premier chapitre examine, tout dabord, la faon dont Deleuze analyse les verbes de pur devenir , dans les propositions dnotatives, comme exprimant des vnements idaux qui sont ontologiquement antrieurs aux tats dtermins de choses relis par un rapport de succession temporelle. Ces vnements sont dits tre idaux dans la mesure o ils ne sont pas objectivement localisables (en lui-mme, lvnement nest que lidentit infinie des deux directions impliques dans le changement, quelle que soit sa grandeur), mais sont nanmoins les conditions ncessaires la constitution de nouveaux tats de choses, ainsi qu la constitution des tats de choses qui seront dtermins comme passs par rapport ces derniers. Par exemple, le verbe grandir dans la proposition Alice grandit exprime un processus paradoxal dans lequel Alice devient la fois plus grande quelle ntait, et plus petite quelle sera devenue. Or, nous sommes obligs de postuler lexistence un tel processus afin dexpliquer et le passage et le rapport temporel entre deux tats dtermins, ainsi que pour expliquer la constitution mme de ces deux faits comme tels : Alice ayant t plus petite t1, et Alice tant maintenant plus grande t2. En dautres termes, on ne distingue pas pralablement de tels moments temporels, car ces moments doivent premirement se constituer ou tre diffrencis par lvnement mme. Or, pour Deleuze, la relation entre les vnements et le langage va bien au-del de ce que les verbes de devenir expriment des changements idaux. Car, si les choses et les tats de choses dtermins sont ontologiquement dpendants sur les vnements, notre connaissance de ces choses dpendra son tour de la manire dont leurs vnements constituants peuvent tre eux-mmes dtermins cest--dire mis en rapport, combins et ordonns dans le langage. Toutefois, cela ne veut pas dire que lon peut ramener les vnements quelque image nonce de lternit, dont chaque vnement et chaque tat de choses correspondant seraient une expression partielle mais assignable. Car lnonciation mme dune telle image est galement un vnement, vnement qui ne pourrait tre dtermine que par la suite. En effet, pour autant que lvnement d noncer est en cours , il implique la fois un dire quelque chose de plus que xv
lon ne lavait dj dit , et un avoir dit moins que lon aura dit . noncer une image de lternit implique donc un vnement de dire qui est ncessairement supplmentaire tout nonc concret pouvant tre fix dans cette image. Autrement dit, la capacit actuelle du langage et de ses locuteurs de mettre en rapport, de combiner et dordonner les vnements dpend des vnements qui ne pourraient tre dtermins que dans le futur. Lvnement en cours diffre toute dtermination. Le susmentionn problme de lvnement , pour Deleuze, sexprime donc dans la question suivante : tant donn la priorit ontologique des vnements et leur rapport au langage, quelles sont les conditions vnementielles de lvnement pour que tout, y compris le langage dans lequel les vnements sont mis en rapport, soit vnement ? Afin de rpondre cette question ou de rsoudre ce problme, Deleuze se tourne tout dabord vers les Stociens. Reprenant son compte la division stocienne ontologique entre les corps et les incorporels, Deleuze affirme que lvnement correspond au dicible ou au lekton stocien, qui est la fois leffet incorporel des rapports causaux entre des corps, et le sens exprimable et toujours venir des propositions. Comprendre de cette manire lvnement permet Deleuze daffirmer que les vnements qui sont dterminants pour des tats de choses sont eux-mmes dtermins par rapport un sens-vnement incorporel. Plus prcisment, daprs lanalyse de Deleuze du rle multiple du dicible dans le systme stocien, ce sens-vnement est larticulation toujours en cours dun rapport entre les analyses causales de choses, la construction des concepts signifiants, et le dveloppement des croyances et des dsirs du sage . Deleuze trouve galement chez les Stociens des lments de solution deux problmes supplmentaires. Le premier est que, dans un modle tridimensionnel de la proposition, le sens nest isolable dans aucun des rapports propositionnels gnralement reconnu dans la philosophie contemporaine : dsignation objective, manifestation personnelle et signification conceptuelle. Au contraire, parce que chacun de ces rapports est cens fonder les autres de diverses manires, le sens est sans cesse dplac dune dimension une autre de faon circulaire. Associ ce premier problme est un second qui peut tre formul comme suit : dune part, le rapport propositionnel de signification a un caractre qui lui est commun avec le sens, savoir quil est la condition de possibilit xvi
pour quune proposition soit vraie par rapport un tat objectif de choses. En effet, une proposition dpourvue de sens ou de signification ne peut tre ni vraie ni fausse. Dautre part, il est nanmoins gnralement admis que le vrai et le faux nest pas en dernire analyse une question de sa signification ou de son sens, mais seulement de sa correspondance (ou labsence dune telle correspondance) avec ltat objectif de choses quelle dsigne. Comment combler alors cette lacune, de telle faon que, et le sens comme la condition du vrai, et lobjectivement vrai, peuvent tre tablis dans le sens lui-mme ? Au premier problme, Deleuze rpond que le sens-vnement stocien, toujours en cours, peut effectivement tre considr comme la quatrime dimension de la proposition, fondant les trois autres et faisant fonctionner de lintrieur, et de faon priori, le modle tridimensionnel de proposition. Lanalyse causale des corps devient ainsi pour Deleuze quivalent la dsignation ; le dveloppement des croyances et des dsirs du sage quivalent la manifestation ; et la construction des concepts la signification. Or, en revenant au second problme, pour autant que le sens-vnement fonde le rapport entre la dsignation et la signification, il est vident quune relation stablit lintrieur du sens entre la condition de possibilit du vrai et la vrit des propositions par rapport aux tats de choses. Toutefois, lencontre de laffirmation de Deleuze de la priorit ontologique des vnements, les Stociens rduisent en dernire analyse le sens-vnement toujours en cours une substance sous-jacente : le corps et le nom de Zeus. Deleuze se tourne donc vers Leibniz afin de construire les outils conceptuels capables de rsoudre le problme de lvnement .
Chapitre 2 : Deleuze et Leibniz Dans le deuxime chapitre, nous examinons la lecture deleuzienne des concepts leibniziens de compossibilit et dincompossibilit, ainsi que la manire dont Deleuze reprend ces concepts en affirmant que ce sont des rapports de convergence et de divergence entre des sries de singularits-vnements qui dterminent les genses statiques ontologiques et logiques des individus, des personnes et des concepts xvii
gnraux. Daprs Deleuze, les individus et les personnes doivent dabord tre considrs comme dtermins au sein dun monde dans la mesure o convergent les vnements-tropes qui les caractrisent. En dautres termes, quil y ait un rapport expressif (constant et rgl) entre les vnements qui peuvent en vrit tre prdiqus de ces individus et de ces personnes. Mais en mme temps, puisque des divergences entre des sries des vnements sont invitablement perues selon les diffrents points de vue des personnes percevantes, la connaissance de ces dernires dpend des synthses disjonctives de ces sries dvnements divergents, dans un contexte intersubjectif et langagier. Ainsi, ces synthses peuvent tre conues comme des processus de triangulation , pour autant quelles impliquent la dtermination simultane et connexe des croyances du sujet connaissant, des croyances dun autre sujet connaissant, et dun monde dindividus qui sont commun aux mondes dvnements lorigine divergents. Bien entendu pour Leibniz de telles synthses sont, au moins idalement, effectues en relation avec la personne de Dieu. Elles ont comme objectif la rduction des divergences, qui ne sont ici quapparentes, la vision cohrente et originelle des choses qui appartient Dieu. En revanche, pour autant quil affirme la priorit ontologique des vnements sur les substances, Deleuze nie lexistence dune telle instance substantielle, affirmant plutt que les individus et les personnes sont toujours produits par des divergences relles et leurs synthses interpersonnelles. Qui plus est, dans la mesure o il ny a pas de substance sous-jacente laquelle le jeu idal des vnements est rductible, les personnes resteront ncessairement ouvertes aux divergences, divergences ou diffrences qui doivent par consquent tre affirmes en tant que telles dans la dtermination de tout individu et toute personne. En ce qui concerne la gense des concepts gnraux, nous tudions la manire dont Deleuze maintient que, au sein dune synthse disjonctive dun monde des individus qui sont communs aux mondes lorigine divergents, il est ncessaire de dterminer des rapports entre les vnements-tropes qui les caractrisent. Daprs Deleuze, ces rapports sont concrtiss dans des classes multiples et chevauchantes de tropes, classes qui sont leur tour exprimes dans des concepts dune gnralit croissante et dcroissante que les individus et les personnes effectuent en les exemplifiant, cest--dire si et seulement si ces individus et ces personnes appartiennent au monde synthtis quexpriment ces xviii
concepts. Ainsi, les genses statiques logiques et ontologiques se compltent sans tre rductibles lune lautre. En se rfrant ainsi Leibniz ou plutt en construisant un certain no-leibnizianisme sans Dieu Deleuze dtermine dune manire diffrente les divers aspects du sensvnement toujours en cours des Stociens (analyse causale, dveloppement des croyances et des dsires du sage, et construction conceptuelle). En effet, cest maintenant en termes du jeu idal des singularits-vnements et de leurs rapports de convergence et de divergence quil faut parler de la dtermination des individus, des personnes et des concepts gnraux. Or, cela revient galement dire que les genses statiques no-leibniziennes redcrivent en termes strictement vnementiels la quatrime dimension de la proposition, examine dans le premier chapitre, qui fait fonctionner de lintrieur et de faon a priori le modle tridimensionnel de la proposition. Qui plus est, ces genses surmontent la dualit entre la dsignation vraie et la signification comme condition de vrit en ce sens que, au sein des synthses disjonctives ou des processus de triangulation, la proposition logique (signification) conditionne, non moins quelle est conditionne par, des propositions ontologiques (individus dsigns et personnes manifestes). Il est donc clair que, pour autant que ce jeu idal des vnements ne dpende daucune substance non-produite, il doit tre considr comme une composante essentielle de la philosophie deleuzienne des vnements.
Chapitre 3 : Deleuze, Lautman et Simondon Dans les chapitres trois et quatre, tout en nous rfrant Diffrence et Rptition et quoi reconnat le structuralisme ? , nous discutons la faon dont Deleuze redcrit encore nouveau les synthses disjonctives ou processus de triangulation du deuxime chapitre en termes de ses propres concepts de singularit et de problme ou structure . En particulier, nous cherchons comprendre comment le concept deleuzien du problme tablit les conditions sous lesquelles le rapport entre le sens et la vrit dune proposition, ainsi que lobjet auquel correspond cette vrit, peuvent tre constitus dans le sens lui-mme, et sans rfrence quelque chose transcendant cette dimension et la dterminant de lextrieur. Pour Deleuze, toute xix
proposition dnotative vraie exprime un sens ou un singularit-vnement (tel que grandir dans la proposition Alice grandit ), mais ce sens ou singularitvnement sera lui-mme dtermin au sein dun problme extra-propositionnel ou subreprsentatif par rapport auquel des sries connexes de telles propositions serviront dlments de rponse ou de cas de solution. Cela revient donc au mme de dire que des sries de singularits-vnements dterminent les conditions du problme et gnrent ses solutions (sous forme dindividus, de personnes et de concepts dtermins), que de dire quune proposition qui est vraie par rapport son tat de choses correspondant fait sens , dans les acceptions passives et actives de cette expression, lintrieur dun problme sub-reprsentatif. Autrement dit, au sein du problme, une proposition vraie aura un sens, toute comme elle donnera du sens au problme. La vise du troisime chapitre est principalement de montrer la faon dont mme les propositions philosophiques qui portent sur la nature objective du problme doivent faire sens au sein du problme (nous parlons ainsi du problme du concept de problme). Plus prcisment, nous y examinons comment Deleuze labore une thorie de l Ide problmatique en se rfrant certaines interprtations du calcul diffrentiel (ainsi qu la thorie des groupes et la gomtrie diffrentielle riemannienne) et aussi aux travaux mtamathmatiques dAlbert Lautman. Il dfinit lIde problmatique comme la dtermination rciproque, complte et progressive des lments purement diffrentiels (points ou vnements ordinaires ) par ladjonction et la transformation des singularits-vnements qui correspondent aux valeurs des rapports diffrentiels entre ces lments. Nous maintenons par la suite que ces propositions portant sur la nature du problme font sens par rapport aux propositions constitutives dune thorie, inspire par luvre de Gilbert Simondon, de lindividuation intensive des choses dans divers domaines scientifiques (physique, biologie, sociologie, psychologie, etc.). Autrement dit, ces deux thories de lIde problmatique inspire par Lautman et de lindividuation intensive inspire par Simondon se complmentent dans le concept philosophique complet du problme. Dune part, lindividuation intensive prsuppose ncessairement un champ prindividuel qui a la mme forme que lIde problmatique. Dautre part, cest en termes de la thorie de lindividuation intensive que lIde problmatique peut tre considre comme le problme pour ses solutions, cest--dire pour les individus,
personnes et concepts dtermins qui caractrisent tel ou tel domaine scientifique. Cest ainsi que ces deux thories font sens , lune par rapport lautre. Il convient aussi de noter ici qu la jointure de ces deux parties du problme, il y a pour Deleuze une srie ouverte de sujets diviss . Dune part, ces sujets sont entirement dissous dans les processus intensifs (biologiques, psycho-sociaux, etc.) qui les constituent. Dautre part, en labsence dune substance sous-jacente laquelle ces processus sont rductibles, ils sont obligs de penser la coexistence de ces processus ainsi que les individus, personnes et concepts auxquels ils donnent lieu dans la forme de la dtermination toujours en cours de lIde problmatique.
Chapitre 4 : Deleuze et le structuralisme Le quatrime chapitre revient une question laisse en suspens dans le troisime chapitre, savoir celle de la nature diffrentielle du langage et de la proposition : comment parler du langage et de la proposition en termes des sries et des singularits qui constituent le problme ? Nous examinons alors le concept de structure , tel quil est labor par Deleuze partir des uvres de plusieurs structuralistes, et dmontrons quil est identique celui du problme . Ce qui est essentiel, cest quil est maintenant possible par le biais du concept de structure de dcrire en termes structurels la dtermination diffrentielle du rapport entre des sries de choses ou de corps , des sries de propositions, et des sries de propositions portant sur (le sens) des propositions. Au sein de cette structure de sens , lvnement est un lment paradoxal qui, dune part, est toujours accompagn par un sujet divis qui est la fois cratif et une forme produite ; dautre part, lvnement comme lment paradoxal circule travers les diffrentes sries de la structure et effectue leur mise en rapport, ainsi que la mise en rapport de leurs termes. lgard des corps , lvnement correspond aux valeurs de leurs rapports causaux . En ce qui concerne les sries de propositions, lvnement est la fois ce qui est exprim par le verbe de la proposition dnotative et la dtermination intersubjective et toujours en cours du sensvnement (quatrime dimension de la proposition, synthse disjonctive, processus de triangulation, gense statique, etc.). Cest galement de cette manire que Deleuze parle des processus dindividuation intensive examins dans le troisime chapitre, savoir xxi
quils constituent une physique des surfaces laquelle correspond une surface mtaphysique qui, tout comme le problme ou la structure de sens, est larticulation toujours en cours dun rapport entre les corps pris ensemble et dans les limites qui les enveloppent dun ct, et les propositions quelconques dun autre ct. Il est donc clair que les concepts du problme (ou structure), des sries, de la singularit et du sujet divis, redcrivent effectivement ce qui tait en jeu dans les genses statiques ontologiques et logiques du deuxime chapitre. Or, ces genses statiques taient ellesmmes des redescriptions de la manire dont, pour les Stociens, les vnements survenant dans et pour des tats de choses sont dtermins par rapport un sensvnement qui produit, de faon continue, des individus dtermins, les croyances et les dsirs du sage, et des concepts gnraux. Qui plus est, cest en se servant de ces concepts (structure, sries, etc.) quon peut dire, premirement, que les propositions trouvent et leur sens et leur valeur de vrit dans le sens lui-mme (cest--dire dans le problme ou la structure qui constitue le sens) ; et deuximement que de telles propositions la fois conditionnent ce problme et gnrent ses solutions sous forme de la dtermination vnementielle des individus dsigns, des personnes manifestes et des concepts signifis. Finalement, il est vident que cest prcisment ainsi que Deleuze affirme la priorit ontologique des vnements, car le problme (structure de sens, surface mtaphysique, etc.) nest rien dautre que la dtermination vnementielle ou toujours en cours des vnements caractrisant les choses en gnral.
Chapitre 5 : Deleuze et la psychanalyse Le cinquime chapitre porte sur une question finale : comment est-il possible de dire que la structure ou la surface mtaphysique de sens est un vnement qui est lui-mme produit et dtermin sur cette surface. Autrement dit, comment peut-on affirmer que la structure de sens est un vnement qui nest immanent qu lui-mme ? En effet, sans une rponse cette question, on risque dhypostasier ou de substantifier la surface mtaphysique, ce qui contredirait laffirmation de Deleuze sur la primaut ontologique des vnements sur les substances en gnral. Il sagit alors de comprendre la manire dont les genses statiques supposent une gense dynamique . Nous analysons alors xxii
cet vnement immanent de la surface de sens en deux vnements connexes : dune part, lvnement du langage, entendu comme la sparation dynamique des deux sries constitutives de la surface (des mots et des propositions dous de sens, et des choses corporelles bruyantes ) et dautre part, lvnement du sujet divis qui circule entre ces deux sries et les met en communication. La question laquelle nous cherchons rpondre devient alors : comment ces deux vnements peuvent-ils se dgager des corps, produire la surface mtaphysique de sens, et tre dtermins comme tels sur cette surface mme ? Pour Deleuze, la thorie psychanalytique fournit une explication. Nous examinons alors dans ce dernier chapitre la faon dont Deleuze reprend et fusionne son gr le prdipien de Klein, la thorie de la sexualit infantile de Freud, et les concepts de limago, du phallus, de la castration et du phantasme de lcole lacanienne, afin daffirmer la production des vnements du langage et du sujet divis. Tout dabord, daprs Klein (mais aussi daprs le premier Lacan), Deleuze maintient que le nouveau n, en proie aux pulsions de vie et de mort, organise ses premires expriences corporelles et relations dobjet en profondeur , sous la forme dun bon objet imaginaire en hauteur (l imago du sein maternel). Cet objet est son tour signifi par une Voix ou un bourdonnement familial qui entoure lenfant. Cette voix nest bien sr pas encore un langage pour lenfant, mais elle le deviendra : elle fera sens rtrospectivement, une fois que lenfant accde au principe organisateur du langage, cest--dire, comme nous lavons vu, au sens-vnement, quatrime dimension de la proposition, gense statique, etc Or, ce stade, les pulsions sexuelles de lenfant commencent galement se manifester. Ce qui est crucial ici, cest que la relation au bon objet permet lenfant de sextraire de ses relations confuses en profondeur afin de se faire, tout en intgrant ses pulsions sexuelles partielles, une surface physique globale et pour son propre corps et pour la mre qui est alternativement prsente-absente. Daprs Freud et surtout Lacan, le phallus incarn par le pre imaginaire joue un rle capital dans ce processus. Tout dabord, il intgre ou donne un sens aux prsences et aux absences mystrieuses de la mre. Deuximement, et par consquent, le phallus est ce que lenfant veut tre afin de satisfaire et de contrler le dsir de la mre. Lenfant rivalise ainsi avec le pre imaginaire afin d tre le phallus que ce dernier incarne, jusquau moment o xxiii
intervient le pre rel : celui qui a en fait le phallus et, comme tel, reprsente la loi sociale et symbolique du dsir de la mre. Le pre rel castre ainsi lenfant du phallus imaginaire. Castration signifie que lenfant sidentifie de telle ou telle manire au pre rel comme porteur du phallus ou loi symbolique, ce qui veut aussi dire que lenfant se positionne par rapport la manire symbolique dont les personnes de son milieu social organisent leurs rapports interpersonnels. Or, cette organisation symbolique nest rien dautre pour Deleuze que la surface mtaphysique ou structure intersubjective de sens , analyses ci-dessus. Il sensuit alors que la castration reprsente lvnement du sujet divis sur la surface mtaphysique ou, ce qui revient la mme chose, lvnement de la surface mtaphysique pour ce sujet qui est la fois dissous dans les processus intensifs qui le constitue (profondeurs biologiques, pulsions sexuelles, etc.), et une forme produite par les oprations intersubjectives et linguistiques de la surface mtaphysique (processus de triangulation, synthses disjonctives, etc.). Ayant tabli ainsi lvnement du sujet divis, Deleuze tche ensuite de montrer que lvnement du langage est concomitant ce dernier. Tout en se rfrant Freud et aussi Laplanche et Pontalis, Deleuze soutient que le phantasme est une reprsentation complexe de la satisfaction des pulsions sexuelles dont le processus est coextensif aux oprations intersubjectives et linguistiques qui caractrisent la structure de sens. Autrement dit, trouvant son origine dans la castration ou dans le passage de lenfant la surface mtaphysique, le phantasme est un rinvestissement et une expression (une sublimation et une symbolisation) du dsir de lenfant lintrieur de la structure de sens. Comme nous lavons not ci-dessus, avant la castration, lenfant avait organis ses expriences corporelles en profondeur sous la forme dun bon objet qui tait signifi par une Voix. Lenfant commence ensuite dcouper de cette voix des lments diffrentiels phonmatiques et parler pour son propre compte, mme sil est loin davoir matris une langue comme telle. Ce qui vient alors avec la castration et le dclenchement correspondant du phantasme, cest lascension de lenfant la structure ou surface de sens, cest--dire au principe organisateur du langage et donc de sa parole. partir de ce moment-l, lenfant est capable de rattacher progressivement son discours aux propositions constitutives du phantasme qui reprsentera la satisfaction de son dsir, et dune manire approprie au contexte social et langagier dans lequel il se trouve. Ce processus, allant du bruit en profondeur la xxiv
voix, de la voix la parole, et de la parole au langage et la neutralit de la surface mtaphysique, est lvnement du langage comme tel : cest la sparation la surface des mots et des propositions dous de sens, et les choses corporelles bruyantes. Il est donc clair que les vnements du sujet divis et du langage reprsentent lvnement de la surface mtaphysique pour chaque sujet, non moins que ces vnements prsupposent cette surface comme condition virtuelle. Or, cest prcisment ainsi que Deleuze affirme que la surface mtaphysique ou structure de sens est un vnement qui nest immanent qu lui-mme. La surface mtaphysique reprsente non seulement la dtermination vnementielle des vnements qui caractrisent les choses en gnral. Qui plus est, cette surface est elle-mme vnement.
Laissons de ct ces dtails techniques et rcapitulons en cinq points la philosophie deleuzienne de lvnement dans Logique du sens. 1. Les vnements sont ce qui caractrisent les choses en gnral : les individus, les personnes et les concepts gnraux. Ontologiquement, les relations entre les vnements de tout genre, ordre, grandeur et dure font de la chose ce quelle est. 2. Nous parlons dvnements. Les verbes des propositions expriment les vnements. Nous connaissons les choses grce la manire dont nous associons, ordonnons et mettons en rapport leurs vnements constitutifs. Nous tchons de dcouvrir les lois qui rgissent les vnements et nous dveloppons des concepts qui prcisent quelle structure ou quelle combinaison dvnements doit caractriser une chose particulire pour quelle appartienne une certaine classe de choses. 3. Le processus dassocier et dordonner les vnements, de dcouvrir les lois qui les rgissent et de construire des concepts de choses vnementielles, est lui-mme un vnement, toujours en cours, qui se produit dans un contexte intersubjectif et langagier. Il peut tre dcrit en termes dune structure complexe et mouvante des xxv
rapports entre vnements. lintrieur de cette structure, des vnements de tout ordre et diffrents niveaux se dterminent les uns les autres dterminer les choses en gnral, et sans rfrence quelque instance substantielle dj donne qui pourrait fixer cette structure de lextrieur. Nous dirons que les vnements se dterminent les uns les autres rciproquement dans une srie, sil y a un rapport homogne, cest--dire constant et rgl, entre la srie des choses que ces vnements caractrisent. Nous dirons que les vnements se dterminent les uns les autres compltement dans la mesure o lexplication dune telle dtermination rciproque se trouve dans une srie dvnements rciproquement dtermins dun diffrent ordre (physique, biologique, social, psychologique, linguistique, etc.). Finalement, nous dirons que les vnements se dterminent les uns les autres progressivement en ce sens que les rapports entre ces diffrentes sries, ainsi quau sein de chaque srie, ne peuvent jamais tre rduits une instance substantielle sous-jacente, ou tre fixs par une image de lordre cosmique des vnements. En effet, ces rapports de dtermination rciproque et de dtermination complte entre vnements sont ncessairement pris dans un processus intersubjectif, cratif et toujours en cours qui varie continuellement ces rapports, redterminant et transformant par consquent les choses vnementielles correspondantes. Les vnements sont donc parfaitement individualiss (ils ressemblent ainsi aux tropes ) dans leur caractrisation des choses, mais dans la mesure o ils se dterminent et se transforment de la manire complexe explique prcdemment, ils doivent galement tre compris comme les lments purement diffrentiels dune structure mouvante dvnements qui est ontologiquement antrieure tout chose dtermine. 4. Dire que les vnements sont dtermins dans un contexte intersubjectif et langagier cest--dire au sein dune structure de sens qui semble prsupposer une langue et une culture communes ne signifie pas pour autant que le jeu idal des vnements est en dernire analyse rductible une structure linguistique fixe, ou la structure dj donne dun sujet transcendantal ou autrement dterminant. Bien au contraire, le langage et le sujet sont eux-mmes des choses vnementielles au sein de la structure de sens. Un sujet est reconnu (et se reconnat lui-mme) comme participant au processus structurel de la dtermination des vnements dans le discours intersubjectif, seulement pour autant que les vnements qui le caractrisent dans xxvi
ses rapports mondains, sociaux, psychologique et langagier, peuvent tre dtermins tre dun type appropri la structure intersubjective dans lequel il se trouve. Cela ne veut pas dire quun sujet, afin dtre un sujet connaissant et parlant au sein de la structure de sens, doit tre reconnu comme possdant certaines qualits ncessaires, essentielles ou mme fixes. Bien au contraire, tout ce qui est exig pour que diffrents sujets puissent tre pris dans un mme processus de triangulation est quils se reconnaissent mutuellement les uns les autres comme possdant quelque chose de contingent, en commun , si minime soit-il, qui permettrait ventuellement la traduction et la dtermination mutuelles de leurs croyances respectives concernant les choses mondaines. Quant lvnement du langage, il est dtermin par la manire dont les actes de parole du sujet effectivement pris dans un processus de triangulation font sens . Cest--dire quils ont un sens et quils produisent du sens par rapport aux actes de parole de tous les autres sujets pris dans le mme processus (nous entendons par actes de parole des noncs parls ou crits portant sur des individus, dautres personnes ou dautres noncs). 5. Le processus toujours en cours de la dtermination rciproque, complte et progressive des vnements nest rien dautre que la dtermination vnementielle des vnements caractrisant les choses en gnral (individus, personnes, concepts gnraux). Cest ce processus qui runit toutes les diffrentes sries dvnements et toutes les choses vnementielles de diffrents ordres. Il est, enfin, lvnement que nous produisons dans le discours, mais aussi lvnement qui nous dtermine comme les choses corporelles, sociales, sexuelles, parlantes et connaissantes que nous sommes.
Nous sommes maintenant en mesure de revenir la question de la nature rflexive du texte de Logique du sens, cest--dire la faon dont ce texte exemplifie le concept de structure quil labore. En effet, en premier lieu et comme nous lavons dj not, le texte est construit, non pas sous forme de chapitres, mais plutt sous forme de sries dont chacune peut tre considre comme une tude indpendante dun nombre de problmes vnementiels et de solutions conceptuelles. Les noncs connexes qui composent chaque tude sont alors les termes de la srie, se dterminant rciproquement les uns les autres pour autant quils forment une tude cohrente. En xxvii
outre, il est clair que chacune des sries compltent les autres de diverses manires. De plus, en passant dune srie une autre, nous pouvons constater que les concepts construits dans les premires sries, ainsi que les rapports entre eux, sont progressivement moduls, cest--dire affins, redcrits et refonds. Comme nous lavons vu, par exemple, le sens-vnement stocien est peu peu tendu et redcrit par rapport aux genses statiques no-leibniziennes, mais encore en rfrence aux concepts du problme, de la singularit et du sujet divis. Qui plus est, tous ces concepts sont complts et mme refonds par rapport la gense dynamique du sens, examine dans un vocabulaire psychanalytique. En appelant les chapitres de Logique du sens des sries , Deleuze fait beaucoup plus quattirer lattention au concept de structure analys dans ce texte. En effet, la philosophie deleuzienne des vnements, telle que nous lavons examine ci-dessus, doit tre comprise comme un vnement de pense , produit par la structure srielle de Logique du sens. En deuxime lieu, il convient de faire remarquer que dans la mesure o les sries qui constituent le texte de Logique du sens fonctionnent comme une structure ou problme sous-jacent, il sensuit que les propositions srialises du texte la fois conditionnent ce problme et gnrent ses solutions. Autrement dit, au sein de ce problme, ces propositions ont un sens et produisent du sens. En fait, cest prcisment ainsi que le sens du systme de concepts vnementiels de Deleuze est dtermin. Qui plus est, ces sries de propositions constitutives de la structure problmatique de Logique du sens sont parcourues et runies par un lment paradoxal ou question fondamentale que nous avons formule comme suit : quelles sont les conditions vnementielles de lvnement pour que tout, y compris le langage dans lequel les vnements sont mis en rapport, soit vnement ? Enfin, il est clair que le systme de concepts qui compose la philosophie deleuzienne des vnements est engendr dans un contexte intersubjectif et langagier. En effet, chacun des penseurs avec qui Deleuze dialogue , peut tre considr comme une personne ou sujet divis . Au sein de la structure du texte de Logique du sens, toutes ces personnes sont confrontes la question fondamentale de la priorit ontologique des vnements sur les substances, et leurs philosophies ou systmes de pense peuvent tre compris par consquent comme des rponses cette question. En dautres termes, les propositions qui constituent leurs systmes de pense la fois xxviii
conditionnent le problme sous-jacent de Logique du sens, et contribuent la dtermination de ses solutions. Ou encore, chaque penseur ou personne est pris dans un processus de triangulation qui dterminera simultanment : les croyances de chacun par rapport la primaut ontologique des vnements ; un monde des individus vnementiels ; et un systme de concepts (sujet divis, singularit, problmestructure, gense dynamique, etc.) pouvant exprimer ce monde dindividus comme vnementiel, et pouvant rvler ces personnes comme des penseurs de lvnement dans tel ou tel aspect, ou tel ou tel degr. En somme, nous pouvons dire que les sries qui forment la structure du texte de Logique du sens sont mises en communication permettant ainsi leurs termes ou noncs de se dterminer les uns les autres rciproquement, compltement et progressivement par un lment paradoxal qui nest rien dautre que la question fondamentale de la priorit ontologique des vnements sur les substances. En outre, cet lment est toujours accompagn par des sujets diviss qui actualisent de leurs propres manires la structure problmatique enveloppe par ladite question, dans des individus, personnes et concepts dtermins. Or, la question se pose : Deleuze est-il lui-mme pris dans ce processus de triangulation ? Est-il, en dautres termes, un des philosophes-personnes par rapport qui la synthse disjonctive des sries de Logique du sens seffectue ? Ou bien, est-ce Deleuze qui met en scne cette synthse de lextrieur , pour ainsi dire. Comme nous lavons not ci-dessus, cest lune des questions les plus difficiles rsoudre pour les commentateurs : qui parle chez Deleuze ? En fait, les concepts au cur de la philosophie deleuzienne des vnements ceux du problme (y compris les processus sriels de sa dtermination), de la singularit et du sujet divis sont uniques Deleuze. Bien quil soit vrai que Deleuze construit ces concepts en se rfrant aux uvres de Lautman et de Simondon, ces concepts sont loin dtre identiques ceux qui se trouvent chez ces derniers. Comme nous lavons vu, les doctrines de chacun de ces penseurs ne caractrisent quun seul aspect du concept deleuzien du problme. Deleuze introduit alors certaines propositions originales portant sur les rapports entre lIde problmatique lautmanienne et les processus dindividuation intensive simondoniens, ainsi que sur le sujet divis qui se trouve leur jointure. Or, il est vident que cest grce ces propositions originales et ces nouveaux concepts que Deleuze dtermine en dernire analyse sa gense statique xxix
no-leibnizienne, qui tait elle-mme une redscription du sens-vnement stocien. Il est galement clair que cest par le biais des concepts du problme, des sries, etc., que Deleuze comprend ce qui est commun aux uvres structuralistes et labore son propre concept de structure. Enfin, il est apparent que le phantasme psychanalytique, pour autant quil slabore au sein dune structure intersubjective et langagire, doit tre compris travers le prisme de ces concepts du problme, du sujet divis, etc. Or, en mme temps, tout lintrt philosophique des concepts de Deleuze rside prcisment dans la manire dont ils sont exprims dans les dtails des uvres des penseurs auxquels Deleuze se rfre, cest--dire dans la faon dont les concepts deleuziens semblent rsoudre les divers problmes qui surgissent lorsque ces penseurs sont confronts, de leurs propres manires, la question deleuzienne de la priorit ontologique des vnements sur les substances. Cette confrontation parfois violente est ce que nous avons appels ci-dessus la reconstruction contingente mais canonique de Deleuze de lhistoire de la philosophie autour du problme de lvnement. Et en effet, lun des objectifs primaires de la thse a t dexaminer comment laffirmation de Deleuze de la priorit ontologique des vnements est exprime dans les uvres des figures intellectuelles quil analyse dans Logique du sens. Ayant dmontr ainsi que la pense de Deleuze est insparable de la conversation complexe quil entretient avec ses sources privilgies, nous esprons aussi avoir clarifi le fait que Deleuze neffectue pas de lextrieur la synthse disjonctive de ce qui est en jeu dans Logique du sens. Nous sommes donc confronts une situation curieuse. Dune part, les concepts du problme, de la singularit et du sujet divis sont bel et bien construit par Deleuze, mais dautre part, ils rsultent de la synthse disjonctive des sries danalyses, de propositions et de points de vue philosophiques qui constituent la structure problmatique de Logique du sens. Autrement dit, ces concepts surgissent comme euxmmes des vnements. Toutefois, ceci ne devrait pas nous tonner, car nous savons quun problme diffrentiel tel que celui form par le texte de Logique du sens est toujours dtermin de lintrieur par ladjonction et la transformation des singularitsvnements (des sens) qui correspondent aux valeurs des rapports entre les lments (les propositions) qui composent le problme. Il sensuit alors que, dans la mesure o les propositions de Deleuze portant sur les concepts du problme, de la singularit et du sujet divis font sens ou produisent le sens des propositions srialises qui xxx
expriment le reste de la structure problmatique du texte, nous pouvons dire que Deleuze cre ces concepts. Mais en mme temps, pour autant que ces propositions font sens ou ont un sens par rapport aux propositions appartenant cette structure sous-jacente, nous pouvons affirmer que les crations conceptuelles de Deleuze rsultent de la manire particulire dont ce dernier accompagne le problme de lvnement (lment paradoxale) pendant quil circule travers toutes les sries qui compose le texte de Logique du sens, et fait communiquer les uvres des figures intellectuelles en jeu. Qui parle alors dans Logique du sens ? Nous avons dit que les diverses propositions portant sur les concepts de Deleuze font sens , dans les deux acceptions de cette expression, au sein de la structure intersubjective et problmatique que forme ce texte. Or, mme si le sens ou sens-vnement de ces propositions est produit dans un tel contexte intersubjectif, cela ne devrait pas nous empcher de pouvoir distinguer quelles propositions sont attribuables quels penseurs. Comme nous lavons dit, le sens dune proposition nest pas rductible la dimension de la manifestation personnelle, mais en mme temps le sens nexiste pas non plus en dehors de la manire dont les croyances des personnes sont dtermines lintrieur dun processus de triangulation. Cest la raison pour laquelle nous avons essay au cours de cette prsente tude de prciser chaque moment qui parle, empchant ainsi leffondrement des distinctions caractrisant le point de vue unique de chaque penseur sur un monde o les vnements ont la priorit ontologique sur les substances. Est-ce que cela veut dire que la philosophie deleuzienne des vnements pour autant quil est construit uniquement sur des points de vue sur dautres points de vue ou laffirmation de la divergence est essentiellement ouverte de nouvelles transformations ? Cette conclusion est inluctable. En effet, il est tentant de lire les uvres ultrieures de Deleuze comme effectuant de telles transformations, dans dautres contextes, guides par dautres questions et problmes, et en rfrence dautres penseurs, quils soient philosophes, scientifiques ou artistes. Toutes les uvres de Deleuze semblent en bref prendre la forme dune conversation productive, complexe et toujours en cours.
Or, est-ce quil est possible de pousser plus loin cette conversation ? Laissant de ct pour linstant le problme des rapports entre Logique du sens et le reste de luvre philosophique de Deleuze, nous devons nous poser cette question pour lavenir : avec quelles autres philosophies, et avec quels autres penseurs, peut-on mettre la Logique du sens en rapport afin de produire quelque chose de nouveau ? Quelles propositions originales pouvons-nous apporter une telle synthse ? Nous avons suggr ci-dessus que lintrt contemporain aux vnements se manifeste chez des philosophes de lEurope continentale aussi divers quAlain Badiou, Michel Serres, Bruno Latour et Bernard Stiegler. Nous avons galement not que, dans le monde anglophone, lvnement a fait lobjet dtude chez les no-pragmatistes et philosophes des processus tels que Donald Davidson, Richard Rorty, Robert Brandom et Nicholas Rescher. Il est certain qu partir de cette prsente tude, Deleuze pourrait tre amen sengager dans une conversation productive avec ces autres penseurs.14 Peut-tre Deleuze pourrait-il aussi tre amen dialoguer de manire fructueuse avec ceux qui soutiennent la priorit ontologique des substances sur les vnements.15 Et mme audel de la mtaphysique, plusieurs tudes rcentes ont dj montr ce que Deleuze peut apporter la pense politique et esthtique.16 Quoiquil en soit, il va bien au-del de la porte de cette thse dexaminer en dtail de telles conversations. Plus modestement, notre objectif a t seulement dexpliquer la manire prcise dont Deleuze affirme la primaut ontologique des vnements dans son uvre de 1969, Logique du sens. Dans la mesure o nous avons compris la philosophie
Il convient faire remarquer que David Lapoujade a dj tudi les rapports philosophiques entre Deleuze et le premier pragmatisme amricain dans son ouvrage Fictions du pragmatisme : William et Henry James (Paris : Les ditions de Minuit, 2008). Voir galement David Lapoujade, From Transcendental Empiricism to Worker Nomadism : William James , Pli 9 (2000). James Williams a aussi organis une rencontre philosophique entre Deleuze et le philosophe des processus, Alfred North Whitehead, dans son Deleuze and Whitehead : the concept of reciprocal determination , dans The Transversal Thought of Gilles Deleuze (Manchester : Clinamen, 2006). Ces ouvrages formeront la base pour notre comprhension du rapport de Deleuze au no-pragmatisme et la philosophie contemporaine des processus. Une premire tentative de mettre en place un dialogue, en termes lautmaniens, entre les uvres de Deleuze de Badiou, se trouve dans Sean Bowden, Alain Badiou: Problematics and the Different Senses of Being in Being and Event , Parrhesia 5 (2008). 15 Sur les ontologies contemporaines de la substance, voir, par exemple, Michael J. Loux, Beyond Substrata and Bundles : A Prolegomenon to a Substance Ontology , in Contemporary Readings in the Foundations of Metaphysics, ed. Stephen Laurence and Cynthia Macdonald (Oxford : Blackwell Publishers, 1998). 16 Sur Deleuze et le politique, voir par exemple Paul Patton, Deleuze and the Political (London et New York : Routledge, 2000), 28. Voir galement Paul Patton, The Event of Colonization , dans Deleuze and the Contemporary World, ed. Ian Buchanan et Adrian Parr (Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press, 2006). Sur Deleuze et lesthtique, voir Ronald Bogue, Deleuze on Music, Painting and the Arts (London et New York : Routledge, 2003). Voir aussi Anne Sauvagnargues, Deleuze et lart (Paris : PUF, 2005).
deleuzienne des vnements par rapport ses sources, cette tude peut tre considre comme un travail dhistoire de la philosophie. Dans la mesure o nous nous sommes consacrs la comprhension dun texte souvent nglig par les commentateurs, cette thse est une contribution la littrature sur Deleuze. Enfin, pour autant que nous avons russi concrtiser la philosophie des vnements de Deleuze en termes clairs, il est esprer que notre travail rendra possible dans lavenir un nombre dtudes productives sur les rapports conceptuelles entre luvre de Deleuze et celles dautres penseurs.
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisors, Paul Patton, Stphane Douailler and Alain Badiou for their invaluable support throughout the duration of this project. Paul Patton, in particular, was a most generous and judicious sounding board for many of the ideas developed herein. Messieurs Badiou and Douailler unhesitatingly committed themselves to the cotutelle arrangement, and the many letters written and forms signed by all of my supervisors allowed me to bring this work to fruition in the best possible circumstances. I am also deeply indebted to the following friends and colleagues: Simon Duffy, for his generous feedback and enthusiasm for this project; Joanne Faulkner, for setting my mind to rest on my understanding of psychoanalysis; Dan Smith, for his warm encouragement; Rosalyn Diprose, for all the wonderful advice given at the beginning of my PhD; and Marc Jones, for undertaking the unenviable task of proof-reading this entire manuscript. Alexandra Bourrs many kindnesses contributed to the realization of this thesis in innumerable ways, and Herv Bruneau and Florentin Roche have provided me with much linguistic advice. I especially owe my parents, Terry and Denise, heartfelt thanks for all their support. I was fortunate to receive an Australian Postgraduate Award in order to undertake this present work, as well as a one year scholarship and travel grant from the French Embassy in Australia. I am also grateful for an external study grant awarded to me by the University of New South Wales. Finally, and above all, I would like to thank Miriam Bankovsky for her generosity, encouragement, counsel and loving support over many years. Substantial portions of Chapter 1 were published as Deleuze et les Stociens: une logique de lvnement, Le Bulletin de la socit amricaine de philosophie de langue franaise 15, no. 1 (2005): 72-97. A section of Chapter 2 appears in the article Deleuze, Leibniz and the Jurisprudence of Being, Pli 17 (2006): 98-120. A section of Chapter 3 has also been published in the article Alain Badiou: Problematics and the Different Senses of Being in Being and Event, Parrhesia 5 (2008): 32-47.
La thse a t prpare au sein du Laboratoire dtudes et de recherches sur les logiques contemporaines de la philosophie (Habilitation EA 4008). Adresse : Dpartement de Philosophie 2 rue de la Libert 93526 Saint-Denis Cedex
Rsum et mots cls en franais
Rsum et mots cls en anglais
Rsum substantiel en franais La priorit ontologique des vnements dans la Logique du sens de Gilles Deleuze
Introduction The Ontological Priority of Events in Gilles Deleuzes The Logic of Sense
Chapter One Deleuze and the Stoics 1.1 The Problem of the Pure Event and the Stoic Ontological Distinction between Bodies and Incorporeal Sayables (Reference and Sense) 1.1.1 Stoic Ontology 1.2 The Fourth dimension of the Proposition: the Sense-Event and the Stoic Comprehensive Representation 1.2.1 Stoic Physics 1.2.2 Stoic Logic 1.2.3 Stoic Epistemology 1.2.4 Stoic Ethics
Chapter Two Deleuze and Leibniz 2.1 Leibnizs System in Outline 2.2 Deleuze and Leibniz: The Static Genesis of Individuals, Persons and General Concepts and the Ideal Play of Events
Chapter Three Deleuze, Lautman and Simondon 3.1 Problematic Ideas and Singularities in Difference and Repetition: From Kant to the Calculus 3.2 Albert Lautman and the Dialectic of Problematic Ideas xxxvi
Gilbert Simondon and the Theory of Individuation Deleuze, Simondon and Lautman: Singularity and Problem
Chapter Four Deleuze and Structuralism 4.1 Structuralism in The Logic of Sense and How do We Recognize Structuralism? 4.2 Structure and the Proposition
Chapter Five Deleuze and Psychoanalysis 5.1 First Step of the Dynamic Genesis: From Noise to the Voice (Klein and the Pre-Oedipal) 5.2 Second Step: Formation and Coordination of Surfaces (Freud and Infantile Sexuality) 5.3 Third Step: From the Physical to the Metaphysical Surface (Lacan, Oedipus and Castration) 5.4 Fourth Step: From Speech to Language (Phantasm and Metaphysical Surface)
Introduction: The Ontological Priority of Events in Gilles Deleuzes The Logic of Sense
______________________________________________________________________ The aim of this thesis is, above all, to examine and clarify the complex way in which Deleuze asserts the ontological priority of events over substances in his 1969 work, The Logic of Sense.1 In particular, the thesis will analyze the way in which Deleuze grounds this assertion by establishing a relation, the precise nature of which will be seen below, between the works representative of several philosophers and intellectual movements, namely, the Stoics, Leibniz, Albert Lautman, Gilbert Simondon, structuralism and psychoanalysis. In short, it will be shown how Deleuze constructs a concept of the ontologically primitive event by extracting from the work of these thinkers a number of event-related problems and a hybrid family of concepts which, with certain important qualifications, can be said to resolve these problems. The question naturally arises as to why we have elected to focus on these particular figures and not others. Arguably, The Logic of Sense could profitably be explored, and in a number of different ways, through Deleuzes readings of Nietzsche and Husserl, for example, or, again, of Lewis Carroll and Antonin Artaud. Indeed, several commentators have noted and analyzed the importance of these latter figures in The Logic of Sense.2 The fact that they have already done so, of course, is reason enough for not duplicating their efforts. But it is also our belief that Deleuzes philosophy of events is most fruitfully examined in relation to the thinkers we have chosen for this present study. We have several reasons for holding this belief. First of all, Deleuze maintains in his 1988 work, The Fold, that the Stoics and Leibniz implemented, respectively, the first and second great logics of the event.3 These
Gilles Deleuze, The Logic of Sense, trans. Mark Lester and Charles Stivale, ed. Constantin V. Boundas (New York: Colombia University Press, 1990). All future references to this text will be cited as LS, followed by the relevant page number(s). 2 On the importance of Husserl in The Logic of Sense, see: Leonard Lawlor, Thinking Through French Philosophy The Being of the Question (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2003), 84-85 and 130-131; and James Williams, Gilles Deleuzes Logic of Sense A Critical Introduction and Guide (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2008), 129-134. On the importance of Lewis Carroll, see Jean-Jacques Lecercle, Philosophy Through the Looking-Glass: Language, Nonsense, Desire (La Salle: Open Court, 1985). On the importance of Artaud and Nietzsche, see Michel Foucault, Theatrum Philosophicum, in Language, Counter-Memory Practice, ed. Donald F. Bouchard, trans. Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1977), 171-172, 179-180, and 192-196. 3 Gilles Deleuze, The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque, trans. Tom Conley (London: The Athlone Press, 1993), 53. Following Deleuze, a third great logic of the event will come with Whitehead, but since Whiteheads philosophy is not addressed in The Logic of Sense, we shall not deal with it here.
philosophers will thus be indispensable for any understanding of Deleuzes approach to events in 1969. Secondly, as will be seen in Chapters 3 and 4, Deleuze effectively reads the Stoics and Leibniz through several conceptual innovations developed by Lautman, Simondon and various structuralists. Finally, Deleuzes engagement with psychoanalysis occupies the final quarter of the actual text of The Logic of Sense. It is in relation to psychoanalysis that Deleuze establishes his concept of the dynamic genesis of sense and the event, which comes to complement the static genesis of sense and the event developed primarily in relation to Leibniz, but also in relation to the other intellectual figures we examine. In sum, therefore, the decision to focus on the abovementioned thinkers has been dictated to us by the very nature of the task we have set for ourselves, namely, to clarify Deleuzes claim for the ontological priority of events over substances in The Logic of Sense.4 Insofar as this present study connects Deleuzes understanding of events to its explicitly acknowledged sources, it can be read as a work in the history of philosophy. By history of philosophy is here meant, not an enumeration and comparison of philosophical opinions nor a Hegelian-style synthesis, but, more humbly, the crystallization of a number of ideas and problems which can be said to be common to several thinkers belonging to different historical periods, and which are capable of being connected to contemporary intellectual concerns. To undertake the history of philosophy in this way is to simultaneously engage in what Richard Rorty calls: a context-bound, historical reconstruction of what a particular thinker actually said; a rational reconstruction of what these thinkers might say in a productive conversation with thinkers from different time periods, including our own; and a contingent, canonforming reconstruction of the problem which these thinkers share, and which is of contemporary interest.5 Indeed, as will be seen, the thesis examines the precise contributions made by Deleuze, as well as by each of the thinkers to whom he refers, in posing and resolving what will be called the problem of the event. It should be noted, however, that it is beyond the scope of this thesis to explore the ways in which contemporary thought concerns itself with events or processes. This present study rather takes such interest in events for granted. Suffice it to say that the
Indeed, as Paul Patton rightly remarks, The Logic of Sense might equally well have been entitled The Logic of the Event. See his Introduction to Deleuze: A Critical Reader, ed. Paul Patton (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 13. 5 See Richard Rorty, The Historiography of Philosophy, in Truth and Progress Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 247-273.
contemporary philosophical significance of events in Continental Europe is reflected, in very different ways, in the works of philosophers such as Alain Badiou and Michel Serres,6 as well as in the works of those such as Bruno Latour and Bernard Stiegler, who are the inheritors of a philosophical tradition which includes Bergson, Bachelard, Simondon and Deleuze. In Anglo-American philosophy, events and processes have recently been examined, again in quite diverse ways, by various pragmatists, neopragmatists and process philosophers such as Donald Davidson, Richard Rorty, Robert Brandom and Nicholas Rescher.7 Again, whilst it is beyond the scope of our project here to analyze the conceptual proximity of Deleuze to these other philosophers, it is hoped that this thesis will be able to make such studies possible in the future, that is, precisely insofar as it is able to clarify Deleuzes own approach to events. The thesis also aims to contribute to the secondary literature on Deleuze. As Jean-Jacques Lecercle rightly notes, The Logic of Sense has, until very recently, been largely neglected by commentators. The reason for this neglect, according to Lecercle, is that this text appears to be too structuralist and too psychoanalytic when read alongside the works which Deleuze co-authored with Flix Guattari.8 As he writes, The Logic of Sense is generally regarded as the work of a structuralist Deleuze, still under the influence of Lacan and psychoanalysis, two unfortunate aspects which his meeting with Guattari enabled him to get rid of the real Deleuze, before and after Logic of Sense, the vitalist Deleuze, herald of the Bergsonian virtual, of difference, becomings and haecceities, is not found in Logic of Sense, an accident in an otherwise distinguished career.9
See Alain Badiou, Being and Event, trans. Oliver Feltham (London and New York: Continuum, 2005). On Michel Serres as a philosopher of events, see Jean Ladrires Prface, in Anne Crahay, Michel Serres: La mutation du cogito (Bruxelles: De Boeck, 1988), 15. 7 Nicholas Rescher identifies as philosophers of events or processes not only those working in the shadow of Whitehead, but also those working in the tradition of American pragmatism, inherited from Peirce, James and Dewey. While some of these latter philosophers may not explicitly talk about events or processes as such, their work is nevertheless typically processual in nature. See Nicholas Rescher, Process Metaphysics An Introduction to Process Philosophy (New York: SUNY, 1996), 1-26. 8 See Jean-Jacques Lecercle, Deleuze and Language (Bassingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 99-100. 9 Jean-Jacques Lecercle, Preface, in Williams, Gilles Deleuzes Logic of Sense, vii. The one exception to Lecercles argument here is Slavoj iek who, precisely because of the psychoanalytic, structural and pre-Guattari nature of this text, understands The Logic of Sense as emblematic of the line of Deleuze proper. We agree with Daniel W. Smith, however, that despite the philosophical interest of ieks Lacanian-Hegelian buggery of Deleuze, his reading of The Logic of Sense in Organs Without Bodies does not ultimately add much to our understanding of Deleuze, and so cannot be thought of as a commentary in any conventional sense. See Slavoj iek, Organs without Bodies On Deleuze and Consequences (New York: Routledge, 2004), 20; and Daniel W. Smith, The Inverse Side of the Structure: iek on Deleuze and Lacan, Criticism 46, 4 (2004): 648. Indeed, iek explicitly states that he relies extensively on Alain Badious Deleuze: The Clamour of Being (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000) for his approach. This latter text, however, is not concerned with an analysis of
The disproportionate focus in Deleuze scholarship on the two volumes of Capitalism and Schizophrenia, where Deleuze is highly critical of certain versions of structuralism and psychoanalysis, adds weight to Lecercles argument. But we can also point to the complexity of The Logic of Sense, both in its form and in its content, as an obstacle to commentary. Indeed, in its form, this text is composed not of chapters but of relatively short series, which refer to one another in indirect, manifold and ultimately non-linear ways. The reader is, moreover, left to discover and establish the connections between these series for him or herself. Deleuze does provide an explanation of how this serial form works, but the reader must reconstruct this explanation with reference to several interrelated series. We shall return to a more ample discussion of Deleuzes concept of series below. In its content, the argument of The Logic of Sense is constructed with reference to thinkers who are themselves relatively unknown or comparatively minor (the Stoics, Simondon, Lautman), or who are not, strictly speaking, considered to be philosophers (the various structuralists and psychoanalytic theorists to whom Deleuze refers). Moreover, due to Deleuzes allusive writing style, it is often difficult to separate out precisely who is speaking at any one time.10 When, for example, Deleuze develops, in Series 16 and 17, his static ontological and logical geneses in a vocabulary derived primarily from Leibniz, is it Deleuze who is speaking or Leibniz? Or, if it is a mix of both, how can the line which divides Leibnizs thought from Deleuzes be characterized? These are questions which are not easily answered and present a real difficulty for any commentator. Whatever the reason for this lacuna in Deleuze scholarship, it is incontestable that it exists. The thesis should thus be read, not only as a work in the history of philosophy, but also as an attempt to partially fill this gap in the secondary literature. It should be noted, however, that as this present study was nearing completion, a monograph devoted to The Logic of Sense was published by James Williams, entitled Gilles Deleuzes Logic of Sense: A Critical Introduction and Guide (2008). This thesis, though, differs from Williams work in two ways. First of all, as his chapter headings
the detail of The Logic of Sense as a whole. Rather, it is a reading of Deleuzes entire philosophical oeuvre through the lens of the problem of the One, which Badiou set up and resolves in his own way in his Being and Event. On the problem of the One in Being and Event, see Sean Bowden, Alain Badiou: From Ontology to Politics and Back, Bulletin de la Socit Amricaine de Philosophie de Langue Franaise 15, 2 (2005): 70-71. 10 On this point, see also Franois Zourabichvili, Deleuze Une philosophie de lvnement (Paris: PUF, 1994), 5-6.
make clear, Williams takes as his focus the way in which The Logic of Sense addresses, in various ways, several themes which are dear to philosophy, namely, language, the nature of philosophy itself, morality and thought. The present work, on the contrary, focuses exclusively on reading The Logic of Sense as a complex assertion of the ontological priority of events over substances. Secondly, while Williams is careful to cite the sources of Deleuzes thought and to indicate where Deleuzes philosophy of events overlaps with those of several contemporary philosophers, including Donald Davidson and Jaegwon Kim, his mode of presentation of Deleuzes arguments is to a large extent conversational, as befits a critical introduction, and makes use of many illuminating examples drawn from literature, film and everyday life. This thesis, by contrast, attempts to explicate and analyze some of the more technical aspects of the philosophical and other works to which Deleuze refers in The Logic of Sense, and then juxtaposes this with detailed analyses of Deleuzes own way of talking about events. The two projects, therefore, are quite different in focus and approach, which accounts for the lack of citations to be found herein to Williams work. This is not at all to say, however, that the two projects do not complement one another. Indeed, on the one hand, Williams text addresses many issues which this present work cannot, due to its focus on the ontological priority of events over substances. On the other hand, the technical analyses to be found in this thesis shed light on some of Deleuzes more obscure claims and references in The Logic of Sense, claims and references which the nature of Williams text precludes him from examining. Finally, it is clear that this present study will in any case be able to be understood much more easily by those having already read Williams very clear introduction and guide. It thus benefits immeasurably from the prior publication of this latter. Two other recent works dealing with The Logic of Sense also bear mentioning here, although neither is entirely devoted to this text. The first, Jean-Jacques Lecercles Deleuze and Language (2002), contains an excellent chapter-length analysis of The Logic of Sense as part of the larger task of spelling out what a Deleuzian philosophy of language might look like. From this point of view, Lecercle provides a clear overview of Deleuzes relation to the Stoics, structuralism and psychoanalysis, as well as a helpful comparison between Badious and Deleuzes respective understandings of the nature of events. What is missing from Lecercles reading of The Logic of Sense, however, at least from the point of view of the task which this present study has set itself, is a detailed analysis of the way in which Deleuze articulates his philosophy of 5
the event with reference to Leibniz, Lautman and Simondon. Nevertheless, it is clear that it is the question of language, and not that of the ontological priority of events, which is Lecercles primary focus, and it is precisely this focus which leads Lecercle to privilege certain of Deleuzes references at the expense of these latter philosophers who appear to us as crucial for any understanding of his philosophy of events. The second text dealing with The Logic of Sense is a chapter of Alain Badious Logiques des mondes.11 In several dense pages, Badiou extracts from The Logic of Sense what he names the four Deleuzian axioms of the event, which he then contrasts with four axioms characterizing his own approach to events. These four Deleuzian axioms (1) becoming-unlimited becomes the event itself, (2) the event is always what has just happened and what is about to happen, but never what is happening, (3) the event is of another nature than the action and passions of bodies, even though it is produced by them, and (4) a life is composed of a single and same Event, despite the variety of what happens to it capture in a very precise way some of the essential aspects of Deleuzes understanding of the event. However, despite the inherent interest of Badious distillation of the essential axioms of The Logic of Sense, and of the philosophical dispute between Deleuzes and Badious understanding of events more generally, it is clear that Badiou does not here go into the sort of detail usually expected of textual commentary. Indeed, such commentary is not at all his concern, and nor should we demand that it be so. There is thus much more to be said about The Logic of Sense if this present work is to fulfil its task of spelling out the precise way in which Deleuze affirms, with reference to the various thinkers and intellectual movements he privileges in this text, the ontological priority of events over substances. The aim of the thesis and its intellectual context thus outlined, what now can be said of how Deleuze grounds his claims with regard to events? This question, of course, also bears on the mode of presentation of Deleuzes philosophy of events which will be used in this present study. It was remarked at the outset that Deleuze asserts the ontological priority of events by establishing a relation between the works of various thinkers in such a way that they can be said to collectively pose and resolve the problem of the event. What, then, is the nature of this relation?
See Alain Badiou, Logiques des mondes Ltre et lvnement, 2 (Paris: Seuil, 2006), 403-410. This chapter has been translated by Jon Roffe as Alain Badiou, The Event in Deleuze, Parrhesia 2 (2007): 37-44.
In the Preface, Deleuze indicates that the intellectual figures he examines are related through the above-mentioned series which compose the text of The Logic of Sense. He writes that to each series [of The Logic of Sense] there correspond figures which are not only historical but topological and logical as well. As on a pure surface, certain points of one figure in a series refer to the points of another figure: an entire galaxy of problems with their corresponding dice-throws, stories, and places, a complex place (LS, xiv). We can thus see that three notions are here intertwined: figures, series and problems (dice-throws, etc.). What, then, are series, how do they bring the figures to refer to one another, and how does this determine an entire galaxy of problems, dice-throws, etc.? The precise nature of series will be examined in Chapters 2, 3 and, above all, Chapter 4. We can nevertheless state here that a series has, conceptually, three general conditions. First of all, a series is composed of terms which relate to one another reciprocally, which is simply to say that each term is what it is in the series because of its position relative to all of the other terms of the series. Secondly, this positional relation between the reciprocally determined terms constituting a series is itself determined with reference to (at least) a second series of reciprocally determined terms of a heterogeneous type. Finally, the two series refer to each other in this way through a paradoxical element. This element cannot be defined as a term of either series. It is defined, rather, as this in relation to which the terms of one series are situated in their reciprocal relations, relative to the way in which the terms of the other series are situated in their own reciprocal relations. In what way, then, can we understand what would normally be called the chapters of The Logic of Sense as series in the above sense? First of all, in abstract terms, we can say that the utterances which make up each of Deleuzes series are the terms of that series. A series is thus composed of utterances which make sense within that series, depending on their position relative to all the other utterances making up that series. Secondly, the precise way in which the utterances constitutive of one series make sense in relation to one another is itself determined with reference to the way in which the utterances composing each other series make sense in relation to one another within their own series. Finally, the utterances of each series are situated in their particular relations relative to the determined utterances of each other series because of the particular relation each series has to a paradoxical element which belongs to none of the series as such. 7
To put this in more concrete terms, we hope to show that The Logic of Senses paradoxical element is nothing other than the problem of the event, that is to say, the problem of affirming the ontological priority of events over substances all the way down. Each series of the text can thus be said to relate to this overall problem in its own particular way. On the one hand, each series takes the form of an examination of particular event-related problems and conceptual solutions. Indeed, as will be seen, the problem of the event can be analyzed into several sub-problems whose solutions, in turn, have various components. On the other hand, the way in which each series is related, through the particular sub-problems and partial solutions they deal with, to the overall problem of the event, is ultimately determined by the way in which each other series relates to this same overall problem in its own way. The 34 series which compose The Logic of Sense will thus be said to set up as well as resolve the problem of the event. It is in this way, therefore, that the serial form of The Logic of Sense gives rise to an entire galaxy of problems, to which correspond various dice-throws, that is, the determination of partial conceptual solutions to these problems.12 What, now, of the figures which refer to one another across the different series of Deleuzes text? In short, Deleuze generates the particular event-related problems and solutions dealt with in each series by asking what this or that aspect of the works of the various intellectual figures he examines brings to the problem of the event. It thus amounts to the same thing to say that the utterances constitutive of the various series of The Logic of Sense collectively pose and resolve the problem of the event, as it does to say that the points (i.e., the event-related problems, arguments and conceptual solutions) of one figure in a series refer to the points of another figure in another series. In fact, as will be seen, these references are quite complex, for as one progresses through the series of The Logic of Sense, from the work of one figure of thought to another, the event-related problems and conceptual solutions developed in earlier series are being constantly refined, re-problematized, re-described, re-grounded and even re-determined. As has already been noted, it is clear that the complex form which Deleuzes assertion of the ontological priority of events takes presents a real difficulty for the commentator. What is required is a mode of presentation which is able to extricate itself from the subtleties of Deleuzes serial method and take a birds-eye view of the precise
On the dice-throw, see also Chapter 3, 133-136.
ways in which the figures, problems and conceptual solutions found throughout The Logic of Sense contribute to the philosophy of events to be found therein. The approach which is used in this present work will be, first of all, in each chapter, to examine in detail the works of one of the major intellectual figures to whom Deleuze refers. We shall then show how and where these details are used in the text of The Logic of Sense. The reason why we enter so fully into the works of Deleuzes privileged references is in order to overcome Deleuzes allusive style and thus to show precisely who is speaking at any one time. In light of these analyses, we shall then show the event-related problems and conceptual solutions which Deleuze appropriates from each thinker, and distinguish these from the original notions which he brings to the table. In the second place, from one chapter of the thesis to another, and thus from one intellectual figure to another, we will show how the problems and solutions developed in relation to one thinker are refined, re-problematized, extended, etc., in relation to another thinker. Once this process is complete, we shall, finally, be able to give a clear statement of Deleuzes philosophy of events such as this can be extracted from the complex way in which the historical sources examined in The Logic of Sense refer to each other via the complex serial method employed in this text. Two further issues should also be mentioned. First, one of the figures in relation to which Deleuze constructs his philosophy of events is the contemporary intellectual movement know as Structuralism. It should here be noted that several of the concepts which Deleuze develops in relation to Structuralism, such as series and paradoxical element, are not only crucial to his philosophy of events, they also allow us to understand, as indicated above, the way in which the text of The Logic of Sense works. In Chapter 4, we examine how these structuralist concepts contribute to Deleuzes philosophy of events, though we do not address therein how these concepts also capture what is essential to the textual machinery of The Logic of Sense itself. This is because, in line with what we have just said, these concepts also refer, in complex ways, to the problems and conceptual solutions examined in other chapters. In order not to confuse these different levels of discourse, then, we leave our discussion of the reflexive nature of The Logic of Sense to the conclusion. The second point which here bears addressing is the fact that, while we have attempted, as much as is possible, to treat The Logic of Sense uniquely on its own terms, we nevertheless refer to several of Deleuzes earlier works in order to clarify a number of issues. These earlier works are Difference and Repetition (1968), How do We 9
Recognize Structuralism? (1967) and, to a lesser extent, The Method of Dramatization (1967).13 The use of these texts in this thesis is due only to the fact that they give very clear statements of Deleuzes understanding of several figures and concepts which, while crucial to the philosophy of events to be found in The Logic of Sense, are examined in a comparatively restrained way in this text. We do not go so far as to claim that Deleuze is essentially writing about the same things in these different texts. Rather, beginning with what is addressed in abridged form in The Logic of Sense, and keeping in mind the overall aim of this work, we show how an examination of Deleuzes more extensive treatment of certain figures and concepts in his earlier works enhances our understanding of this later text. Let us now turn to a brief chapter-by-chapter overview of what is to come. Chapter 1 begins with an examination of the way in which Deleuze initially sets up the problem of the event. He argues that events, picked out by verbs of becoming, are ideal entities upon which determined states of affairs are ontologically dependent. While they are not in themselves objectively present or localizable, events must nevertheless be posited in order to account for the constitution of new states of affairs, as well as for states of affairs which will be understood as past in relation to these new presents. Deleuze argues, furthermore, that our knowledge of things depends on the way in which the events ontologically constituting them can be brought into relation in language. Language, however, is itself an event or is a product of various events. The problem of the event is thus formulated in the following way: what are the evental conditions of the event if everything, including the very language in which events are ordered and related, is ultimately to be a well determined event? While undertaking a detailed exploration of Stoic philosophy, we consider Deleuzes Stoic solution to this problem. In particular, we examine the way in which Deleuze understands events in terms of Stoic incorporeal lekta or sayables, which are at once the sense of propositions and the effect of causal relations between the bodies denoted by these propositions. The event, understood in this way, is then seen to unite the various aspects of Deleuzes problem of the event insofar as it is the juncture of a three-fold process involving: the analysis of causal relations between bodies in terms of their events-effects; the construction of concepts characterizing bodies in terms of their
Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, trans. Paul Patton (London: Athlone, 1994); How do We Recognize Structuralism? and The Method of Dramatization can both be found in Desert Islands and Other Texts 1953-1974, ed. David Lapoujade, trans. Michael Taormina (New York: Semiotexte, 2004).
constitutive events; and the development of the Stoic sages knowledge of these eventdetermined bodies. This three-fold process, each aspect of which is inseparable from the others, is thus said to be an ongoing sense-event, which determines the ideal events upon which things in general are ontologically dependent. There are two further event-related problems which Deleuze initially attempts to resolve with reference to the Stoics. The first of these is the circularity of the definition of sense. Or again, in other words, the fact that, since each of the three dimensions of the proposition recognized by contemporary philosophy is called upon to ground the others in some way, sense cannot be said to reside exclusively in denotation, conceptual signification or personal manifestation. The second problem is that there is hiatus between conceptual signification understood as the condition of a propositions being true, and the truth of that conditioned proposition in relation to a factual state of affairs. As will be seen, however, for Deleuze, the Stoic sense-event overcomes these problems. In short, Deleuze understands the ongoing sense-event as a fourth dimension of the proposition which grounds the relations between the other three dimensions in an a priori manner, causal analysis being aligned with denotation, conceptual construction with signification, and the wise persons beliefs and desires with manifestation. Furthermore, the sense-event grounding the relation between the processes of conceptual construction and causal analysis, it can be said that it establishes a relation between signification, understood as the condition of the truth of a proposition, and the possibility of that propositions being true in relation to the causal dimension of bodies. For the Stoics, however, it appears that the ongoing sense-event is ultimately determinable in relation to a pre-given substance: Zeus. Such an affirmation obviously runs counter to Deleuzes philosophy of the events all the way down. In Chapter 2, we shall see how Deleuze readdresses the problem of the event and its Stoic solution with reference to Leibniz, or rather, to a certain Leibnizianism without God. In particular, we shall explore the way in which Deleuze extends the Leibnizian notions of compossibility and incompossibility in order to re-describe the genesis of determined individuals, persons and concepts, as well as the relations between them, in terms of the ideal play of events. This redetermination of the sense-event or fourth dimension of the proposition in strictly evental terms has three aspects. First of all, individuals and persons will be held to be determined within a common world insofar as there is a convergent or law-like relation between the particular events which can be truly 11
predicated of them. Secondly, insofar as one persons point of view may always diverge from anothers with regard to the series of events and event-determined individuals making up a world, a knowledge of worldly individuals must ultimately depend on a disjunctive synthesis of these divergent points of view. Thirdly, this disjunctive synthesis of a world of individuals, common to such divergent worlds, will be able to be carried under two conditions: on the one hand, an agreement must be reached between persons as to the relations between the particular events characterizing worldly individuals; and, on the other hand, these relations must come to be embodied in shared concepts of increasing and decreasing generality which worldly individuals will be said to exemplify precisely insofar as they are individuals belonging to the same world. As will be made clear, these three aspects of Deleuzes neo-Leibnizian re-description of the Stoic sense-event are encapsulated in what Deleuze calls the static ontological and logical geneses. In Chapters 3 and 4, we shall examine, with greater precision, the concepts which Deleuze constructs in order to bypass Leibnizs God, that is, the substantial instance to which the ideal play of events in Leibnizs system is reduced. Referring, in various ways, to the works of Lautman, Simondon and diverse structuralists, Deleuze effectively argues that the linguistic and intersubjective process of synthesizing events described in Chapter 2 is best talked about in terms of an underlying problem or structure, wherein the events which characterize things in general are themselves determined only by other events. Within this problem or structure, following Deleuze, series of events of all orders and types (physical, biological, psychological, social, linguistic, etc.) determine each other reciprocally, completely and progressively, and without reference to any substantial thing transcending this system. These processes of determination thus effectively re-describe the static ontological and logical geneses examined in Chapter 2. We also argue that they constitute the evental-determination of the events making up the lives of things in general, and thus represent what is most essential to Deleuzes philosophy of events. Although the issues involved are extremely complex, as will be seen, the two ways in which Deleuze speaks of the eventaldetermination of events problems and structures are ultimately reducible to one another. In relation to the problem, Deleuze speaks of the way in which a physics of surfaces corresponds to a metaphysical surface via the intermediary of a divided subject. This metaphysical surface is nothing other than the ongoing articulation of a relation between, on the one hand, bodies (including the body of the divided subject), 12
taken together as a whole and inside the limits of their physical surfaces, and, on the other hand, propositions in general. In precisely the same way, with respect to structure, Deleuze speaks of the way in which series of events, corresponding to the causal relations between series of bodies, are determined in the series of propositions which denote these bodies, as well as in the series of further propositions bearing on the sense of these denoting propositions, and so on, indefinitely. Finally, in Chapter 5, we shall examine the dynamism underlying Chapter 2s static ontological and logical geneses, which is also to say, Chapter 3 and 4s problem or structure of events. Through a detailed reading of the way in which Deleuze appropriates various facets of Kleinian, Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalytic theory, we shall show how he understands the very problem or structure of events to be itself dynamically produced as an event by persons, their changing social and corporeal relations, and their ever-evolving, intersubjective language of events. Indeed, without such an evental-account of the problem or structure of events, Deleuze could be accused of hypostatizing this latter, to the ruin of his affirmation of the ontological primacy of events in general. But it will also be shown that, even though Deleuze considers the structure or problem to be an event in this way, this in no way prevents him from continuing to maintain, as he did in Chapters 3 and 4, that the problem or structure always produces these persons, their relations and their language, as events. In light of this mutual evental-determination, then, the problem or structure of events will be held to be the evental-determination of the events on which individual things in general ontologically depend, all the way down. Psychoanalytic concepts such as pregenital sexuality, the phallus, castration and the phantasm will thus here be seen to furnish Deleuze with the final, partial conceptual solutions to his underlying problem of the event. And psychoanalysis in general will be seen to be absolutely essential to Deleuzes 1969 philosophy of events. But let us now leave this general overview and examine the details of the philosophy of events to be found in The Logic of Sense, beginning with Deleuzes Stoicism
Chapter 1: Deleuze and the Stoics
______________________________________________________________________ The Stoics are of central importance to Deleuzes project in The Logic of Sense. As he writes in the Preface, the privileged place assigned to the Stoics [in this text] is due to their having been the initiators of a new image of the philosopher which broke away from the pre-Socratics, Socratic philosophy and Platonism. This new image is already closely linked to the paradoxical constitution of the theory of sense (LS, xiii-xiv). So what is this image and how is it linked to Deleuzes theory of sense and the event? In the Eighteenth Series of the Three Images of Philosophers, Deleuze understands the image of the philosopher to be connected to a response to the Kantian question: what is orientation in thinking? [quest-ce que sorienter dans la pense ?] (LS, 127 translation modified).1 He distinguishes three such images the Platonic, pre-Socratic and the Hellenic each of which has its own axes and orientations, its own geography and dimensions (LS, 127). In Plato, following Deleuze, the philosophers work is always determined as an ascent and a conversion, that is, as the movement of turning toward the high principle (principe den haut) from which the movement proceeds, and also of being determined, fulfilled, and known in the guise of such a motion (LS, 127). Indeed, it is clear that, for Plato, not only does knowledge of worldly things in general involve recognition of the transcendent Forms or Ideas in which these things participate,2 but, what is more, the philosopher is distinguished and known per se precisely insofar as he or she contemplates the Ideas.3 The orientation proper to Platonic thought is thus the heights of the transcendent Idea (LS, 127). For Plato, it is through combinations of supra-sensible Ideas that we are to define good and bad mixtures in relation to sensible things (LS, 131). Corresponding to this orientation of thought, then, is the popular image of the philosopher with his head in the clouds
Immanuel Kant, What is Orientation in Thinking? in Kant: Political Writings, ed. H. S. Reiss, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 237-249. This text is generally translated in French as Quest-ce que sorienter dans la pense? See, for example, Philonenkos translation, published by Vrin. 2 See, for example, on the Idea of equality (but also of beauty, goodness, uprightness, holiness, etc.) and the knowledge of equal things (beautiful, good, upright, holy, etc., things), Plato, Phaedo, in Plato: The Collected Dialogues, ed. E. Hamilton and H. Cairns (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), 74a75d. 3 See on this Plato, Republic, in Plato: The Collected Dialogues, V475e-480b, and particularly 480b: the philosophers are those who are capable of apprehending that which is eternal and unchanging, while those who are incapable of this, but lose themselves and wander amid the multiplicities of multifarious things, are not philosophers.
as well as the scientific image according to which the philosophers heaven is an intelligible one, which nonetheless does not distract us from the earth since it includes its law (LS, 127). The orientation proper to the pre-Socratic philosopher, by contrast, is the depths (LS, 128). Here, Deleuze is no doubt referring to the pre-Socratic physicists or natural philosophers, among whom we can count: Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Empedocles and Anaxagoras. For these philosophers, the fundamental principles of all things must be sought in physical nature itself: Empedocles four elements and the forces of Love and Strife, for example.4 Fundamental, physical principles such as these were posited to provide an immanent measure capable of fixing the order and the progression of a mixture in the depths of Nature (Physis) (LS, 131). Heraclitus fire ever-living, for example, kindling in measures and being extinguished in measures, produces the sea, the earth and all things.5 As Deleuze puts it, these pre-Socratics placed thought inside the caverns and life, in the deep. They sought the secret of water and fire [T]hey philosophized with a hammer, the hammer of the geologist or speleologist (LS, 128). For Deleuze, the image of this philosopher whose orientation is the depths of nature a physical nature of which the philosopher is also a part is crystallized in one of the stories of the death of Empedocles, related to us by Diogenes Laertius. Hippobotus says that [Empedocles] got up and travelled to Mount Aetna; and that when he arrived he leapt into the craters of fire and disappeared, because he wished to confirm the story told about himself, that he had become a god; and that he was later recognized when one of his sandals was hurled back out for he habitually wore bronze sandals.6 The significance of this anecdote, for Deleuze, lies in the contrast it provides between the image of the philosopher in and of the depths, and the image of the philosopher in and of the heights: In a deluge of water and fire, the volcano spits up only a single reminder of Empedocles his lead [sic] sandal. To the wings of the Platonic soul the
See, for example, Hippolytus, Refutatio, 7.29.9-7.30.4 (211.17-215.12), in Brad Inwood, The Poem of Empedocles A Text and Translation, trans. and ed. Brad Inwood (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992), 80-82. 5 See Clement, Miscellanies 5.14.104.1-5, in Jonathan Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy (London: Penguin, 2001), 59-60. 6 Diogenes Laertius, The Lives of the Philosophers, 8.69, cited in Inwood, The Poem of Empedocles, 150151.
sandal of Empedocles is opposed, proving that he was of the earth, under the earth, and autochthonous (LS, 128). In opposition to both of these figures, however, following Deleuze, the Stoics, Megarians and Cynics bring about a reorientation of all thought and of what it means to think: there is no longer any depth or height (LS, 130). For these philosophers, it is always a matter of unseating the Ideas, of showing that the incorporeal is not high above (en hauteur), but is rather at the surface, that it is not the highest cause but the superficial effect par excellence, and that it is not Essence but event. On the other front, it will be argued that depth is a digestive illusion which complements the ideal optical illusion (LS, 130). The surface is thus the new dimension in which Hellenic philosophy operates, and corresponding to this new dimension is a new image of the philosopher. The philosopher is no longer the being of the caves, nor Platos soul or bird, but rather the animal which is on a level with the surface a tick or louse (LS, 133). Or again, the image of the philosopher of the surface is Hercules, of the Stoic Senecas tragedy Hercules Furens (The Madness of Hercules), insofar as he is engaged in a dual battle against both depth and height (LS, 132). The contrasts between these different images and orientations, whilst striking, are not absolutely essential to this present work. What is crucial here is, rather, the way in which Deleuze specifies the nature of the Stoic surface. As he writes: the discovery of incorporeal events, meanings, or effects, which are irreducible to deep bodies and to lofty Ideas these are the important Stoic discoveries against the preSocratics and Plato (LS, 132 emphasis added). Following Deleuze, then, the Stoics appear to be the first philosophers to consider events as ontologically irreducible to fixed things, whether material or ideal. If, therefore, as we contend, The Logic of Sense is concerned above all with asserting the ontological priority of events over substances, we cannot avoid a thorough exploration of Deleuzes philosophical relation to the Stoics. Indeed, it is the task of this chapter to carry out this examination. Before doing so, however, and in accordance with our remarks in the Introduction, we must clarify the precise nature of the problem of events to which the Stoic discoveries will afford some of the elements of solution.
1.1 The Problem of the Pure Event and the Stoic Ontological Distinction between Bodies and Incorporeal Sayables (Reference and Sense) In the First Series of Paradoxes of Pure Becoming, Deleuze sets up in abridged form the overriding problem with which the entire text of The Logic of Sense will be concerned. The centrality of this problem will be brought out by our analyses throughout the thesis, but it should be clearly stated here at the outset. The problem, of course, is one of accounting for the ontological priority of events over substances, but this priority must be understood in a very particular way. Normally, an event is something which is said to happen to a thing or state of affairs.7 An event, in this sense, is a change in this thing a change in its properties, for example.8 Indeed, it is generally held that there can be no changes without reference to underlying things which change. And yet it is also common to say that things depend on the events which bring them about or determine them to have this or that state at a particular moment in time.9 Deleuze, for his part, affirms this latter position in The Logic of Sense, arguing for the ontological dependence of substances on events. In fact, Deleuzes position is the somewhat more radical one which affirms that events are ontologically primitive, in the sense that substances are entirely derived from them. This is clear from his analysis of the event of Alices growing, taken from the works of Lewis Carroll (see LS, 1). Deleuze argues that when we employ the verb to grow in the proposition, Alice grows, we mean that she becomes larger than she was. However, it also follows that, at precisely the same time that Alice becomes larger than she was, she becomes smaller
In what follows, terms such as substance, object and thing will be used interchangeably in order to talk, in a fairly commonsensical way, about relatively independent and durable items of experience. Similarly, state of affairs will refer to the particular constitution of a particular thing, or group of things, at a particular moment in time. When we speak of evental states of affairs, we are considering such states of affairs as the product of events. When we speak of objective, factual, external, etc., states of affairs, we are considering states of affairs in their independence from events, that is, in the more conventional fashion typical of substance based philosophies, as fixed chunks of reality which are composed of concrete particulars and their real properties and relations. The relevant distinction in which the meaning of all these terms can be readily appreciated is that between the in-principle, measurable fixity of things and objective states of affairs, and the underway or processual nature of the event. 8 See, for example, Lawrence Brian Lombard, Ontologies of Events, in Contemporary Readings in the Foundations of Metaphysics, ed. Stephen Laurence and Cynthia Macdonald (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998), 289. Lombards article also provides an overview of the work of several important philosophers of the event in the Anglo-American tradition. 9 Objects are prime actors in events; objectless events are uncommon. But so are eventless objects; events make up the lives of objects. Roberto Casati and Achille Varzi, Events, in The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Summer 2006 Edition) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2006/entries/events/. This article by Casati and Varzi provides an excellent overview of the various philosophical positions taken with respect to events in Anglo-American philosophy.
than she will become. Thus, insofar as the event picked out by the verb to grow is happening, Alices nature or state cannot be precisely determined. And nor should the reference to time here mislead us into thinking that we can assign temporal moments to the event in order to determine it with reference to some underlying thing; that is, for example, by referring to the succession of determined states through which Alice, as a thing, passes: Alice smaller at t1, Alice bigger at t2. For the assignation of these temporal moments is first of all dependent on the event of growing in which Alice becomes smaller and bigger at the same time.10 In other words, without the event or change there is no passage from t1 to t2. Indeed, without the event, t1 would itself never be constituted in its relation to t2. In short, therefore, the event in itself that is, the pure event which does not ultimately refer back but is rather prior to fixed and measured things eludes the present and appears as the infinite identity of the two temporal directions implicated in the change (LS, 2-3). In this very elusiveness, however, insofar as it is this in relation to which a new state can be said to be constituted as present, and a former state can be said to be constituted as the past of this new present, the event is also the prior condition for the determination of the thing at whatever moment of its temporal existence we should care to single out. Now however, still following Deleuze, the event also has a particular relation to language, for, whilst events are ontologically prior to things, we nevertheless say that events begin here, end there, and so on. As he writes, even if verbs seem to pick out pure becomings, it is also language which fixes the limits (the moment, for example, at which the excess begins) (LS, 2-3). In other words, even though events have ontological priority over things, when it comes to the problem of our knowledge of the things which make up our world (and everything which depends on this knowledge), what is important is how the events which determine the states of the things we know are themselves to be determined, that is, ordered and related using language.11 Indeed,
On this, see also Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, 236: one does not become harder (or taller) than one was without at the same time becoming softer (or smaller) than one is in the process of becoming. We cannot avoid this by distinguishing times, since the distinction between times is subsequent to the becoming which interposes the one in the other and, at the same time, posits both the movement by which the new present is constituted and the movement by which the former present is constituted as past. 11 It is clear from the text of this first series of The Logic of Sense that events pose a problem for knowledge. Deleuze does not, however, formulate this problem in exactly the same way as we are here. As he writes: the proper or singular name is guaranteed by the permanence of savoir. The latter is embodied in general names designating pauses and rests, in substantives and adjectives, with which the proper name maintains a constant connection But when substantives and adjectives begin to dissolve, when the names of pause and rest are carried away by the verbs of pure becoming and slide into the
verbs of becoming can be conjugated into an entire network of persons, moods, voices and tenses (LS, 184). It follows from the above analysis, however, that we could not determine the order and relation of events with reference to any stated image of eternity since, on the one hand, any posited, temporal foundation would require for its determination a prior event which brings it about; and since, on the other hand, to say what events are with reference to even a so-called timeless image of eternity would presuppose the determination of this event of to say.12 Indeed, insofar as the event of to say is underway, it necessarily implies a to say more than one had already said, as well as a to say less than one will have said. To state an image of eternity, then, will imply an event of to say which is necessarily supplementary to whatever actual sayings can be picked out by that image. The event of to say, in other words, is here irreducible to any objective said. Thus, even if events can be ordered and related in language, the present capacity of language and language speakers to undertake such ordering and relation must depend on events which will be determined only in the future.13 Our problem can thus be restated as: given the ontological priority of events and their relation to language, what are the evental conditions of the event if everything, including the very language in which events are ordered and related, is
language of events, all identity disappears from the self, the world and God. This is the test of savoir and recitation which strips Alice of her identity It is as if events enjoyed an irreality which is communicated through language to the savoir and to persons. For personal uncertainty is not a doubt foreign to what is happening, but rather an objective structure of the event itself, insofar as it moves in two directions at once, and insofar as it fragments the subject following this double direction (LS, 3). Deleuze does not, therefore, explicitly state in this first series that this problem of knowledge with respect to the ontological priority of the event should be approached in terms of the ordering and relation of events in language. Nevertheless, as will be seen, the ordering and relation of events is the subject matter of much of the rest of The Logic of Sense. 12 This appears to us to encapsulate what is essential in Deleuzes critique of Platonism in the first series, and more particularly in Appendix 1 of The Logic of Sense. First of all, Deleuze argues that in order for Plato to distinguish between rival claims with regard to states of affairs that is, between good copies and simulacra what is necessary is a myth of foundation in order to distinguish between wellfounded, ill-founded and unfounded claims. Such myths are all important in two of the three texts dealing with the division and classification of things: the Phaedrus and the Statesman. In the third text dealing with division, the Sophist, there is no such myth, but precisely because Plato is there concerned to define the false pretender as such, the one whose claim is entirely unfounded. The problem here, however, for Deleuze, is that the final definition of the Sophist leads us to the point where we can no longer distinguish him from Socrates himself the ironist working in private by means of brief arguments (LS, 256). In other words, Deleuze identifies an infinite regress in The Sophist, whereby the event to legitimately found immediately implies the event to say which must itself be legitimately founded, and so on ad infinitum. 13 This is similar to the position of process philosophers such as C.S. Peirce and Nicholas Rescher, who argue that the apparently stable meaning of signs in fact refers to what might be called prior events of knowing. These events involve a triangulation between a referent, its sign or symbol, and an infinite series of interpretants; or again between (i) symbol-use conditions, (ii) the symbolic process itself, and (iii) symbol-use results (information transfer). See Rescher, Process Metaphysics, 134-135.
ultimately to be a well determined event?14 Deleuzes turn to the Stoics and in particular to the Stoic ontological distinction between bodies and incorporeals is designed to provide a first response to this question.
1.1.1 Stoic Ontology As Deleuze explains, the highest term in Stoic ontology is not Being but Something, ti, which subsumes a division between both real and existing bodies and four, subsisting and objective incorporeals: sayable (lekton), void, place and time (LS, 7).15 As will be seen, Deleuze analyzes these Stoic incorporeals in such a way that they respond to the problem of the event such as we have set it up above. A body, for the Stoics, is something which is capable of acting or being acted upon, and every body has its source in two eternal principles which are themselves considered to be bodies: passive matter or unqualified substance, and god or reason which acts in this matter (designing fire or logos). Together, these two principles form a coherent whole: the world or kosmos.16 Bodies of very different types make up this world. The soul is a body, for example, for it brings about effects in the body with which it interacts: when the soul feels shame and fear the body turns red and pale respectively Therefore, the soul is a body.17 Qualities such as wisdom or virtue are bodies, or complex physical states, for their possession brings about a certain effect: the having of wisdom, for example, renders the one who has it wise.18 From one cosmological conflagration to another, then, all of these various bodies and their corresponding manners of being develop and are unified, the ones thoroughly mixed
When we use expressions such as everything is an event or things and persons are themselves events, we are not confusing what Deleuze sees as two distinct levels of reality. For, in The Logic of Sense, things in general are nothing but relations between events, and where these relations are themselves determined by further events. Things, for Deleuze, are simply more or less stable relations between events which have ontological priority all the way down. 15 See on this Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 10.218, in A.A. Long and D.N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers Volume 1: Translations of the Principal Sources, with Philosophical Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 27D; and in Herman von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 3 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903-5), 2.331, part. These two latter texts will hereafter be cited as HP and SVF. On the terms existent and subsistent, see Galen, On medical method 10.155, 1-8, in HP, 27G (SVF 2.322, part). 16 See: Diogenes Laertius 7.134 and 7.137, in HP, 44B and F (SVF 2.300, part, 2.299 and 2.526, part). See also Calcidius 293, in HP, 44E; Cicero, Academica 1.39, in HP, 45A (SVF 1.90); and Aetius 1.7.33, in HP, 46A (SVF 2.1027, part). 17 Nemesius 81, 6-10, in HP, 45C (SVF 2.790, part). 18 Or rather, being wise. See Seneca, Letters 117.13 and 117.2, in HP, 33E and 60S; Simplicius, On Aristotles Categories 214, 24-27, in HP, 28M (SVF 2.391, part); Plutarch, On moral virtue 440E-441D, in HP, 61B.
or blended with the others even as they preserve their individual substances, by a divine fiery breath or tensile movement which pervades the entire universe.19 In this way, the divine breath or the activity of god is said by the Stoics to be the sustaining cause of each individual body in a universal sympathy fate or the cosmic present wherein these bodies, according to their own nature and tensions, are the causes for each other of everything which happens (LS, 4). As Alexander puts it: They [the Stoics] say that since the world is a unity which includes all existing things in itself and is governed by a living, rational, intelligent nature, the government of existing things which it possesses is an everlasting one proceeding in a sequence and ordering. The things which happen first become causes to those which happen after them. In this way all things are bound together, and neither does anything happen in the world such that something else does not unconditionally follow from it and become causally attached to it They say that the very fate, nature and rationale in accordance with which the all is governed is god. It is present in all things which exist and happen, and in this way uses the proper nature of all existing things for the government of all.20 As opposed to bodies, the four incorporeals neither act nor are acted upon.21 As opposed to Platonic Ideas, the Stoic incorporeals have no causal efficacy. They are not physical beings, but they nevertheless objectively subsist in relation to our thought.22 In order to better understand the nature of these incorporeals and the reasons why the Stoics proposed an ontological division between incorporeals and bodies, let us examine the sort of problems to which they are said to respond. Let us first of all turn to the incorporeals void and place. The void, following the commentary of Goldschmidt, responds to the problem of thinking the event of the kosmos itself, before each conflagration. The idea here is that to conceive of the development of the world implies being able to conceive this place, before the world is brought into existence, devoid of all quality. And about which one can say that it is
Alexander, On mixture 216,14 218,6 and 223, 25-36, in HP, 48C and 47L (SVF 2.473 and 2.441, part). On the conflagration or the worlds periodic destruction into fire [and subsequent reconstitution] at very long intervals, see Eusebius, Evangelical preparation 15.14.2 and 15.18.2, in HP, 46G and K (SVF 1.98, part and 2.596, part). 20 Alexander, On fate 191,30 192,28, in HP, 55N (SVF 2.945). See also Aetius 1.11.5, in HP, 55G (SVF 2.340). 21 Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 8.263, in HP, 45B (SVF 2.363). 22 On the relation of incorporeals to thought, see Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 8.409, in HP, 27E (SVF 2.85, part). On the subsisting nature of the void, for example, see Cleomedes 8, 10-14, in HP, 49C (SVF 2.541).
simply capable of receiving body, or being occupied by an existent.23 Place is defined, by contrast, as this which an existent effectively does occupy, or which can be partially occupied and partially unoccupied with respect to a particular body, though without being itself a body.24 As Jean Brun has put it, place is like a theatre, forever full, where bodies succeed and interpenetrate one another.25 In short, void and place are subsisting, non-physical incorporeals in the sense that they respond to the objective problem of thinking the spatial changes and relations of everything which exists. Let us now examine the incorporeal which is time. As reported by Arius Didymus, for the Stoic Chrysippus, time is the interval of motion which accompanies the motion of the cosmos. In other words, Chrysippus understands time to be ultimately reducible to the existence of the total movement of the physical world or the cosmic present which alone exists. As has been seen, this present is equivalent to the two eternal principles or bodies: unqualified matter and the divine logos which acts in it. However, in an apparent contradiction, he also argues that no time is wholly present. Yet how could this be the case if particular times are ultimately reducible to the movement of the cosmic present? He then goes on to say that only the present exists, whereas the past and future subsist but do not at all exist.26 How, then, are we to untangle these notions: particular times, the cosmic present, physical existence and incorporeal subsistence? Deleuze follows Goldschmidts reading of the Stoics in arguing that we must not confuse what exists the total movement of the kosmos with the thought of what happens, which is only a partial expression of this cosmic present.27 In other words, for the Stoics, only the motion of the cosmos is real and exists, and is coextensive with the intelligence of Zeus. Deleuze calls this physical dimension of time Chronos, a vast present which is an encasement, a coiling up of relative presents (LS, 162). Everything which happens is, really, the result of Chronos, that is, of an interlacing of bodies and causes within an all-embracing and total order. For us limited
Victor Goldschmidt, Le systme stocien et lide du temps (Paris: Vrin, 1953), 28. All translations from this text are my own. Goldschmidt is here citing Cleomedes 8, 10-14 and Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 10.3-4, in HP, 49C and B (SVF 2.541 and 2.505, part). 24 Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 10.3-4, in HP, 49B (SVF 2.505, part). 25 Jean Brun, Le stocisme (Paris: PUF, 1958), 56 my translation. 26 Arius Didymus 26 (SVF 2.509), in Brad Inwood and L.P. Gerson, Hellenistic Philosophy Introductory Readings (2nd Edition) (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997), 167. See also Simplicius, On Aristotles Categories 350, 15-16 and Stobaeus 1.106, 5-23, in HP, 51A-B (SVF 2.510, part and 2.509). 27 See on this, Goldschmidt, Le systme stocien, 30-48.
beings in the world,28 however, what happens is only thinkable in relation to an ideal temporal instant which is endlessly divisible into a subsisting, incorporeal and unlimited past and future, and where every instant of this past and future is also so divisible.29 In distinction to Chronos, Deleuze calls this unlimited and infinitely divisible dimension of time Aion. Following Deleuzes analysis, it appears that, without the ontological distinction between the dimensions of physical Chronos and incorporeal Aion, the Stoics would not have been able to affirm that everything that happens, from the point of view of our limited knowledge of the world, is reducible to the same causal order. For if our impressions are entirely physically or causally determined, then each impression must find its place in the total order of Chronos.30 But then, conflicting impressions of bodies or partial mixtures, taken at random or at different points in time, would threaten our view of the good measure of the universe. Conceiving of these temporal moments as incorporeal, that is, in relation to an ideal instant infinitely divisible into an unlimited past and future, thus allows thought to modify its impressions of such moments in order to approach an understanding of the cosmic present.31 Or again, as Deleuze poetically expresses it, Chronos must express the revenge taken by future and past on the present in terms of the present, because these are the only terms it comprehends and the only terms that affect it. This is its own way of wanting to die Chronos wants to die, but has it not already given way to another reading of time? In accordance with Aion, only the past and future inhere or subsist in time. Instead of a present which absorbs past and future, a future and past divide the present at every instant and subdivide it ad infinitum into past and future, in both directions at once. Or rather, it is the instant without thickness and
See Cicero, On divination 1.127, in HP, 55O (SVF 2.944): since all things happen by fate if there were some human being who could see with his mind the connection of all causes, he would certainly never be deceived But since no one but god can do this, man must be left to gain his foreknowledge from various signs. We shall examine below the relation between signs and time. 29 See Stobaeus 1.105,17-106,4 and 1.106, 5-23, in HP, 51E and B (SVF 2.509): Posidonius holds that the time which is thought of in terms of when is partly past, partly future, and partly present. The last consists of a part of the past and a part of the future, encompassing the actual division. But the division is point-like [N]ow is also spoken of with reference to the least perceptible time encompassing the division of the future and the past. Chrysippus says most clearly the no time is wholly present. For since continuous things are infinitely divisible, on the basis of this division every time too is infinitely divisible. Consequently no time is present exactly, but it is broadly said to be so. 30 As will be seen, for the Stoics, impressions are causally determined, but they are also said to envelop an incorporeal event. 31 See on this Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 8.409, in HP, 27E (SVF 2.85, part): some impressors touch, as it were, and make contact with the commanding-faculty to make their printing in it, as do white and black, and body in general; whereas others have a nature like that of the incorporeal sayables (lekta), and the commanding-faculty is impressed in relation to them, not by them. We shall further examine below how the Stoics understand this incorporeal modification of impressions in relation to their epistemological notion of a comprehensive representation.
without extension, which subdivides each present into past and future, rather than vast and thick presents which comprehend both future and past in relation to one another Whereas Chronos expressed the action of bodies and the creation of corporeal qualities, Aion is the locus of incorporeal events, and of attributes which are distinct from qualities. Whereas Chronos was inseparable from the bodies which filled it out entirely as causes and matter, Aion is populated by effects which haunt it without ever filling it up Aion is the eternal truth of time: pure empty form of time (LS, 164-165).32 Finally, let us turn to the notion of incorporeal sayables or lekta. In fact, Deleuze identifies a strong relation between the sayable and time. Indeed, in the citation above, when Deleuze writes that Aion is the locus of incorporeal events, and of attributes which are distinct from qualities, these incorporeal events or attributes essentially concern lekta. But how is this to be understood? For the Stoics, when a body acts upon another body, it produces an effect or event which is not itself a body but an incorporeal predicate or sayable, corresponding to the verb of the proposition (LS, 4-5). For instance the scalpel, a body, becomes the cause to the flesh, a body, of the incorporeal predicate being cut. And again, the fire, a body, becomes to the wood, a body, of the incorporeal predicate being burnt.33 As Long and Sedley suggest, the problem to which this division between bodies and incorporeal predicates or events appears to respond is that of thinking changes in otherwise enduring bodies. The alternative was presumably to say that thanks to the scalpel one body, uncut flesh, ceases to exist and is replaced by a new body, cut flesh. But that would imply that no body persists through the process, so that there is no body in which we can say that the change has been brought about. Since the object changed, must, normally speaking, persist through the change , it proved more palatable for them to say that the effect is not a new body but the incorporeal predicate is cut (or being cut), which comes to be true of the persisting flesh. The predicate should perhaps be thought of less as an extra entity that appears on the scene than as an aspect of the cut flesh which we abstract in order to present a proper causal analysis.34
See also on this, John Sellars, An Ethics of the Event: Deleuzes Stoicism, Angelaki 11, 3 (2006): 161-162 and n.35. Sellars argues that Deleuzes account of the difference between Chronos and Aion is not altogether Stoic, and is rather derived from Goldschmidts highly speculative and synthetic reconstruction that draws upon fragmentary and inconclusive reports of Chrysippus and the Meditations of Marcus [Aurelius]. The missing reference, however, from Sellars otherwise fine account of the two dimensions of time discussed by Deleuze the existing present and the subsisting past-future, or Chronos and Aion is the one from Arius Didymus, cited above at n.26. 33 Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 9.211, in HP, 55B (SVF 2.341). 34 HP, 55, commentary.
We shall return to examine this notion of a proper causal analysis of bodies and the essential role of the incorporeal event in this process. It should nevertheless begin to be clear how Deleuze will utilize the Stoic ontological distinction between the incorporeal sayables of Aion and the corporeal dimension of Chronos in his philosophy of events. For it will be by posing the relations between infinitely divisible incorporeal events or predicate-effects at various times that the Stoic sage will be able to approach an understanding of the cosmic present which is composed entirely of bodies and their causal relations. This role of the sayable in Stoic physics is, however, only one of its aspects, for it is also an important element of Stoic logic. The precise role lekta play therein will be examined more fully below. What is crucial to examine at this point is the way in which the ontological division itself carries over into Stoic logic, and to examine some of the consequences of this division. Now, as Sextus Empiricus relates, the Stoics argued that three things are linked together in the proposition: the signification, the signifier, and the name-bearer. The signifier is an utterance, for instance Dion; the signification is the actual state of affairs revealed by an utterance, and which we apprehend as it subsists in accordance with our thought, whereas it is not understood by those whose language is different although they hear the utterance; the name-bearer is the external object, for instance, Dion himself. Of these, two are bodies the utterance and the name-bearer; but one is incorporeal the state of affairs signified and sayable, which is true or false.35 Two important points follow from these distinctions. First of all, it appears that the utterance-sayable-name-bearer distinction corresponds in many respects with Freges Zeichen-Sinn-Bedeutung distinction (as well as Carnaps designator-intensionextension distinction.)36 In other words, the Stoics, like Frege, distinguish between the reference or object of an utterance, the utterance itself, and that by which an utterance is
Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 8.11-12, in HP, 33B (SVF 2.166, part). For an excellent account of these parallels, see also: Benson Mates, Stoic Logic (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1961), 21-22. For Gottlob Frege, the reference is On Sinn and Bedeutung [1892] and Comments on Sinn and Bedeutung [1892], in The Frege Reader, ed. Michael Beaney (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1997). For Rudolf Carnap, see Meaning and Necessity A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1947). Deleuze cites these two latter texts in the Fifth Series of Sense, n.1, in relation to the infinite regress of the sense of denoting terms, whereby each denoting term has a sense which may be denoted by another such term, and so on ad infinitum (LS, 337-338).
related to an object, which is the sayable or sense of the utterance.37 That is to say, the Stoic sayable, which is the actual state of affairs revealed by an utterance, and which we apprehend as it subsists in accordance with our thought, is comparable to Freges sense (Sinn), which contains the mode of presentation of the referent,38 or provides the expressible conditions that something must meet to be the referent of a given name.39 Below, we shall examine precisely how the incorporeal sayable is employed in the Stoic system in order to provide these conditions for approaching an understanding of bodies and their place in the cosmic present. The second and related point to be noted is that even though the Stoics understand the utterance to express an incorporeal sense, they nevertheless place the utterance itself at the same ontological level as the referent or object. As related by Sextus above, the sense of an utterance is, for the Stoics, never identical to the utterance itself. Following Deleuze, however, an utterance, being a body, may nevertheless be taken as the object of second utterance, which expresses a sense which is, in turn, not identical to that utterance. This second utterance, then, being a body, may be taken as the object of a third utterance having its sense, and so on, ad infinitum. Deleuze calls this regress Freges paradox whereby, if I am to state the sense of what I actually say, for each one of the names I employ, language must contain a name for the sense of this name (LS, 29).40 It is thus clear that, insofar as the sense of a proposition is coextensive with what can be said about it, and insofar as this sense is related to the object denoted by that proposition, the Stoics understand the proposition in much the same way as many contemporary philosophers do, that is, as the sharable meaning of an utterance (or the shareable object of a propositional attitude: that which is believed, doubted, etc.), and the bearer of truth and falsity in relation to the things denoted.41
See Frege, Comments on Sinn and Bedeutung, 180. Frege, On Sinn and Bedeutung, 152. 39 Michael Beaney, Introduction, in The Frege Reader, 23. 40 On this infinite regress in Frege, see Beaney, Introduction, 24-26. There is no direct evidence to suggest that the Stoics did in fact have such a theory of types or levels (see Mates, Stoic Logic, 24). Deleuze argues, however, that the fact that the Stoics used to number the members of their hypothetical propositions a proposition such as if it is day, it is light, for example, was rendered as if the first, then the second indicates that they did indeed have a theory of types (LS, 69; and see, for example, Diogenes Laertius 7.76-81, in HP, 36A). But whatever the case, it is clear that the distinction between the referent, the utterance and the sense of that utterance is precisely what allows for the possibility of the proliferation of levels or types. 41 See the overview of contemporary understandings of the proposition in Matthew McGrath, Propositions, in The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Summer 2007 Edition) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2007/entries/propositions/. On the place of the proposition or sayable between things and thought in Stoic doctrine, see Ammonius, On Aristotles De interpretatione 17,24-8, in HP, 33N. With respect to the proposition being the primary bearer of truth
But now, how are these two points with regard to the logical dimension of incorporeal sense to be related to the physical notion of the incorporeal event-effect? In short, it appears that in order to think the physical cosmic present through its infinitely divisible and temporal events-effects, the Stoics believed it necessary to relate these events-effects to incorporeal sense-effects, that is, to the kinds of effects produced by bringing language to bear upon itself. Indeed, this relation between causal eventseffects and sense-events appears to have been the glue of the Stoic system, in as much as the different parts of this system physics, logic and ethics are articulated around this relation. We shall examine these systematic relations below. Let us first try to understand, in a more precise way, how Deleuze takes up the Stoic ontological division between bodies and incorporeals (or reference and sense) in order to resolve the problem which was formulated above as: given the ontological priority of events and their relation to language, what are the evental conditions of the event if everything, including the very language in which events are ordered and related, is ultimately to be a well determined event? It was noted that, for Deleuze, when a proposition denotes a state of affairs, this state of affairs must be understood, at an ontological level, to have been brought about by the event picked out by the verb of the proposition. In other words, the determination of this state of affairs at a given moment in time is ontologically dependent on a prior event. These events may be ordered and related in language, but the capacity of language and language speakers to do this, at a given moment in time, must also have been brought about by an event. Now, in relation to the Stoic division between bodies and incorporeals, and more importantly between the reference and sense of the proposition, Deleuze can say that the event ultimately corresponds to the sense of the proposition, understood as an effect of language or sense-event. In other words, the ontological division between bodies and events reference and sense allows the event to subsist (as opposed to exist, which applies only to bodies) in the proposition which expresses it, without being confused either with the state of affairs designated by the proposition or, importantly, with the actual proposition itself. The event will thus be an objective ontological ideality for the determination of states of affairs in
and falsity, see also Diogenes Laertius 7.65, in HP, 34A (SVF 2.193, part). Deleuze departs from this Stoic and, indeed, contemporary understanding of the proposition only insofar as he argues that the sense, along with the truth and falsity of a proposition in relation to its corresponding object of experience, is entirely internal to a sub-representative problem or unique event. We shall examine this point more closely in Chapter 3.
propositions, but only insofar as it is also the sense to come of these propositions. As Deleuze formulates it:
Sense is both the expressible or the expressed of the proposition, and the attribute of the state of affairs. It turns one side toward things and one side toward propositions. But it does not merge with the proposition which expresses it any more than with the state of affairs or the quality which the proposition denotes It is in this sense that it is an event: on the condition that the event is not confused with its spatio-temporal realization in a state of affairs. We will not ask therefore what is the sense of the event: the event is sense itself (LS, 22).
1.2 The Fourth Dimension of the Proposition: the Sense-Event and the Stoic Comprehensive Representation We have seen above that, thanks to the Stoic ontological division between bodies and incorporeals reference and sense the pure event can be said to subsist in the proposition which expresses it as the sense or sense-event of that proposition. Now, as Deleuze analyses it following Russell, the proposition has three dimensions or relations: denotation (the propositions relation to individuated states of affairs), manifestation (its relation to a persons beliefs and desires) and signification (its relation to conceptual or logical implication).42 So the question arises: in which of these dimensions can the event or sense ultimately be said to reside? This problem in fact involves two sub-problems. First of all, following Deleuzes analysis, it appears that the three dimensions of denotation, manifestation and signification presuppose one another in a circular manner, and so sense or the event, strictly speaking, cannot be isolated in any one of them. Secondly, it appears that the dimension of signification nevertheless does resemble sense in one important respect, that is, in as much as it is defined as the condition of possibility for a proposition being true in relation to an objective state of affairs. Indeed, a proposition devoid of signification can be neither true nor false: it is, rather, absurd. At the same time, however, when we ask about the truth or falsity of the proposition, it is generally agreed that it is, quite straightforwardly, a question of denotation, that is, of the propositions
See, for example, Bertrand Russell, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962), 158-213.
correspondence (or lack thereof) with a factual state of affairs.43 There is thus always a hiatus between sense or signification understood as the condition of truth, and the objective being true of the conditioned proposition. Putting these two sub-problems together, Deleuze thus asks: can we determine a fourth dimension of the proposition which would be coextensive with the event itself and which would allow the tridimensional model of the proposition to function entirely from within, generating the sense of the proposition, its objective correlates (individuals, persons and general concepts) and thus its truth in relation to evental states of affairs? Let us unpack this further. How do the three dimensions of the proposition all presuppose one another? First of all, denotation is the relation of the proposition to an external state of affairs. It functions through the association of the words used in the proposition with particular images which are supposed to represent the state of affairs. In relation to denotation, a proposition will be said to be true if it corresponds to the state of affairs, or if the correct image has been selected. False signifies that the denotation does not correspond to the state of affairs (LS, 12-13). Manifestation concerns the relation of the proposition to the person who speaks. In other words, manifestation appears as a statement of beliefs or desires which corresponds to the proposition. The association of words and images in denotation is thus made possible by manifestation (LS, 13). Signification is the relation of the word to universal or general concepts, and of syntactic connections to the implications of the concept (LS, 14). In terms of this dimension, in other words, the elements of a proposition are considered to signify conceptual implications capable of referring to other propositions serving as the premises of the first. In relation to signification, a proposition is only ever a part of a larger demonstration (in the most general sense of the word) in which it serves as a premise or a conclusion. For example, x is a bachelor only if x is unmarried and x is a man; x is a man only if , and so on. Thus, while denotations may be true or false in relation to states of affairs, signification is rather the condition of truth: the aggregate of conditions under which the denoting proposition, considered from the point of view of its signifying elements, would be true (LS, 14).
Ibid., 201.
So in what way do these three dimensions all presuppose one another? As noted above, the association of words and representative images in the denoting proposition is made possible by the dimension of personal manifestation. Furthermore, the dimension of manifestation also has a role to play in the development of conceptual signification, for when the I speaks, it is presumed to be capable of stating the meaning of what it says: the I implicitly envelops the significations which it may later develop.44 From another point of view, however, this primacy of manifestation is only apparent, for the conceptual signification of the words used in the denoting proposition may also be developed independently of any particular speaking person. As Deleuze writes the possibility of causing particular images associated with the word to vary, of substituting one image for another in the form this is not that, its that, can be explained only by the constancy of the signified concept. Similarly, desires would not form an order of demands and even of duties, distinct from a simple urgency of needs, and beliefs would not form an order of inferences distinct from simple opinions, if the words in which they were manifested did not refer first to concepts and conceptual implications rendering these desires and beliefs significative (LS, 16). However, from yet another point of view, denotation has primacy over signification (and thus, by extension, manifestation). For, in order to be able to affirm the conclusion of a demonstration, it is first of all necessary that the premises of this demonstration be true or fulfilled denotations. Furthermore, in order to be able to affirm as true a conclusion, Z, from the true premises, A and B, another proposition call it C must be given within the dimension of conceptual implication which states that Z is true if A and B are true. This proposition, however, refers to another proposition, D, which states that Z is true if A, B and C are true, and so on, ad infinitum.45 As Deleuze interprets it, this amounts to saying that implication never succeeds in grounding denotation except by giving itself a ready-made denotation, once in the premises and again in the conclusion (LS, 16).46
Deleuze here follows the linguist Benveniste who argues that the I or the indicator of person is this property that establishes the basis for individual discourse, in which each speaker takes over all the resources of language for its own behalf. See mile Benveniste, Problems in General Linguistics, trans. Mary Elizabeth Smith (Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press: 1971), 218-220. 45 See on this: Lewis Carroll, What the Tortoise said to Achilles, Mind 4, 14 (1895): 27880. 46 Deleuze seems to be alluding to Bertrand Russells discussion of Carrolls paradox in The Principles of Mathematics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903), 38. Russell argues that in order to overcome this paradox, one must distinguish between, on the one hand, the notion of implies which
Having asked, therefore, in what dimension the sense of the proposition could reside, we have been led in a circle from denotation to manifestation, then to signification and finally back to denotation. In other words, while the event is to be considered as the sense to come of the proposition expressing it, this sense is displaced throughout the dimensions normally associated with the proposition and hence cannot finally be grounded in any of them. The question that ensues for Deleuze is thus: can a fourth dimension of the proposition be determined which would be coextensive with sense or the event (LS, 17)? Following Deleuzes initial attempt to answer this question, it appears that the dimension of signification does in fact share an important characteristic with what we are looking for in this fourth dimension, that is, insofar as it is the condition of truth of the proposition. As has been noted, the dimension of conceptual implication should provide the totality of conditions under which a denoting proposition would be true. Strictly speaking, however, signification is only the formal condition of possibility for a proposition to be true, for, as has been seen, it is generally accepted that truth and falsity concern the relation of denotation which holds between the proposition and concrete states of affairs. As Deleuze then writes, For the condition of truth to avoid this defect, it ought to have an element of its own, distinct from the form of the conditioned. It ought to have something unconditioned capable of assuring a real genesis [emphasis added] of denotation and of the other dimensions of the proposition. Thus the condition of truth would be defined no longer as the form of conceptual possibility, but rather as an ideational material or stratum, that is to say, no longer as signification, but rather as sense (LS, 19). To sum up: the event, having ontological priority over things, subsists in the proposition which expresses it as the sense to come or sense-event of that proposition (the result of the way in which language is brought to bear on itself). This sense cannot be said to entirely reside in any of the three dimensions normally associated with the proposition, for all of these dimensions presuppose one another in various ways. Nevertheless, the dimension of signification shares an important feature with sense insofar as it is a condition of possibility for a proposition to be true in relation to a state
concerns only the dimension of signification and a relation between unasserted propositions; and on the other hand, the notion of therefore which concerns the dimension of denotation and states a relation between asserted propositions whereby the hypothesis may be dropped and the conclusion asserted by itself.
of affairs. If, however, the event is ontologically prior to things, we must attribute to it a reality which is altogether different from the type of formal possibility attached to conceptual signification. So the question for Deleuze becomes: can we determine a fourth dimension of the proposition which would be coextensive with the ontological reality of the event itself, that is, insofar as it brings about the real genesis of sense or the event in the objective correlates associated with the tri-dimensional model of the proposition (individuals, persons and general concepts)? And again, it is with reference to the Stoics that Deleuze attempts a first answer to this question. As he writes towards the end of his analysis of the problems involved in the tri-dimensional model of the proposition, in relation to sense or the event, the Stoics said it all: neither word nor body, neither sensible representation nor rational representation (LS, 19). It is to unpack what Deleuze here alludes to that we must now turn. We shall see how the Stoics affirm a network of relations between the different parts of their system in order to account for the functioning of this fourth dimension of the proposition which is sense or the event. As will be seen, these relations are articulated around the notoriously difficult Stoic epistemological notion of the comprehensive representation (phantasia kataleptik) which, following Deleuzes analyses, envelops an event which it cannot represent, but which also cannot not be represented if it is to be comprehensive. We shall show that the ideality of this event in relation to the comprehensive representation essentially unfolds the circle of the proposition and exposes its fourth dimension which is nothing other than the pure event itself: the ongoing, problematic articulation of the relation between the sense of the proposition and its truth in relation to the world. The Stoics divide the discipline of philosophy into three parts which are systematically coordinated with one another: physics, logic and ethics.47 In effect, each of these parts is founded on theses belonging to the other parts. On the one hand, for example, the end of human life, living in agreement with nature,48 requires an understanding of gods causal role in the universe as well as knowledge of the rules of reasoning. On the other hand, if one had asked the Stoics what the goal of their research was in physics and logic, they would have replied that logic and physics are not means to a goal, but rather virtues whose unity is identical to the sages wisdom, or his reasonable or virtuous soul.49 What is important for us to understand here is the role of
Diogenes Laertius 7.39-41, in HP, 26B. Stobaeus 2.75,11-76,8, in HP, 63B. 49 Cicero, On ends 3.22; 3.24-5, in HP, 64F and H (SVF 3.18 and 3.11, part).
the ontological distinction between bodies and incorporeals within this system and, in particular, the role therein of the incorporeal sayable in both of its aspects: as causal event-effect and as logical sense-event.
1.2.1 Stoic Physics Physics, for the Stoics, is practiced whenever we investigate the world and its contents.50 As noted above while examining the notion of body, Stoic physics, which can be compared to what we would today call a metaphysics of nature,51 affirms the existence of a single and unified world, a living kosmos which is composed entirely of bodies which act, suffer and are causes to each other of everything that happens.52 The two principles (god and matter), the four elements, plants and animals, souls and qualities such as hardness and wisdom are all causes to each other of everything that comes to pass. In short, Stoic physics explains how the universe functions according to a divine, rational plan. The physicist gives an account of the universe by means of metaphysical concepts which, returning to the origin of things, that is, in the final analysis, to the Agent, have the power to explain everything.53 What interests Deleuze, however, is not so much their rational theology, as the division within Stoic physics between bodies and incorporeal events. As noted, the Stoics only attribute reality to bodies, but then distinguish these realities from their manners of being which are rather abstractions or signs, that is, both the incorporeal effects of the actions and passions of bodies and the material of Stoic logic.54 It is thanks to these incorporeal effects, which themselves have no causal efficacy but only a certain subsistence in relation to our thought, that the Stoic physicist can seek the immanent reason of things (god) in things themselves.55 For the
Aetius 1, Preface 2, in HP, 26A (SVF 2.35). Jean-Jol Duhot, La conception stocienne de la causalit (Paris: Vrin, 1989), 54. 52 Causes are not of each other, but there are causes to each other. For the pre-existing condition of the spleen is the cause, not of fever, but of the fevers coming about In the same way the stones in the vault are causes to each other of the predicate remaining, but they are not causes of each other. And the teacher and the pupil are causes to each other of the predicate making progress. See Clement, Miscellanies 8.9.30.1-3, in HP, 55D (SVF 2.349). 53 Duhot, La conception stocienne de la causalit, 61 my translation. 54 On the one hand, speaking physically a sign is always a present sign of a present [physical] thing. On the other hand, speaking logically, it is always of the form if this, then that. See Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 8.254-5 and 8.275-6, in HP, 51H and 53T (SVF 2.221, part and 2.223, part). The logical dimension of the sign or sayable will be examined more closely below. 55 See also on this, Goldschmidt, Le systme stocien, 15-16; and mile Brhier, La thorie des incorporels dans lancien stocisme (Paris: Vrin, 1928), 11-13.
Stoics, whilst events-effects have their own, logical laws of combination, because they are inseparable from the dimension of physics, they also express in each case the relative unity or mixture of bodies on which they depend for their real causes (LS, 6). It is important to note, however, that within their physics the Stoics distinguish not only between cause and effect, but also between various types of cause: sustaining, complete, proximate, auxiliary, preliminary, joint, and so on.56 As Michael Frede has shown, however, from among all these causes, the Stoics will single out the cause stricto sensu, that is, the perfect (autoteles) or sustaining (sunektikon) cause.57 And this complete or sustaining cause must always be a body: since they did not possess the relational notion of inertia, the Stoics placed all force and all activity within individual bodies.58 What this implies is that, for each event, the Stoics want to identify the thing responsible (aition): the body which, through its own action, produces the event.59 This event, which is produced by the cause, as has been said, is not another body, but a predicate, a sayable, which comes to be true of the body whose effect it is. To return to an example given above, it will be because of the nature of wood that the wood is burnt. The wood will be the complete cause of the predicate being burnt which is true of the wood. We are faced here with an apparent contradiction, however, for the Stoics also believed that the canonical representation of the causal relation is not between a body and a predicate, but between a body, a second body, and a predicate which is true of the latter. It must be said, therefore, following Sextus, that the fire, a body, becomes for the wood, another body, the cause of the incorporeal predicate being burnt. But how must we understand this three-place relation, given that the Stoics must thereby affirm the existence of external causes, an affirmation which would contradict their thesis that force and activity are entirely internal to individual bodies? In fact, the Stoics did affirm the existence of prior causes. For the Stoics, as was noted above, nothing is separated from what has previously occurred, for otherwise the world would be wrenched apart and divided, and no longer remain a unity.60 Following Frede, then, the causal relation must be analysed into at least two relations, each of them
See: Alexander, On fate 191,30-192,28, and Cicero, On fate 39-43, in HP, 55N and 62C (SVF 2.945 and 2.974). 57 Michael Frede, The Original Notion of Cause, in Essays in Ancient Philosophy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), 128. 58 Brhier, La thorie des incorporels, 6. 59 See, for example, Stobaeus 1.138,14-139,4, in HP, 55A (SVF 1.89 and 2.336). 60 Alexander, On fate 191,30-192,28, in HP, 55N (SVF 2.945).
between a complete cause and its effect. In this way it will be said that every prior cause will be a prior cause of something, p, by being a complete cause for a complete cause, s, of a passive affection, q, in such a manner that the complete cause s in state q is the complete cause of p.61 To take an example attributed to Chrysippus, a cylinder, once pushed, will roll through its own force and nature. However, since it is the person pushing the cylinder who gives it its beginning of motion, it must be said that the cylinder is the complete and active cause of the predicate rolling only insofar as it has a particular passive affection with respect to the pushing person. This person is thus the complete cause for the cylinders being the complete cause, through its own force and nature, of the predicate rolling.62 It is precisely in this way that Deleuze appears to analyse Stoic physics (although this is not immediately evident, given his poetic style). As he writes, a bodys passion what it undergoes always refers to the action of a more powerful body, right up to the action of the greatest of bodies, Zeus or the cosmic present, which is in the final analysis the active and sustaining cause of everything that happens (LS, 163). Physically speaking, the Stoic understanding of the capacity of bodies in their various causal relations to bring about this or that effect must ultimately refer to a body which is characterized as causa sui. It is not the case, however, that Zeus is the direct cause of every event. It is rather that Zeus is the perfect cause of the fact that individual bodies in general are, according to their own natures, the complete causes for each other of everything that comes to pass. As Deleuze puts it, the cosmic present in this way can be said to be the limit or measure of the actions and passions of bodies in relation to one another (LS, 163). Now, however, Deleuze goes on to ask, from where exactly does it [i.e., Zeus] draw its measure? (LS, 163 emphasis added). We should be careful to recognize here that this question no longer bears, strictly speaking, on physical concerns, but on logical and, as will be seen, ethical ones. Why? For the very same reasons offered above in relation to the necessity of distinguishing between the dimensions of Chronos and Aion: we must distinguish between the unique causal order to which our physical analyses must ultimately refer (Zeus) and the thought of that order, along with the bodies which compose it. The thought of this causal order, as noted above, involves incorporeal
Frede, The Original Notion of Cause, 149. See Cicero, On fate 39-43 and Gellius 7.2.6-13, in HP, 62C and D (SVF 2.974 and 2.1000, part).
sayables considered as logical sense-events, and so it is to an examination of Stoic logic that we must now turn.
1.2.2 Stoic Logic The foundation of Stoic logic, logik, the knowledge of the functions of logos or rational discourse,63 is a theory of sayables or lekta. As has been seen, sayables are events: incorporeal predicates that one body causes for another body, such as being burnt or being cut. The sayable is thus not itself a body: it is rather something which is said about a body.64 Sayables are states of affairs which are said65 and which subsist in accordance with a rational representation or impression, a rational representation being one in which the content of the impression can be exhibited in language.66 As has also been noted, they sayable, insofar as it is said about a body, is distinguished not only from the name-bearer or referent, but also from the utterance, which is itself a body.67 Insofar as one can speak about or qualify speech about worldly things in various ways, it is thus clear that the sayable is something like the sense of what is said about bodies. To be more precise, the Stoics divide sayables into two classes. On the one hand, there are incomplete or unfinished sayables, which are predicates or verbs without a subject (or an object in the case of transitive verbs) which may be asserted. On the other hand, there are complete or finished sayables in which the predicate is attached to a subject the nominative case which the referent is said to bear in order to generate both simple and complex propositions which may eventually be true or false in relation to factual states of affairs.68 Stoic logic is thus a question of knowing how to combine sayables or events in order to generate propositions which are true in relation to physical states of affairs, or of knowing when a predicate can, in truth, be attached to its subject. Or again, it is a question of thinking the body which bears the nominative case, as well its causal relations to other bodies which may be active or passive with respect to the former, by combining the events attributable to them in appropriate ways.
See Diogenes Laertius 7.83, in HP, 31C (SVF 2.130). Seneca, Letters 117.13, in HP, 33E. 65 Diogenes Laertius 7.57, in HP, 33A (SVF 3 Diogenes 20, part). 66 Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 8.70, in HP, 33C (SVF 2.187, part). We shall return to examine the nature of the rational representation below. 67 Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 8.11-12, in HP, 33B (SVF 2.166, part). 68 Diogenes Laertius 7.63-4, in HP, 33F-G and 34A (SVF 2.183, part and 2.193, part).
As will be seen, the Stoics respond to this challenge by specifying the conditions under which one event can be said to be logically compatible or incompatible (i.e., conflicting) with another, as well as elaborating a theory of knowledge which implies, ethically as well as logically and physically, a certain use of representations. We shall now turn, first of all, to an examination of the former. As has just been seen, for the Stoics, a complete sayable denotes a state of affairs: It is day or Dion is walking, for example. But such simple propositions can in fact have different kinds of relation with each other and thus constitute complex propositions. A conditional proposition, for example, has the form: If it is day, it is light; a conjunctive proposition is of the form: Both it is day, and it is light; and a disjunctive proposition is of the form: Either it is day, or it is night.69 The conjunctive proposition is truth-functional insofar as a conjunction will be true if all of its conjoined elements are true in relation to existing states of affairs.70 The disjunctive proposition, which is always interpreted by the Stoics as an exclusive disjunction, is true if one and only one of its disjuncts is true in relation to existing states of affairs.71 The truth of a conditional proposition, however, is non-truth-functional. A true conditional is rather one the contradictory of whose consequent conflicts with its antecedent: For example, If it is day, it is light. This is true, since Not: it is light, the contradictory of the consequent, conflicts with It is day. A false conditional is one the contradictory of whose consequent does not conflict with its antecedent. For example, If it is day, Dion is walking. For Not: Dion is walking does not conflict with It is day.72 Now, the question here is one of understanding what is meant by conflict: is it empirical, analytical, or formal logical conflict? Deleuze argues that commentators are certainly right to recall that the question here is not about a relation of physical consequence or of causality in the modern sense of the world. But they are perhaps wrong to see in them a simple logical consequence in the form of identity (LS, 69).73
Diogenes Laertius 7.71-4, in HP, 35A. Gellius 16.8.10-11, in HP, 35D. See also Jacques Brunschwig, Le modle conjonctif, in tudes sur les philosophies hellnistiques picurisme, stocisme, scepticisme (Paris: PUF, 1995), 161-187. 71 Gellius 16.8.12-14, in HP, 35E. 72 Diogenes Laertius 7.71-4, in HP, 35A. See also Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism 2.110-13, in HP, 35B: (4) Those who introduce cohesion [i.e., Chrysippus] say that a conditional is sound whenever the contradictory of its consequent conflicts with its antecedent. 73 Susanne Bobzien argues that it is in fact historically inappropriate to ask whether Chrysippus intended empirical, analytical, or formal logical conflict, given that a conceptual framework which could accommodate such distinctions is absent in Hellenistic logic. See Susanne Bobzien, Logic, in The
He then goes on to interpret the Stoic conditional in terms of a theory of types. This move, Deleuze argues, is justified by the fact that, in arguments, the Stoics number the members of their hypothetical propositions.74 If this woman has milk, this woman has conceived, for example, is rendered as: If the first, the second. For Deleuze, then, we can thus consider the event-predicate, having conceived, as signifying a property of a higher type than that over which it presides, having milk (LS, 69).75 Following Deleuzes reading of the theory of types, each name or proposition receives a determination of signification thanks to two laws. According to a first, regressive law, the sense of each name must be denoted by another name of a higher type (LS, 68). According to a second, disjunctive law, each term in relation to which a classification is made cannot belong to any of the groups of the same type which are classified in relation to it (LS, 68-69).76 If these two laws can be said to adequately describe different levels of the Stoic conditional, it is clear that the conflict characterizing a true conditional must be understood, not in the relation of a term to its opposite on a single level, but rather in the relation of a term to the other term, that is, in the space between the principle itself and the negation of the consequence (LS, 69, 170). In other words, given the proposition, If it is day, it is light, it is impossible that it is day and not light. For being day would have to be an element of a set determined by being light, and would have to belong to one of the groups classified in relation to being light (LS, 69).77 Deleuzes interest in the logic of the Stoics is not limited to the way in which their propositional connectives express relations between events. He is also interested in their theory of modality or, more precisely, in the Stoic thesis which affirms physical
Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, ed. Brad Inwood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 95. 74 See on this: Diogenes Laertius 7.76-81, in HP, 36A. The example which follows comes from Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism 2.104-6, in HP, 35C. 75 Deleuze offers two example here of the Stoic theory of types with the two propositions if it is day, it is light and if this woman has milk, she has given birth. But he appears to make an error when he writes that we can consider being day or having given birth as signifying properties of a higher type than those over which they preside (being light, having milk) (LS, 69). For, by his own reasoning, being light should be of a higher type than being day. 76 Russell, of course, introduced the theory of types in order to resolve paradoxes of the kind: the set of all sets or barber of the regiment. See Bertrand Russell, Appendix B: The Doctrine of Types, in Principles of Mathematics, 523-528. 77 It is thus clear that Deleuze understands the Stoic conditional as part of the means of bringing language to bear upon itself in order to generate sense-events in the way in which this was analyzed above. For, on Deleuzes reading, the Stoic conditional formalizes the conditions under which each name in language must receive a determination of signification in relation to another name of a higher type. This determination of signification is not, however, entirely equivalent to kind of sense-events which Deleuze has in mind, for sense, as seen above, is not equivalent to signification.
fate but denies logical necessity (LS, 33-34, 169-171). In fact, these two aspects of Stoic logic are closely bound up together. For, despite their deterministic physical theory, the Stoic theory of modality is able to affirm the possibility of future counterfactuals precisely insofar as they affirm a difference between, on the one hand, conjunctive and disjunctive propositions which are truth-functional in relation to existing states of affairs, and, on the other hand, conditional propositions, whose truth is rather a matter of compatibility and incompatibility (or conflict) between events without any reference to a totalizing instance (a set of all sets). As Deleuze explains, this difference can be seen in the way in which Chrysippus insists on the transformation of the propositions of the Chaldean astrologers, which claim to assert the necessity of future events based on past and hence necessary events, from the form of conditionals into (negated) conjunctions. The Chaldean proposition, If someone was born at the rising of the Dogstar, he will not die at sea, is thus transformed by Chrysippus into Not both: someone was born at the rising of the Dogstar, and he will die at sea.78 This transformation makes it clear that, for Chrysippus, the Chaldean conditional cannot express the necessity of a future event based on the necessity of a past event, for while the necessity of a past event is due to its having already been brought about by physical causality, the conditional only expresses relations of logical compatibility and incompatibility between events without reference to any totalizing instance. However, because the conjunctive proposition is, for the Stoics, truth-functional in relation to existing states of affairs, its component propositions can change their truth value depending on what effectively happens.79 A future event announced by a conjunctive proposition thus remains possible until it effectively happens (or fails to happen).80 In light of this analysis, it should also be noted here that the truth of logical implication could never finally be determined by the truth of the corresponding conjunctive proposition, for, logically, the set of every proposition which is true in relation to the cosmic present would still have to be determined by a proposition or event of a higher type than that set. It would seem, then, that this is the meaning behind Deleuzes enigmatic assertion that astrology that is, Chaldean astrology tempered by the above analysed, Stoic considerations with respect to modality was
See Cicero, On fate 12-15, in HP, 38E. See on this Diogenes Laertius 7.65, in HP, 34E (SVF 2.193, part). 80 This is in agreement with the general lines of Long and Sedleys commentary at HP, 38, 236. Brunschwig, however, expresses some doubts about this interpretation in Le modle conjonctif, 187, n.2.
perhaps the first important attempt to establish a theory of alogical incompatibilities and noncausal correspondences (LS, 171). For divinatory interpretation is a question of producing, multiplying and orienting relations of compatibility and incompatibility between events in discourse, beyond any physically necessary connection or finally determinable conceptual order (hence the noncausal and alogical nature of the relation), in order to follow, nevertheless, the movement of the cosmic present as it unfolds (LS, 143). In other words, it is a question of observing and interpreting how physical causality comes to inscribe relations between events secondarily in the depth of the body (LS, 171 emphasis added). But in fact, there is no essential difference between this divinatory interpretation of the world and the Stoic interpretation of physical signs in general. According to Sextus, the form of the sign is precisely that of the conditional: If this, then that.81 It is necessary, however, to transform this conditional into a conjunctive proposition in order to approach an understanding of the cosmic present, for signs are precisely events which have been brought about by causal relations between present things. Indeed, as Deleuze notes, this is precisely why the Stoics say that signs are always present, that they are signs of present things. For example, one cannot say of someone mortally wounded that he has been wounded and that he will die, but that he is having been wounded (il est ayant bless), and that he is due to die (il est devant mourir) (LS, 63).82 In other words, it is always a question of translating proposed relations of compatibility and incompatibility between events into a form which expresses their conjunctive coexistence in order to follow the movement of the cosmic present and approach an understanding of it.83 But in fact, this is precisely the relation, examined above, between the dimensions of Aion and Chronos. On the one hand, Chronos is the cosmic present, the total conjunctive causal order: that in virtue of which signs are signs of present things. On the other hand, Aion is the line of time composed of infinitely divisible relations between incorporeal events which are both causal effects and sense-effects. Indeed, what is important for Deleuze here is that, by following the Stoics, it becomes possible to define a relation between two propositional relations: the relation between the proposition and existing states of affairs (denotation), and the relation of
Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 8.275-6, in HP, 53T (SVF 2.223, part). See Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 8.254-5, in HP, 51H (SVF 2.221, part). See also on this Goldschmidt, Le systme stocien, 43-44. 83 Diogenes Laertius 7.83, in HP, 31C (SVF 2.130). [A]ll things are observed through study conducted in discourses, whether they belong to the domain of physics or equally that of ethics.
implication between various events (signification). On the one hand, signification, expressed here by the Stoic conditional, presents various possibilities for relations between incorporeal events. On the other hand, denotation, expressed here by the conjunctive proposition, indicates material instances which may realize these possibilities (LS, 118). The question now, however, is how this relation between two relations is to be founded. If it is a matter of effectively knowing with what other events a given event is co-fated, what are the epistemological criteria for this knowledge?84 We must here turn to an examination of Stoic epistemology and their notion of a comprehensive representation.
1.2.3 Stoic Epistemology Strictly speaking, Stoic epistemology is a part of their logic, for logic is the study of everything related to rational discourse and, for the Stoics, thought and judgement are modes of rational discourse.85 In effect, the Stoic theory of knowledge proposes criteria for the truth of judgement or, more precisely, for assenting to an impression or representation (phantasia) in the soul.86 Let us summarize the relevant aspects of the Stoic theory of knowledge. First of all, a sensory representation is an affection or modification which, by means of the sense organs, is produced in the corporeal soul, and which reveals itself and its cause, that is, the impressor.87 Deleuze calls these sensory representations denotations, no doubt because of their imagistic nature (LS, 145). Strictly speaking, however, such a sensory representation is not identical with the proposition which characterizes it, for a proposition can be the same for diverse sensory representations: impressions which are received from far away, from close up, and so on.88 A rational representation which, although still corporeal, is distinguished from sensory representations is formed in the soul by means of thought (nosis) and has a content which can be exhibited in language
On the co-fatedness of events, see Cicero, On fate 28-30, in HP, 55S. Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 8.275-6, in HP, 53T (SVF 2.223, part). 86 In what follows, we shall translate phantasia as representation rather than impression in conformity with Deleuzes translation of this term, following Goldschmidt, as reprsentation. It is important to remember, however, that phantasiai are all corporeal. 87 Aetius 4.12.1-5, in HP, 39B (SVF 2.54, part). 88 See on this, Michael Frede, Stoic Epistemology, in The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, ed. Keimpe Algra, et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 304-305.
in the form p is q, that is to say, corresponding to the form of a complete sayable.89 Deleuze calls these rational representations significations (LS, 145). The reason given by the Stoics for the existence of this second type of corporeal representation, in its difference from mere sensory representation, is that, following a providentialist conception of human nature, human beings are so designed as to think by inference and combination, that is, in precisely the manner examined above in relation to sayables or signs.90 Now, insofar as it is formed by the commanding-faculty of the soul or mind, the rational representation is necessarily sensitive to the particular characteristics of the soul in question: to the network of its other representations or beliefs, for example, whether these are sensory or rational.91 On the one hand, then, rational representations depend on experience, that is, the accumulation of sensory representations.92 On the other hand, rational representations also belong to the kind of thought for which Stoic logic studies the rules, for the content of the representation is propositional and is thus, as has been seen, formed by inference and combination. As Frdrique Ildefonce describes it, following the work of Claude Imbert, the representation contains in an enveloped manner all the information that the proposition will develop in the field of effective discourse.93 We have yet to understand, however, the criteria of truth for knowledge, that is, how a particular rational representation can correspond to an existing state of affairs. Thus we come to the problem of the cognitive or comprehensive representation (phantasia kataleptik), this being, for the Stoics, the criterion of truth.94 A comprehensive representation has three conditions: it arises from what is and is stamped and impressed exactly in accordance with what is, of such a kind as could not
See Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 8.70, in HP, 33C (SVF 2.187, part): They [the Stoics] say that a sayable is what subsists in accordance with a rational impression, and a rational impression is one in which the content of the impression can be exhibited in language. See also Diogenes Laertius 7.49, in HP, 33D (SVF 2.52, part): For the impression arises first, and then thought, which has the power of talking, expresses in language what it experiences by the agency of the impression. 90 Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 8.275-6, in HP, 53T (SVF 2.223, part); Diogenes Laertius 7.53, in HP, 39D (SVF 2.87, part); Epictetus, Discourses 1.6.12-22, in HP, 63E. 91 Frede, Stoic Epistemology, 306-307. Cicero, Academica 2.21, in HP, 39C. Diogenes Laertius 7.4951, in HP, 39A (SVF 2.52, 55, 61). 92 Aetius 4.11.1-4, in HP, 39E (SVF 2.83). It is in this sense that representations are said to be corporeal, that is, complex physical states. 93 Frdrique Ildefonce, Les Stociens I Znon, Clanthe, Chrysippse (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2000), 102. This text is not without relation to the reading I am presenting here of Deleuzes stoicism. See, for example, the discussion of Nietzsches stoicism sans cosmos, 204-209. See also, on the relation between sensory representations and Stoic dialectic, Claude Imbert, Un platonisme bien tempr: la dialectique stocienne, in Pour une histoire de la logique un hritage platonicien (Paris : PUF, 1999), 89-123. 94 Diogenes Laertius 7.54, in HP, 40A (including SVF 2.105, Posidonius fr. 42).
arise from what is not.95 The well-known difficulty with this definition, however, is that of understanding precisely what is meant by what is (huparchon). Following Michael Frede, it appears that it is necessary to interpret what is in the following manner: not as the real object but as the incorporeal fact that this object is such and such. If the representation p is q is to be comprehensive, it must have its origin in the fact that p is q.96 However, what is the point in saying that the comprehensive representation is to be imprinted exactly in accordance with what is if what is the fact is precisely what we seek to know by means of the comprehensive representation?97 The appropriate response to this problem, as Frede has shown, is to point to the Stoic thesis of the identity of indiscernibles, which implies that the comprehensive representation can in principle distinguish one object from any other, and thus the facts or events attributable to it.98 In this case, the mark of a comprehensive representation will be nothing over and above its representing a particular fact in a certain way, and thus in relation to a network of other rational and sensory representations.99 In short, for the Stoics, starting from a given set of sensory and rational representations, the comprehensive representation must bring together in thought, in a craftsmanlike way,100 all the particular features characterizing a given state of affairs, that is, all the predicate-events which the various bodies implicated in this state of affairs bring about for each other in their own unique ways. But since, as has been seen, the events characterizing any particular body always refer to the action of more powerful bodies, the comprehensive representation, in order to accurately represent a given state of affairs, must in the final analysis be able to represent the total conjunctive cosmic order. At this point, however, following Deleuze, what is crucial is that the comprehensive representation is obliged to express or envelop an incorporeal event which it cannot, strictly speaking, represent (LS, 145). For, as has been seen, the rational representation of any present state of affairs, no matter how extensive its conjunctive totality, requires for its determination an event of another or higher type which is not itself determined within that totality. As Deleuze writes
Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 7.247-52, in HP, 40F (SVF 2.65, part). Frede, Stoic Epistemology, 302-303. 97 See Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 8.85-6, in HP, 34D. 98 On the Stoic principle of the identity of indiscernibles, see Cicero, Academica 2.83-5, in HP, 40J. 99 See Frede, Stoic Epistemology, 308-310, 314-316. 100 Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 7.247-52, in HP, 40F (SVF 2.65, part).
We have encountered this difference of nature between the expression and the representation at every turn, each time we noted the specificity of sense or of the event, its irreducibility to the denotatum and to the signified This difference culminates in the opposition between the object = x as the identitarian instance of the representation in common sense [the cosmic present], and the thing = x as the nonidentifiable element of expression in the paradox [the set of all sets] (LS, 145). This is not to say, however, that this event does not have a role to play in representation. A representation is comprehensive precisely insofar as it envelops this event which it cannot represent. In other words, the event appears here as an ideal instance in relation to which the conjunctive truth of the proposition, on the one hand, and the rational signification of the proposition on the other, could be articulated in relation to one another. This is what Deleuze means when he says that sense or the event the fourth dimension of the proposition is neither a sensible representation or denotation, nor a rational representation or signification (LS, 19). Rather, it is the problematic but rigorously defined, ongoing articulation of the relation between these two dimensions. But the question now is what is it that grounds this ongoing articulation for the Stoics? We must here turn to Deleuzes analysis of Stoic ethics.
1.2.4 Stoic Ethics In The Logic of Sense, Deleuze does not appear to be overly interested in Stoic ethics as such, that is, in the particular objects of its study: the virtues, proper function, what is good, bad and indifferent, and so on. Rather, he is interested in the Stoic moral imperative and its consequences for his theory of events. Diogenes Laertius, following Zeno and then Chrysippus, formulates this imperative in the following manner: living in agreement with nature, or living in accordance with experience of what happens by nature for our own natures are parts of the nature of the whole.101 Given Stoic determinism, it would initially seem that one has no choice but to live in accordance with nature. On the one hand, however, as was seen above, Stoic physics affirms that each body is essentially responsible for what happens to it, that is, for the events which come to be truly predicated of it, even if these events always refer to the actions of more powerful bodies. Moral responsibility is thus fully compatible with physical fate, for each body is in some sense (that is, depending on its passive
Diogenes Laertius 7.87-9, in HP, 63C.
affection in relation to other bodies) the complete cause of its actions. On the other hand, because human beings as rational creatures have an in-built capacity to think by inference and combination with regard to relations between co-fated events, our understanding of right actions or events will be closely bound up with our knowledge of the physical world.102 Thus, actions attributable to moral agents embody the two aspects of incorporeal events which we have examined above: they are causal-effects entirely brought about by bodies, but also, being incorporeal sayables, they are also the alogical and noncausal sense-effects of rational discourse. As Deleuze puts it, emphasizing the idea of freedom which is conceptually inseparable from moral responsibility: wise person is free in two ways which conform to the two poles of ethics: free in the first instance because ones soul can attain to the interiority of perfect physical causes [she is the perfect cause of the events which depend on her]; and again because ones mind may enjoy very special relations established between effects in a situation of pure exteriority [i.e., in relation to the pure event] (LS, 169) Stoic ethics, then, is a question of the experience of what happens in and for ones body, a body which acts and suffers and is the perfect cause of the events which depend on it. Yet it is also a question, following Epictetus, of a certain living use of representations, that is, of an interpretation of ones experience with respect to the whole: nature or kosmos.103 As has just been seen, this whole can only be enveloped within a comprehensive representation as an event which is not represented as such. The Stoic moral imperative, then, living in accordance with the experience of what happens by nature must be transformed into something like living in accordance with the event which never finishes coming about. As Deleuze puts it, Stoic ethics consists of willing the event as such, that is, of willing that which occurs insofar as it does occur (LS, 143 emphasis added). Or again, it consists in willing not exactly what occurs, but something in that which occurs, something yet to come which would be consistent with what occurs : the Event (LS, 149). Victor Goldschmidt, whom Deleuze follows here, reconstructs the reasoning behind this conception of ethics which is above all an ars vitae in relation to the pure
On the co-fated nature of events, see Chrysippus response to the Lazy Argument, such as this is reported by Cicero in On fate, 28-30, in HP, 55S. You will recover, regardless of whether or not you cal the doctor is fallacious. For it is just as much fated for you to call the doctor as for you to recover. 103 See Epictetus, Discourses 1.1.7-12 and 1.6.12-22, in HP, 62K and 63E.
event. First of all, it must be recalled that only Zeus perceives the whole: the entire causal chain whose movement is coextensive with his intelligence. Human intelligence, on the contrary, can never manage to reconstruct all of the relations in which a particular incorporeal event, ideally isolated from the whole, finds its ultimate place.104 Secondly, however, the Stoics affirm that Zeus has given to every man a portion of himself to guard and guide him, which is his mind and reason.105 In other words, not only are we physical parts of the cosmos and responsible for the events which depend on us, we may also attain to Zeuss vision of things in accordance with the form of thought he has given us, which operates by inference and combination. But since, as has been seen, a comprehensive representation of the cosmos must envelop an event which cannot itself be represented, it is not so much a question of a human body understanding the causal order per se through a total conjunction of its effects, as that of the Stoic sage giving his or her body to the ongoing determination of the pure event in which she participates (LS, 147). The Stoic sage, in other words, in his liberty, understands the pure event in its eternal truth, independently of its spatio-temporal actualization But at the same time, the sage also wills the embodiment and the actualization of the pure incorporeal event in a state of affairs and in his or her own body and flesh (LS, 146). Following Goldschmidts analysis, it is thanks to the portion which Zeus bequeaths us, the commanding-faculty of the soul, that we corporealize the incorporeal event. The event of walking, for example, for Chrysippus, acquires a body under the effect of the hegemonic principle [i.e., the commanding-faculty] which is manifested in it (LS, 147).106 On the one hand, then, it is a question of the events which the body of the moral agent brings about as their perfect cause (to walk, to sit, and so on). On the other hand, it is a question of the representations to which the soul assents insofar as it is obliged by its very nature to interpret the relations between these events of which the agent is the complete cause and the rest of the cosmic present. Thus, the sage not only comprehends and wills the event, but also represents it and, by this, selects it (LS, 147). Now, Deleuzes preferred example for illustrating this Stoic double causality is
Goldschmidt, Le systme stocien, 97-98. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, trans. A. D. L. Farquharson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1944), V, 27. 106 Goldschmidt, Le systme stocien, 107. See also Seneca, Letters 113.23, in HP, 53L (SVF 2.836, part): Cleanthes and his pupil Chrysippus did not agree on what walking is. Cleanthes said it was breath extending from the commanding-faculty to the feet, Chrysippus that it was the commanding-faculty itself. It is the position of Chrysippus that Deleuze and Goldschmidt are here following.
the event of to die. The agent is thus said to give a body to this event, not only insofar as it is actualized within him, but also insofar as he represents this event in propositions connecting it to other events emerging as effects from the movement of the cosmos, but without reference to any physical totalizing instance or a set of all sets. An event such as to die, therefore, has an always open problematic structure (where and when?) insofar as the sense of this event remains to be expressed (LS, 145). As Deleuze writes, in terms recalling the distinction between the two dimensions of time, Chronos and Aion: With every event, there is indeed the present moment of its actualization, the moment in which the event is embodied in a state of affairs, an individual or a person, the moment we designate by saying here, the moment has come. The future and the past of the event are evaluated only with respect to this definitive present, and from the point of view of that which embodies it. But on the other hand, there is the future and the past of the event considered in itself, sidestepping each present, being free of the limitations of a state of affairs It has no other present than that of the mobile instant which represents it, always divided into past-future There are thus two accomplishments [of the event], which are like actualization and counter-actualization (LS, 151-152). As the sage corporealizes in this way the pure event, he or she participates in what Deleuze calls the quasi-cause of the event, which is another word for the ongoing determination of the event or sense-event. Why quasi-cause? In short, although the quasi-cause is irreducible to both physical causality and particular representations, it is also that which must be represented if the causal order is, for us, to be complete, and if the bodies which compose that order are to be determined. As Deleuze writes: What is excessive in the event must be accomplished, even though it may not be realized or actualized without ruin [T]he instant as the paradoxical element or the quasi-cause which runs through the entire straight line [of Aion] must itself be represented. It is even in this sense that representation can envelop an expression on its edges, although the expression itself may be of another nature; and that the sage can identify with the quasi-cause, although the quasi-cause itself is missing from its own identity. This present of the Aion representing the instant is not at all like the vast and deep present of Chronos: it is the present of the pure operation (LS, 168). Let us now return to the problem left over from our examination of Stoic epistemology, which concerned the grounding of the comprehensive representation insofar as it envelops the pure event. In short, it has just been seen that it is through the 47
living use of representations in Stoic ethics that the ongoing determination of the pure event within the comprehensive representation is maintained. Or again, it is by living in accordance with the event which never finishes coming about that the sage finds him or herself caught up in open-ended articulation of the relation between sensible and rational representation, that is, between denotation and signification or, finally, conjunctive truth and conditional sense.
We are now in a position to see how Deleuze analyses Stoic philosophy as a response to the problem of the event such as it was outlined above. First of all, the Stoic ontological distinction between bodies and incorporeals (reference and sense) allows Deleuze to say that the ontologically primitive, pure event, picked out by the verb in the denoting proposition, can itself be determined by the way in which it subsists in the proposition as a sense-event. The pure event will thus be an objective ontological ideality for the determination of states of affairs in propositions, although only insofar as it is also understood to be the sense to come of these propositions. Secondly, the way in which this ontological distinction between bodies and incorporeal events determines the relation between the different parts of the Stoic system physics, logic and ethics allows Deleuze to establish the sense-event as the fourth dimension of the proposition, distinct from denotation, manifestation and conceptual signification, yet also grounding them. Indeed, we have just seen how the Stoics understand the pure event, necessarily enveloped by the comprehensive representation, to govern in an ongoing and rigorous manner the relations between the causal analyses of individual things (in terms of their event-effects), conceptual development and the personal or ethical manifestation of the wise person. It is precisely in this movement or process that the event can be said to allow the tri-dimensional model of the proposition to function a priori from within, generating, though without finally determining, the sense of the proposition, its objective correlates (individuals, persons and concepts) and thus the truth of the proposition in relation to evental states of affairs (LS, 17). The event is thus not, like signification, the condition of possibility for a proposition to be true in relation to a factual state of affairs, but the real condition for the sense and truth of propositions in relation to their corresponding evental states of affairs. 48
To reformulate the above in terms of Chronos and Aion, it can be said that while Aion (which can now be understood as the fourth dimension of the ongoing determination of the pure event) can never correspond to Chronos (the realm of bodies), we can nevertheless conceive of it as a unique event, determinant of all other events. On this reading, the particular events constitutive of bodies will be the signs of this unique event, insofar as they both compose Aion and are ordered by it. In this way, the relation between things and events can be held to be well-determined on the line of Aion, even if Aion is thoroughly problematic and has an eternally open structure. As Deleuze puts it, each event is adequate to the entire Aion; each event communicates with all others, and they all form one and the same Event, an event of the Aion where they have an eternal truth (LS, 64). Speaking in the structuralist vocabulary which will be the focus of Chapter 4, Deleuze also calls the Aion the line traced by a mobile paradoxical instance, which runs through and gathers together the differential series which make up the structure of the universe. As he writes, the paradoxical instance is the Event in which all events communicate and are distributed. It is the Unique event, and all other events are its bits and pieces (LS, 56). Why, however, does Deleuze not simply affirm Stoic philosophy as the philosophy of the event? As he writes, this is because it appears that if we follow the surviving partial and deceiving texts, that the Stoics may not have been able to resist the double temptation of returning to the simply physical causality or to the logical contradiction (LS, 171). In other words, and although Deleuze offers us no textual proof of this, it would appear that the Stoics ultimately determine the unique event of the Aion as Zeus, a substantial, totalizing instance which creates a unity on both sides of the ontological divide. On the one hand, then, evental quasi-causality was replaced by pure physical causality founded on Zeus as causa sui; and on the other hand, Zeus, as the set of all sets, brought the ongoing determination of the event to an end by anchoring the determinations of signification, and thereby also engendering a strong principle of logical contradiction (at the expense of the much looser, experimental relations of evental compatibility and incompatibility).107 Deleuze must therefore look for a way of determining the event in its ideal play only, in accordance with the above stated problematic: what are the (evental) conditions of the event if everything is to be an event? We shall see how Deleuze does this in the coming chapters. Nevertheless,
The interest of the determinations of signification lies in the fact that they engender the principles of non-contradiction and the excluded middle, instead of these principles being given ready-made (LS, 69).
Deleuze will retain: the Stoic ontological division between bodies and incorporeals (between reference and sense); the differences in nature and the relations between the comprehensive representation (paradoxical element), the corporeal representation (denotation) and the rational representation (signification); and finally, the Stoic idea of a personal responsibility for the (counter-) actualization of events.
Chapter 2: Deleuze and Leibniz
______________________________________________________________________ Deleuzes conceptual relation to Leibniz has, arguably, been unjustifiably downplayed in the literature.1 Deleuzes major, pre-Difference and Repetition influences are frequently cited as Nietzsche, Bergson and Spinoza,2 and that these figures are constant touchstones for Deleuze is undeniable. Nevertheless, in his 1968 Spinoza book it is clear that, in certain respects, Deleuze reads Spinoza through Leibniz.3 It is also clear that Leibniz is a major reference in The Method of Dramatization (1966), which is effectively a summary of the major themes of Difference and Repetition.4 In the text of The Logic of Sense, which was published one year after Difference and Repetition and is the focus of this thesis, Spinoza is not mentioned at all, and Bergson is cited only once. Leibniz, on the other hand, features prominently in the highly important Sixteenth Series of the Static Ontological Genesis, as well as in the Twenty-Fourth Series of the Communication of Events where he is heralded as the first important theoretician of the event (LS, 171). Similarly, in the much later text, The Fold: Leibniz and The Baroque, Leibniz is affirmed as having implemented the second great logic of the
We have only found a few articles devoted to Deleuzes relation to Leibniz, and all of these concern Deleuzes 1988 work on Leibniz, The Fold. See: Alain Badiou, G. Deleuze, Leibniz: Le Pli et le baroque, Annuaire philosophique 1988-1989 (Paris: Seuil, 1989), 161-184; Lang Baker, The Cry of the Identicals: The Problem of Inclusion in Deleuzes reading of Leibniz, Philosophy Today 39, 2 (1995): 198-211; Elie During, Leibniz selon Deleuze: une folle cration de concepts, Magazine Littraire 416 (2003); Christiane Frmont, Complication et Singularit, Revue de mtaphysique et de moral 1(1991): 105-120; Keith Robinson, Events of Difference: The Fold in between Deleuzes Reading of Leibniz, Epoch 8, 1 (2003): 141-164. There is also a book on The Fold, only recently published, Deleuze and The Fold: A Critical Reader, ed. Niamh McDonnell and Sjoerd van Tuinen (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming). 2 See, for example, Todd May, Gilles Deleuze: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Michael Hardt, Gilles Deleuze: An Apprenticeship in Philosophy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993). 3 See Gilles Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza, trans. Martin Joughin (New York: Zone Books, 1990), 11: What interested me most in Spinoza wasnt his Substance, but the composition of finite modes. I consider this one of the most original aspects of my book. That is: the hope of making substance turn on finite modes, or at least of seeing in substance a plane of immanence in which finite modes operate, already appears in this book. What I needed was both (1) the expressive character of particular individuals, and (2) an immanence of being. Leibniz, in a way, goes still further than Spinoza on the first point. But on the second, Spinoza stands alone. One finds it only in him. This is why I consider myself a Spinozist, rather than a Leibnizian, although I owe a lot to Leibniz. In fact, with regard to the concept of expression, Deleuze goes even further when he writes that no explicit definition or demonstration of expression is to be found in Spinoza (even though such a definition and such a demonstration are implicit throughout his work). In Leibniz, on the other hand, one finds passages that deal explicitly with what is comprised in the category of expression, and how far it extends (327-328). 4 See Deleuze, The Method of Dramatization, 94, 96, 101-102, 106, 108, 109, 111, 114-115. Spinoza is not cited at all in this text, and Bergson and Nietzsche only in passing.
event, after the Stoics and before Whitehead.5 It is thus not unlikely that Deleuze sees himself as a direct, philosophical descendent of Leibniz when he maintains in a 1988 interview that Ive tried in all my books to discover the nature of events.6 This is not to say, however, that Deleuze accepts all of the premises on which Leibniz bases his system. On the contrary, Deleuzes constant criticism is that Leibniz ultimately subordinates the ideal play of events to a principle of converging differences under the hypothesis of a God who calculates and chooses the best or maximally convergent series of possible events. In The Logic of Sense, Deleuze suggests that Leibnizs God perhaps responds to a theological exigency, or again to an economic principle for the determination of causes and effects, or means and ends (LS, 172, 59).7 Nevertheless, according to Deleuzes own testimony in Difference and Repetition, this subordination of events to a principle of convergence was Leibnizs only error.8 In this work, Deleuze writes that no one has gone further than Leibniz in the exploration of sufficient reason [and] the element of difference.9 Similarly, in The Logic of Sense, Deleuze writes that Leibniz went a long way (although not all the way) in establishing a theory of singular points and their ideal play (LS, 116), that is to say, a theory of the relations of alogical compatibility and incompatibility between predicate-events which would be irreducible to the identical and the contradictory (LS, 171). Now, as was seen in the previous chapter, the Stoic ontological distinction between bodies and incorporeals or reference and sense allowed Deleuze to affirm that the event, which is ontologically primitive and determinant with respect to fixed states of affairs, can be understood to subsist in the proposition which expresses it as the sense to come of that proposition. What is more, the way in which this ontological distinction determines the relation between the different parts of the Stoic system physics, logic and ethics allowed Deleuze to affirm that the event or sense is the fourth dimension of the proposition which makes the tri-dimensional model of the proposition function entirely from within by generating the objective correlates of these
Deleuze, The Fold, 53. Although Deleuze here seems to revise his argument from The Logic of Sense that Leibniz was the first important theoretician of the event, it should be noted that the above citation from The Logic of Sense occurs immediately after Deleuzes critique of the Stoics, which we examined in Chapter 1. 6 Gilles Deleuze, Negotiations 1972-1990, trans. Martin Joughin (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), 141. 7 On the principle of economy, see also Frmont, Complication et Singularit, n.10. 8 Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, 51. 9 Ibid., 213.
dimensions: denoted things, manifested persons and signified, general concepts. This was seen in the way in which the Stoic comprehensive representation envelops an event which it cannot represent, but also which it cannot not represent if it is to be comprehensive. In Stoic ethics in particular, the problematic mode of this envelopment of the event in the comprehensive representation was seen to govern the ongoing articulation of a relation between the causal analysis of things, conceptual structure and development and the personal or ethical manifestation of the Stoic sage, in terms of his or her beliefs, desires and actions. In the final analysis, however, the Stoics brought to a halt this ongoing determination of the event by returning to a doctrine of pure physical causality and a strong principle of logical contradiction, that is, by reducing the event to the body and name of Zeus. The question for Deleuze thus remained: how are individuals, persons and general concepts to be generated by the event without reference to any underlying, substantial unity? Deleuze now turns to Leibniz in order to argue, from the perspective of a different system of philosophical concepts, that two types of relation between events govern their ideal play and underlie the determination of denoted things, manifested persons and general concepts. Leibniz calls these relations compossibility and incompossibility.10 Deleuze, for his part, calls these relations convergence and divergence (LS, 111) or compatibility and incompatibility (LS, 177). Before examining how Deleuze takes up Leibnizs philosophy, however, it will be useful to explicate certain elements of this latters system, and the role of compossibility and incompossibility therein.
On the concepts of compossibility and incompossibility, see G.W. Leibniz, Letter to Louis Bourguet, December 1714, in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Philosophical Papers and Letters, trans. and ed. Leroy E. Loemker (Dordrecht: D.Reidel Publishing, 1969), 661-662. See also G.W. Leibniz, New Essays on Human Understanding, trans. and ed. Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), III, vi, 12. This concept of compossibility is fundamental to all of Leibnizs most important works, even if it is not always mentioned by name. See, for example, G.W. Leibniz, Monadology, in Leibniz Philosophical Writings, ed. G. H. R. Parkinson, trans. Mary Morris and G. H. R. Parkinson (London and Toronto: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1973), 56; Principles of Nature and Grace, Founded on Reason, in Philosophical Writings, 10; Discourse on Metaphysics, in G.W. Leibniz Philosophical Essays, trans. and ed. Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1989), 9 and 14; Theodicy Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil, trans. E.M. Huggard (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, 1951), 201.
2.1 Leibnizs System in Outline For Leibniz, before the creation of the world, God has an understanding of all of the possibles, that is, of all possible individual concepts.11 What is possible, at this level, is anything which does not, in itself, violate the principle of contradiction: that by virtue of which we judge to be false that which involves a contradiction.12 Leibniz formulates the principle of contradiction in the following way: that a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time, and that therefore A is A and cannot be not A.13 Thus, insofar as the proposition characterizing an individual concept does not in itself involve a contradiction, this individual concept is possible in the minimal sense that there is no inherent reason why it cannot be thought: it is, as Leibniz writes, perfectly conceivable.14 Not all of these possibles, however, can be thought together without contradiction, for what is possible in itself is not necessarily compossible with other such possibles.15 Using one of Leibnizs preferred examples in his correspondence with the theologian and philosopher Antoine Arnauld, it can be said that an Adam who does not sin is entirely possible in itself, insofar as there is no contradiction involved in such an individual concept, but this concept is incompossible with other possible individual concepts such as, for example, a Christ who redeems Adams original sin.16 Now, in Gods understanding, possibles which are compossible with one another in various ways form an infinite number of possible worlds.17 Or again, the possible world of any given individual concept is the totality of all individual concepts compossible with it.18 As Leibniz writes, in every possible world everything is linked together (tout est li). The universe however it might be constituted is a unified
Leibniz, Monadology, 43; Principles of Nature and Grace, 10. Leibniz, Monadology, 31. See also: G.W. Leibniz, On Freedom and Possibility, in Philosophical Essays, 19: all truths that concern possibles or essences and the impossibility of a thing or its necessity (that is, the impossibility of its contrary) rests on the principle of contradiction. 13 See Leibniz, Second Letter to Clarke, in Philosophical Essays, 321. 14 Leibniz, Letter to Bourguet, December 1714, 662. See also G.W. Leibniz, General Inquiries about the Analysis of Concepts and of Truths, in Leibniz Logical Papers, trans. and ed. G.H.R. Parkinson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), 54. 15 The compossible is that which, with another, does not imply a contradiction. G.W. Leibniz, Textes indits daprs de la bibliothque provinciale de Hanover 2 volumes, trans. and ed. Gaston Grua (Paris, 1948), 325. Cited in Benson Mates, The Philosophy of Leibniz Metaphysics and Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 75, n.36. 16 See generally, Leibniz, Correspondence with Arnauld, in Philosophical Papers and Letters, 331-350. 17 Leibniz, Monadology, 53. 18 Nicholas Rescher, The Philosophy of Leibniz (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967), 17.
whole.19
It follows,
therefore, that possibles which are contradictory or
incompossible with one another must belong to different possible worlds. From among all of these possible worlds, God will bring only one into existence: the best of all possible worlds, that is, the one which is maximally compossible, displaying the most perfection, which is to say, the most variety and order with respect to the series of individual concepts.20 This act of creation follows from the very nature of God, whose concept includes the primary perfections: power, wisdom, goodness and, of course, existence.21 Following Leibniz, it is the existence of this necessary and perfect being which causes the existence of the best [of all possible worlds], which God knows through his wisdom, chooses through his goodness, and produces through his power.22 In other words, given that he is a necessary and all perfect being, to not bring into existence the best of all of the possible worlds would contradict the very nature of God.23 The existing world, our actual world, is thus entirely composed of individual substances, or monads, which realize the maximally compossible series of possible individual concepts in their own unique way. Indeed, no two monads are exactly alike, for Leibniz, differing only in number. For if two things shared exactly the same properties then they could not be distinguished, that is to say, they would, for all intents and purposes, be the same, one thing.24 Being compossible with the entire series of existing monads, then, each individual monad is said to express or mirror the entire universe of monads,25 one thing expressing another when there is a constant and regular relation between what can be said [that is, predicated] about one and about the
C.I. Gerhardt, Die philosophischen Schriften von G.W. Leibniz, 7 vols. (Berlin: Weidmann, 18501863), VI, 107. Cited in Nicholas Rescher, Leibniz, An Introduction to his Philosophy (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1979), 49. 20 Leibniz, Monadology, 55 and 58; Principles of Nature and Grace, 10. 21 Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, 1. 22 Leibniz, Monadology, 55. 23 Leibnizs argument that the existence of God necessarily follows from his concept is a recasting of the Ontological Argument in relation to the principle of contradiction. In short, Leibniz supplements Descartes argument that if God is a being having all perfections, and if existence is a perfection, then God exists by definition, by showing that the idea of a being having all conceivable perfections is not contradictory. God is thus a necessary being and this can be known a priori or by reason alone. See Leibniz, Monadology, 41 and 45; and Letter to Countess Elizabeth, On God and Formal Logic, in Philosophical Essays, 237-238. 24 On Leibnizs principle of the identity of indiscernibles, see, Discourse on Metaphysics, 9; and Primary Truths, in Philosophical Essays, 32. See also Leibnizs Fourth Letter to Clarke, in Philosophical Essays, 328: To suppose two things indiscernible is to suppose the same thing under two names. 25 Leibniz, Monadology, 56.
other.26 It is due to this relation of compossibility or expression that each monad is said to carry traces of everything that happens in the universe.27 In short, Leibniz argues that each existing monad or singular substance expresses the whole universe in its own way, and that all its events, together with all their circumstances and the whole sequence of external things, are included in its notion or in its concept in a particular way.28 Another way of putting this is to say that each monad has a complete individual concept which is capable of distinguishing it from every other such monad, and in which God is able to read, from a particular point of view, not only everything that happens to it, but also everything that happens in the entire universe.29 Now, the monads for Leibniz are simple, unified substances: simple, that is to say, without parts; and where there are no parts, there neither extension, nor shape, nor divisibility is possible.30 Being simple, they can neither be generated nor perish in the course of nature, as is the case with compounds.31 Indeed, monads are said to last as long as the universe, which will be changed but not destroyed.32 They are the true atoms of nature, but there are no causal relations between them.33 They rather have, as has been seen, expressive relations of predication. In other words, what we call causes are only concurrent requisites34 whose agreement or harmony has been regulated by God from all eternity. Nevertheless, in this non-causal relation of expression, a monad is said to be active insofar as what is distinctly known in it [i.e., in its concept] explains what occurs in another, and passive insofar as the reason for what occurs in it is found in what is distinctly known in another.35 Imperishable and extensionless points of view on the universe, monads are necessarily souls or minds (a mind being a reasonable soul);36 but it is thereby also clear that there are souls and minds in the least part of matter.37 As Leibniz poetically expresses it, each portion of matter may be conceived as a garden full of plants, and as a pond full of fish. But every branch of each plant, every member of each animal, and
G.W. Leibniz, Letter to Arnauld, October 9, 1687, in Philosophical Papers and Letters, 339. Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, 8. 28 Ibid., 9. 29 Ibid., 8 and 14. 30 Leibniz, Monadology, 1 and 3. 31 Ibid., 4-6. 32 Leibniz, Principles of Nature and Grace, 2. 33 Leibniz, Monadology, 3 and 7. 34 Leibniz, Primary Truths, 33. 35 Leibniz, Monadology, 52. 36 G.W. Leibniz, Letter to Arnauld, 28 November/8 December, 1686, in Philosophical Essays, 79; and Primary Truths, 34. 37 Leibniz, Monadology, 66; and Principles of Nature and Grace, 1.
every drop of their liquid parts is itself likewise a similar garden or pond.38 Even in the case of rational souls such as ourselves that is, souls endowed with memory, reason and capable of acts of reflection our bodies are teeming with bare monads, sensitive souls or little spermatic animals having between them particularly well coordinated and direct relations of expression.39 As thinking substances, monads or souls are essentially characterized by their perceptions and appetitions, perception being a passing state, which involves and represents a plurality within the unity or simple substance, and appetition being the passage from one perception to another.40 It is important to note that this characterization of monads does not contradict the idea that monads are ontologically distinguished by the way in which they realize, in their own particular way, the maximally compossible series of possible individual concepts conceived of by God, for God himself is a monad, having as his attributes the primary perfections. In other words, what God perfectly and all at once perceives, the created monads perceive only imperfectly, in related, though varying and changing, degrees of clarity and confusion depending on their point of view on the universe. Indeed, Leibniz argues that each monad perceives the entire universe, but confusedly for the most part, in minute, unconscious perceptions.41 What the monad perceives or represents most distinctly, on the other hand, are those monads nearest to them and which compose its body. As Deleuze puts it, the individual monad expresses a world according to the relation of other bodies with its own, as much as it expresses this relation according to the relation of the parts of its own body (LS, 110).42 Or again, as Leibniz writes: although each created monad represents the whole universe, it represents more distinctly the body which is particularly affected by it, and whose entelechy it is: and as this body expresses the whole universe by the connexion of all matter in the plenum, the soul represents the whole universe also in representing the body which belongs to it in a particular way.43
Leibniz, Monadology, 67. Ibid., 28-30 and 82. 40 Ibid., 14-15; and Principles of Nature and Grace, 2. 41 Leibniz, Principles of Nature and Grace, 13; New Essays, 53-54. 42 Speaking of events as singularities and we shall see more closely what this means in Chapter 3 Deleuze also writes that in each world, the individual monads express all the singularities of this world an infinity as though in a murmur or a swoon; but each monad envelops or expresses clearly a certain number of singularities only, that is, those in the vicinity of which it is constitutes and which link up with its own body (LS, 111). 43 Leibniz, Monadology, 62.
Every body, then, has a dominant monad which is active in the sense examined above: its concept explains more distinctly what happens in and for the monads composing its body. The dominated monads, for their part, represent this dominant monad confusedly or passively, but they in turn are dominant or active in relation to other monads, representing them clearly, and so on, to infinity.44 The body (indeed, bodies in general) is in this sense not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, the reality of which is situated in the harmony of the perceivers with themselves (at different times) and with other perceivers.45 In other words, a body is an aggregate of substances, these latter being understood, not as parts which make up a whole, but as the bodys essential, internal requisites.46 As Deleuze describes it, since all the individual monads express the totality of their world although they express clearly only a select part their bodies form mixtures and aggregates, variable associations with zones of clarity and obscurity (LS, 112). Monads, then, are simple, unified or closed, imperishable substances which have non-causal, expressive relations between one another, and which fall under complete individual concepts which express the entire universe from a particular point of view. If monads are simple or closed, however, what is the status of relations between existing individual substances? It is clear that compossibility and incompossibility are relations, but these relations only govern the formation of worlds, the best of which is subsequently realized by simple substances which alone exist. The relations between existing individuals must, therefore, be out of the subjects; but being neither a substance nor an accident, it must be a mere ideal thing.47 Nevertheless, relations are well founded in the sense that they inhere in the nonrelational properties of the relata at issue48 which, as has been seen, are ultimately grounded in relations of compossibility and incompossibility. As Leibniz summarizes it in an example, [m]y judgment about relations is that paternity in David is one thing, sonship in Solomon another, but that the relation common to both is a merely mental thing whose basis is the modifications of the individuals.49 In other words, even though the substances David and Solomon are closed over their complete list of nonrelational properties, as
Ibid., 70; Principles of Nature and Grace, 4. G.W. Leibniz Letter to de Volder, 30 June 1704, and Letter to de Volder, 1704 or 1705, in Philosophical Essays, 181. 46 G.W. Leibniz, Notes on Some Comments by Michel Angelo Fardella, in Philosophical Essays, 103. 47 Leibniz, Fifth Letter to Clarke, in Philosophical Essays, 339. 48 Rescher, Leibniz, An Introduction to his Philosophy, 56. 49 Leibniz, Letter to Des Bosses, April 21, 1714, in Philosophical Papers and Letters, 609.
it were, the relation between them nevertheless inheres in these properties. This is not to say that the relation of kinship binds them, for this relation, not being included in either substance, is only imaginary. Rather, the basis of the relation between paternity in David and sonship in Solomon is to be found in the regulated modifications of the individuals which has been decreed by God from all eternity according to the laws of compossibility and incompossibility. Another important consequence of monadic closure and the completeness of its concept is that the infinite number of predicates which define each monads unique point of view on the universe are, as Leibniz says, analytically contained or included in its concept.50 It does not follow from these notions of analyticity and inclusion, however, that the opposite of a true proposition characterizing an existing monad implies a logical contradiction strictly speaking. For, as seen above, such a proposition about existing monads is always possible or perfectly conceivable insofar as it does not in itself involve a contradiction.51 The opposite of a true proposition characterizing an existing monad is not contradictory in itself, but rather incompossible with the set of true propositions characterizing the world of created monads. As Deleuze writes, for example, the contradiction between Adam-the-sinner and Adam-non-sinner results from the incompossibility of worlds in which Adam sins or does not sin (LS, 111). For Deleuze, then, it is precisely in this way that the Leibnizian relations of compossibility and incompossibility are irreducible to contradiction. Indeed, contradiction at the level of existential propositions would rather have to be derived from these prior relations. Truths of fact are thus of a different nature than truths of reason, even if both are analytic. Indeed, for Leibniz, if the principle of contradiction governs truths of reason or necessary truths (formal possibilities or essences), then the principle of sufficient reason governs contingent truths or truths of fact.52 Leibniz formulates the principle of sufficient reason in the following way: nothing happens without its being possible for one who has enough knowledge of things to give a reason sufficient to determine why it is thus and not otherwise.53 What does this mean? Following our exposition above, the sufficient reason why something is true of a given simple substance must be able to be seen in an analysis of the way in which something is true of another monad whose concept is apt to explain the nature of the former. Furthermore,
Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, 8 and 13. See also Leibniz, Monadology, 33. 52 Ibid., 31-36. 53 Leibniz, Principles of Nature and Grace, 7.
since a sufficient reason must also be found for this latter monads being such and such, this analysis must be continued into that of the concurrent requisites of a third monad, and so on, right across the infinite series of created things, and finally into an analysis of the concept of a God who, in line with his perfections, grants existence to that series of monads which realizes the maximally compossible series of possible individual concepts which he conceives of in his understanding. God, in the final analysis, is thus the sufficient reason for the entire series of created things. Leibniz puts this point in the following way, complementing his ontological proof of the existence of God through the principle of contradiction54 with an existential proof through the principle of sufficient reason: [I]n the case of the series of things spread over the universe of created things resolution into particular reasons might go on into endless detail on account of the immense variety of things in the nature and the division of bodies ad infinitum [A]ll this differentiation involves only other prior or more differentiated contingent things, all of which need a similar analysis to explain them This is why the ultimate reason must lie in a necessary substance, in which the differentiation of the changes only exists eminently as in their source; and this is what we call God.55 For Leibniz, therefore, all true predication has some basis in the nature of things,56 up to and including the nature of that thing called God. And the difference between these truths of fact and truths of reason is that the latter can be analysed in a finite number of steps while an analysis of the former requires an infinite number of steps. Of course, no created monad can carry out an infinite analysis. God, however, sees the entire series at the same time or knows it intuitively.57 This is still not to say, however, that at the end of the analysis, true propositions of fact can be reduced to simple, primitive terms. For if they were so reducible, the world would have to have been created according to an absolute, logical or metaphysical necessity, thereby contradicting the concept of God who, in his perfect power, wisdom and goodness, must be free to choose and bring into existence the best of all possible worlds.58 Since God must nevertheless be said to be the sufficient reason for the series of created things and
For Leibnizs ontological proof, see n.23 above. Leibniz, Monadology, 36-38. 56 Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, 8. 57 See G.W. Leibniz, The Source of Contingent Truths and Meditations on Knowledge, Truth and Ideas, in Philosophical Essays, 99 and 25. 58 See, on this, Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, 13; and Letter to Landgraf Ernst von HessenRheinfels, 12 April, 1686, in Philosophical Writings, 49.
their relations, rather than arguing that contingent truths can be reduced to identical propositions, we must say that the infinite analysis of contingent truths is asymptotic to certain necessary truths: those concerning Gods essential attributes, the relation between which was established by the ontological proof of his existence.59 As Leibniz writes: true contingent propositions cannot be reduced to identical propositions, but is proved by showing that if the analysis is continued further and further, it constantly approaches identical propositions, but never reaches them. Therefore it is God alone, who grasps the entire infinite in his mind, who knows all contingent truths with certainty. So the distinction between necessary and contingent truths is the same as that between lines which meet and asymptotes, or between commensurable and incommensurable numbers.60 Now, our argument here is that it is in accordance with the problem of finding a coherent means of speaking about the ontological primacy of events in relation to things that Deleuze turns to Leibniz. Having explicated the major lines of Leibnizs philosophical system, let us now examine what Deleuze takes from it.
2.2 Deleuze and Leibniz: The Static Genesis of Individuals, Persons and General Concepts and the Ideal Play of Events Central to Deleuzes philosophy of the event is a certain appropriation of the Leibnizian relations of compossibility and incompossibility between events, insofar as these are understood to ontologically precede and govern the constitution of individuals and persons. As he writes: Compossibility does not presuppose the inherence of predicates in an individual subject or monad. It is rather the inverse; inherent predicates are those which correspond to events from the beginning compossible (the monad of Adam the sinner includes in predicative form only future and past events which are compossible with the sin of Adam) Convergence and divergence are entirely original relations which cover the rich domain of alogical compatibilities and incompatibilities, and therefore for an essential component of the theory of sense (LS, 171).
See also on this, n.23 above. Leibniz, General Inquiries about the Analysis of Concepts and of Truths, 77.
It should be noted, however, as a point of terminological clarification, that when Deleuze speaks of compossibility and incompossibility between events, he does so, more often than not, by speaking of them in terms of the convergence and divergence of singularities (LS, 172). It is thus not uncommon for Deleuze to talk of singularitiesevents (LS, 103, 112, 116). The precise reason why Deleuze speaks of events and their relations by means of these quasi-mathematical concepts will become clear in Chapter 3. What is important to understand at this stage is that singularities-events and their relations of convergence and divergence have several characteristics which map quite precisely onto those of their correlates in the Leibnizian system: predicate-events and their relations of compossibility and incompossibility. Now, the first of these characteristics is that singularities-events are impersonal and preindividual (LS, 109). For Deleuze, in other words, just as for Leibniz, events and their relations precede the constitution of individuals and persons. As Deleuze argues, relations between events form worlds, and the individual is inseparable from a world (LS, 109). Secondly, as Deleuze describes it, singularities-events may be either convergent or divergent (LS, 109, 111, 172), or as Leibniz would say, compossible and incompossible. Deleuze explicitly ties these notions together when he writes that the notion of compossibility is defined as a continuum of singularities, whereby continuity has the convergence of series as its ideational criterion (LS, 111). It is important to note here, however, that Deleuze speaks of the convergence of series rather than of singularities-events per se, for, as he writes, the nature of a singularity is determined insofar as it is analytically prolonged over a series of ordinary points up to the vicinity of another singularity (LS, 109 emphasis added and translation modified). We shall see more precisely in Chapter 3 what this distinction between the singular and the ordinary means for Deleuze, but for now we must find the precise correlate in Leibnizs system. It was said above that, for Leibniz, within a possible world, a given individual substance is said to be active or dominant in relation to another insofar as what is distinctly known in its concept explains what occurs in this other, this latter thus being passive or dominated in relation to the former. But, distinctly or otherwise, what are known in individuals are precisely the events which define their relations to other
individuals over time.61 For Leibniz, therefore, within a world of compossible individuals, there are both distinct events and obscure events. Now, Leibnizs distinct and obscure events map quite precisely onto Deleuzes singular and ordinary events. Indeed, when Deleuze says that singular events are analytically prolonged over ordinary events, this must be understood in terms of the Leibnizian principle of sufficient reason which governs truths of fact in relation to worldly individuals. Thus: the sufficient reason why a first, obscure or ordinary event can be truly predicated of a given simple substance must be able to be seen in an analysis of the way in which a second, distinct or singular event can be truly predicated of another monad, and in such a way that the concept of this latter is apt to explain why the first event is included in the concept of the former, and so on, ad infinitum. The third point of correspondence between the Leibnizian and Deleuzian systems is thus that, insofar as singularities-events are analytically prolonged over series of ordinary events, and insofar as these series converge with series which depend on other singularities-events, a possible world is formed (LS, 109, 111). Conversely, therefore, another world, incompossible with the first, would begin in the neighbourhood of those singularities-events whose series diverge (LS, 109 translation modified). Now (and this is our fourth point), within such a compossible world, individuals are constituted which select and envelop a finite number of the singularities of the system. They combine them with the singularities that their own body incarnates [and] spread them out over their own ordinary lines (LS, 109). For Deleuze, therefore, just as for Leibniz, the individual parts of an individuals body are related in precisely the same way as individuals in general, that is, through the way in which the events which define them can be analytically prolonged over one another within a compossible world. As Deleuze writes, Leibniz was right to say that the individual expresses a world according to the relation of other bodies with its own, as much as it expresses this relation according to the relation of the parts of its own body (LS, 110). Now, in accordance with the Leibnizian system, Deleuze proceeds to argue that, to the extent that existing individuals are said to envelop singularities-events which
The notion of an individual includes considered as possible what, in fact, is true, that is, considerations related to the existence of things and to time. See Leibniz, Letter to Arnauld, May, 1686, in Philosophical Essays, 70.
have been analytically prolonged over ordinary events within a possible world, these convergent events must be said to have become, within this world, the analytic predicates of constituted subjects (LS, 112). This, then, is a fifth point of correspondence: singularities-events are effectively realized or actualized as the predicates or concurrent requisites of existing individuals. The analyticity of the individuals predicates follows from the idea that the individual simply is its realization of a particular slice of the continuum of singular and ordinary events which have been analytically prolonged over one another within a compossible world. Each expressing the entire world-series in a unique way, each determined individual thus expresses every other, but in variable and complementary degrees of clarity depending on the particular slice of the continuum of singularities-events they have been said to actualize (LS, 111). Viewed together severally, therefore, their bodies form mixtures and aggregates, variable associations with zones of clarity and obscurity (LS, 112). What is more, it follows from the analytic nature of the continuum of singularities-events that we can consider the relations between bodies as the analytic predicates of the mixtures they form (LS, 112). Deleuze, however, goes on to argue that contrary to certain aspects of the Leibnizian theory, it is necessary to assert that the analytic order of predicates is an order of coexistence or succession, with neither logical hierarchy nor the character of generality; having a colour is no more general than being green The increasing or decreasing generalities appear only when a predicate is determined in a proposition to function as the subject of another predicate. As long as predicates are brought to bear upon individuals, we must recognize in them equal immediacy which blends with their analytic character. To have a colour is no more general than to be green, since it is only this colour that is green, and this green that has this shade, that is related to the individual subject. This rose is not red without having the red colour of this rose. This red is not a colour without having the colour of this red (LS, 112). Although Deleuze does not indicate which aspects of the Leibnizian system he is arguing against, we may reconstruct the problem in the following way. In the Discourse on Metaphysics, 8, for example, Leibniz claims that, even though it is not determinate enough to constitute an individual, the general concept of king is nevertheless contained in the concept of Alexander the Great. Now, it is true that we can consider king to be a general concept which is composed of simpler concepts which spell out the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be a king. However, at the 64
worldly level of existences, because the analytic predicates of existence which determine existing and unique individuals in their expressive relations are derived from the continuum of singularities-events, the predicates of these individuals must be brought to bear on them with equal immediacy. It thus cannot be said at this level that the general concept king is contained in the complete individual concept of Alexander the Great insofar as Alexander the Great is the sovereign ruler of an independent state, acquired his title by heredity, etc. Rather, we must say that is king, such as this is predicated of Alexander, is no more general than predicates such as vanquishes Darius and Porus,62 etc., for it is only this individual who is king of Macedon between 336 and 323 B.C., this king which vanquishes Darius and Porus, this vanquisher of Darius and Porus who dies of poison in 323 B.C., and so on, through the infinite number of predicates (and their relations of simultaneity and succession) which determine the complete individual concept of Alexander the Great and his relation to other individuals over time (variable mixtures and aggregates). At this level, in other words, the analytic predicates of existence are akin to what are now called tropes or abstract particulars: abstract because they only ever concern a part of the individual concerned, but particular because they are wholly and completely localizable.63 This criticism notwithstanding, Deleuze concludes this section of his analysis and extension of certain Leibnizian concepts by writing that he identifies, following Leibniz, the domain of intuitions as immediate representations, the analytic predicates of existence, and the descriptions of mixtures or aggregates (LS, 113). And we have seen what these identifications amount to: the domain of intuitions refers to the harmoniousness of the world-series of convergent singularities-events (or Gods knowledge thereof, for Leibniz); the analytic predicates of existence are the existential determinations in relation to which individuals actualize particular slices of this world-series; and the description of mixtures or aggregates refers to the way in which relations of coexistence and succession between individuals and their bodies can be understood as a function of the analytic predicates of existence, and without implying conceptual generality. What will also be essential to retain from the above is that Deleuze follows Leibniz in arguing that the continuum of singularities-events is entirely
Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, 8. For a classic account of trope theory, see Donald C. Williams, On the Elements of Being, Review of Metaphysics 7 (1953-1954): 3-18 and 171-92. For a more contemporary account, see Cynthia Macdonald, Tropes and Other Things, in Contemporary Readings in the Foundations of Metaphysics, ed. Stephen Laurance and Cynthia Macdonald (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998).
distinct from the individuals who envelop or express clearly only a certain number of these singularities-events (LS, 111). In other words, while the expressed world does not exist outside of the monads which express it, the world must not be confused with the way in which it exists in the monads, for the world is defined, prior to the constitution of monads, as the convergence of singularities as they extend themselves over series of ordinary points (LS, 110). As Deleuze writes, while the world exists in the individual as a predicate, it subsists in an entirely different manner, as an event or a verb, in the singularities which preside over the constitution of individuals (LS, 111). We have spoken of the predicates which determine individual things as such (e.g., Adam is a sinner), but these predicates are themselves determined in relation to convergent series of pre-individual events (to sin, to be redeemed, etc.) which are only subsequently realized in determined, existing individuals (Adam, Christ, etc.). The question now, however, for Deleuze, is how the individual can transcend the world of compossible singularities-events in which it is determined in order to confront this world and constitute itself as a knowing subject in relation to objects of experience, as well as in relation to other such knowing subjects.64 Indeed, as was made clear in the previous chapter, the problem of understanding how events are ontologically primitive in relation to things is prolonged in the problem of how we are to have knowledge of these things through their events.65 In fact, there is in Deleuzes reading of Leibniz, as there is throughout The Logic of Sense, a fertile relation between these ontological and epistemological problems. They find their common denominator, as has already been seen in relation to the Stoics, in the idea that the ontologically primary pure event does not exist outside of the propositions constitutive of knowledge, be this a knowledge which, like sense, is forever being actualized. All this to say that the problem of knowledge here is essential.
Deleuze in fact formulates this problem with reference to the Fifth Meditation of Edmund Husserls Cartesian Meditations, trans. Dorion Cairns (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1960). However, since he draws on Leibniz in order to resolve this problem, it is on this latter philosopher that we shall here focus. As Deleuze writes: We cannot therefore follow Husserl when he puts into play the highest synthesis of identification inside a continuum, all the lines of which converge or concord To understand this operation, we must always return to the theatre of Leibniz and not to the cumbersome machinery of Husserl (LS, 113). It must be said, however, that Deleuze is not here simply following Leibnizs epistemology. Rather, he is taking up certain aspects of the Leibnizian system in order to spell out his own solution to this problem of knowledge. In what follows, we shall note the Leibnizian concepts, arguments, etc., which Deleuze takes up for his own purposes, but it should be remembered that these concepts, etc., are being re-determined in a non- (or, rather, neo-) Leibnizian way. 65 See Chapter 1, 17-20.
Now, we do not say that one individual knows another simply because they ontologically express one another within a compossible world. We would not say, for example, that a rock knows the hammer which breaks it apart, simply because of a lawlike or expressive relation between their concurrent requisites (to use the Leibnizian vocabulary). Rather, when we speak of knowledge, we speak of an individuals knowledge that such and such, where such and such has propositional content which may be exhibited in language in an intersubjective context. In other words, knowledge necessarily implies a relation between persons, and a relation between these persons and the world, which transcends their relations within a compossible world. Indeed, this is precisely why Deleuze, in the first instance, emphasizes relations between incompossible worlds for the determination of knowing subjects and the things they know. As he writes, the Ego as knowing subject appears when something is identified inside worlds which are nevertheless incompossible, and across series which are nevertheless divergent Only when something is identified between divergent series or between incompossible worlds, an object = x appears transcending individuated worlds, and the Ego which thinks it transcends worldly individuals, giving thereby to the world a new value in view of the new value of the subject which is being established (LS, 113). As examined above, a world is said to be incompossible with another when series of ordinary events, which depend upon a given singularity-event, diverge with series depending on another. Now, for Leibniz, since the created world is characterized by the universal convergence of series of events, such divergences must be only apparent: a by-product of the fact that no existing individual, save God, can carry out an infinite analysis of such converging series of events. Indeed, Leibniz often tells us that various evils that is, events such as the death of Christ, the betrayal of Judas, the murder of Caesar, Sextus Tarquins rape of Lucretia, etc. can appear to us to diverge with the world created by an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly benevolent God.66 This divergence, however, is only apparent, for it is based on the inability to appreciate that everything is of the highest perfection there can be, either because we lack Gods vision of the entire world-series, or because we cannot perform the calculations
See, for example, Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, 3; Theodicy, 414-416.
necessary to see that a world devoid of a given evil would be a comparatively less perfect world.67 Now, what is at stake here is that, following Deleuze, we can objectively define a positive relation that is, a relation which would no longer be, strictly speaking, one of exclusion between incompossible worlds in terms of a problem which refers to certain conditions which constitute it as a problem (LS, 113). As he writes, a problem has conditions which necessarily include ambiguous signs, or aleatory points, that is, diverse distributions of singularities to which different cases of solution correspond (LS, 114 translation modified). In spelling out the nature of these ambiguous signs, Deleuzes main references are Leibnizs Theodicy, one of Leibnizs letters to Arnauld, and a much earlier mathematical text, On the Method of Universality (1674).68 In relation to this latter work, Deleuze examines the way in which, in relation to conic sections, Leibniz attempts to find the formula, rule, equation or construction for which the equations of the various curves (circle, ellipse, hyperbola, parabola, straight line) are only particular cases.69 What is crucial is that this universal equation has ambiguous signs or characters which allow for the inclusion of the different cases of the conic section. These ambiguous characters are here of two forms: a sign, which may be either an addition, subtraction, or a series of such operations; and a letter, which may be a finite, an infinitely large or an infinitely small line or number. These characters, which are ambiguous or indeterminate in the general formula, may then be filled in by unambiguous signs, thereby generating the finite number of cases corresponding to the cases of conic section. In other words, the universal equation unifies and exhibits, within an objective problem, the relations among the series of apparently discontinuous cases of conic sections. As Emily Grosholz concludes, this equation, by exhibiting the conic sections as limit cases of one general equation, not only displays their mutual relations as a coherent system, but also explains many peculiar features of the special cases: why only the hyperbola
See particularly on this, G.W. Leibniz, On the Ultimate Origination of Things, in Philosophical Essays, 153-154. 68 G.W. Leibniz, De la mthode de luniversalit, in Opuscules et fragments indits de Leibniz, ed. Louis Couturat (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1961), partially translated as On the Method of Universality, in Leibniz Selections, ed. Philip P. Wiener (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1951). 69 See De la mthode de luniversalit, 115-117. See also on this Laurence Bouquiaux, La notion de point de vue dans llaboration de la mtaphysique leibnizienne, in Perspective Leibniz, Whitehead, Deleuze, ed. Benot Timmermans (Paris: Vrin, 2006), 34-35; and Simon Duffy, Deleuze, Leibniz and mathematics in the Fold, in Deleuze and The Fold: A Critical Reader, ed. Niamh McDonnell and Sjoerd van Tuinen (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming).
has asymptotes, why the parabola and the straight line do not have a centre while the other do, and so forth.70 So it is in this sense that Deleuze writes: the equation of conic sections expresses one and the same Event that its ambiguous sign subdivides into diverse events circle, ellipse, hyperbola, parabola, straight line. These diverse events form so many cases corresponding to the problem and determining the genesis of the solutions. We must therefore understand that incompossible worlds, despite their incompossibility, have something in common something objectively in common which represents the ambiguous sign of the genetic element in relation to which several worlds appear as cases of solution for one and the same problem (LS, 114 translation modified). Now, although Leibniz did not explicitly treat such ambiguous signs with respect to the relation between existences belonging to incompossible worlds, Deleuze finds several indications of such an operator in Leibnizs works. In particular, Deleuze understands the figure of Adam in one of the letters to Arnauld, as well as the figure of Sextus in the Theodicy, to be examples of such ambiguous signs. In other words, these figures are considered to be objectively indeterminate operators within an interworldly problem which is resolved by the way in which these operators take on particular, determinate values within the incompossible worlds forming the cases of solution to the problem. Thus, in his letter to Arnauld of July 14, 1686, Leibniz responds to Arnaulds criticism that it is no more possible to conceive of several possible Adams, if Adam be taken as a singular nature, than it is to conceive of several myselves, by writing that: when I speak of several [possible] Adams, I do not take Adam for a determined individual but for some person conceived in a relation of generality (sub ratione generalitatis), under circumstances which seem to us to determine Adam to be an individual but which do not truly do so sufficiently; as for instance, when we mean by Adam the first man, whom God puts in a pleasure garden, which he leaves through sin, and from whose side God makes a woman. But all this does not sufficiently determine him, and so there might be several other disjunctively possible Adams But that concept which determines a certain Adam must include, absolutely, all his predicates, and it is
Emily R. Grosholz, Studies for the Infinitesimal Calculus, in Representation and Productive Ambiguity in Mathematics and the Sciences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 212.
this complete concept which determines the relation of generality in such a way as to reach an individual (rationem generalitatis ad individuum).71 As Deleuze extrapolates: Within these [incompossible] worlds, there is, for example, an objectively indeterminate Adam, that is, an Adam positively defined solely through a few singularities which can be combined and can complement each other in a very different fashion in different worlds (to be the first man, to live in a garden, to give birth to a woman from himself, etc.). The incompossible worlds [thus] become the variants of the same story (LS, 114). As Deleuze notes, however, in the letter to Arnauld, such a vague Adam has no existence; he exists only in connection with our finite understanding, and his predicates are only generalities (LS, 346, n.4). In other words, Leibnizs primary aim here is to make a distinction between how finite individuals can conceive of a vague Adam (i.e., in relation to a few predicates of a general nature), and how God conceives of the complete individual concept of the existing Adam, with his infinity of determinate predicates. Deleuze, however, is more interested in defining the ambiguous sign common to incompossible worlds without passing through the distinction between God and his finite creatures. He thus turns to the figure of Sextus at the end of Leibnizs Theodicy. At the end of the Theodicy (413-417), Leibniz presents us with a story of the historical figure, Sextus Tarquin. Sextus goes one day to find the God, Jupiter, whom he beseeches to change his fate. Jupiter replies that were he to renounce the then kingdom of Rome, he would be given other destinies. Sextus, however, not being able to reconcile himself to the sacrifice of the crown, leaves Jupiters temple in a rage and abandons himself to his destiny such as we know it: to the rape of Lucretia which will bring about the collapse of the kingdom of Rome. Theodorus, the high priest, who has been watching this scene, asks Jupiter why he has not given Sextus another will. The God replies that Theodorus should go and see his daughter Pallas, who will show him what he, Jupiter, was obliged to do in order to create the world. Theodorus then finds himself transported with the goddess to the palace of destinies, where he sees representations not only of the real world but of all other possible worlds. What he sees in effect is a series of apartments organized in the form of a pyramid. In each apartment
Leibniz, Letter to Arnauld, July 14, 1686, in Philosophical Papers and Letters, 335.
there is a possible world filled with all of the individuals of that world including, each time, a different Sextus: a Sextus happy but mediocre in Corinth, a Sextus king of Thrace, etc. As Theodorus climbs the pyramid, these worlds with their various Sextuses become more and more beautiful, indeed, they become better, until finally at the summit he sees a representation of the real world, the most perfect of all, where Sextus leaves the temple, goes to Rome, rapes Lucretia, brings about the downfall of the kingdom, and so on. For Leibniz, of course, these pages are designed to show why God, even in his perfect goodness, could not not have chosen for existence the Sextus which we know, along with his evil deeds. For it is in comparing all of the possible worlds and their different Sextuses that we come to realize that the existence of the historical Sextus is an integral condition of the best of all possible worlds.72 Deleuzes interpretation of these passages, however, is that Leibniz is inviting us to consider the pyramid with its incompossible worlds as a problem which is susceptible to various orders or states. Within this problem, then, Sextus functions as an ambiguous sign, common to all the incompossible worlds making up the pyramid, insofar as these different worlds appear depending on the different ways in which he is determined. As Deleuze writes, we are no longer faced with an individuated world constituted by means of already fixed singularities, organized into convergent series, nor are we faced with determined individuals which express this world. We are now faced with the aleatory point of singular points, with the ambiguous sign of singularities, or rather with that which represents this sign, and which holds good for many of these worlds, or, in the last analysis, for all worlds, despite their divergences and the individuals which inhabit them (LS, 114). There is thus, following Deleuzes reading of Leibniz, a Sextus = x or, more generally, an object = x (LS, 114-115) which is common to a number of incompossible worlds, and which forms part of the objective conditions of the problem defining the positive or non-exclusionary relation between these worlds. These objects = x are thus no longer thought of as individuals determined in relation to an analytic continuum of singularities-events within a single compossible world, but rather as ambiguous signs which express a non-exclusionary relation between worlds perceived as incompossible.
See also on this, Christiane Frmont, Singularits, individus et relations dans le systme de Leibniz (Paris: Vrin, 2003), 79-103; and Sean Bowden, Deleuze, Leibniz and the Jurisprudence of Being, in Pli (The Warwick Journal of Philosophy) 17 (2006): 108-109.
Now, this shift from the determined individual to the object = x also signals the necessity to rethink the nature of the predicates which define such objects (or which would define them). As Deleuze explains, in relation to objects = x, predicates are no longer the analytic predicates of individuals determined within a world and carrying out the description of these individuals. They are rather predicates which define objects = x synthetically, and open different worlds and individualities to them as so many variables or possibilities. In other words, instead of each world being the analytic predicate of individuals described in series, it is rather the incompossible worlds which are the synthetic predicates of objects = x, insofar as these latter must be defined in relation to what Deleuze calls a disjunctive synthesis of these incompossible worlds (LS, 115). So how do these considerations respond to the problem of knowledge such as this was characterized above? First of all, insofar as it forms part of the conditions of the problematic relation between perceived incompossibilities, it is clear that the object = x transcends any particular individuated world. What is more, the individual which thinks, identifies, or synthetically defines this object = x in relation to these incompossible worlds, must itself transcend worldly individuals. Indeed, it must be at precisely the same instant that the individual gives to the world a new value through the determination of an object = x in relation to variables belonging to incompossible worlds, that it must itself be given a new value within this world. For, if individuals are relationally determined within a world in the way examined above (analytic continuum), then a world which is being supplemented with new values must entail corresponding new definitions for all of its related individuals. In other words, the individual which has become a knowing subject must also be said to be synthetically defined by the kind of incompossible predicates to which the object = x has exposed it. This is not, however, the end of the story. Deleuze proceeds to argue that all objects = x are persons. There is thus a vague Adam, that is, a vagabond, a nomad, an Adam = x common to several worlds, just as there is a Sextus = x or a Fang = x. In the end, there is something = x common to all worlds. All object = x are persons and are [synthetically] defined by predicates (LS, 114-115). Why are objects = x persons? This must be approached from two points of view. First of all, Deleuze writes that we are not so much concerned with the ambiguous sign per se, as with what represents this sign (LS, 114),73 and that which represents this sign could only be a
[I]ncompossible worlds, despite their incompossibility, have something in common something objectively in common which represents the ambiguous sign of the genetic element in relation to which
person or an I. As examined above in relation to the propositional dimension of manifestation, at least in the order of speech, it is the I which begins, and begins absolutely the I is primary, not only in relation to all possible denotations which are founded upon it, but also in relation to the significations which it envelops (LS, 15).74 In this sense, persons correspond with what Leibniz calls minds or spirits, that is, rational and conscious monads capable of thinking, willing and conversing among themselves. They not only perceive or represent the world relatively clearly and have memory, they are also capable of inference and reflexive self-consciousness and may approach Gods understanding of the world of which they are a part, though only with respect to a limited portion of it.75 Limited in this way, however, as argued above, persons may perceive apparent divergences in the world of which they are a part.76 It will thus be by representing an object = x that the person will be able to formulate the problem corresponding to incompossible worlds. On the other hand, however, Deleuze writes that objects = x simply are persons: Adam = x, Sextus = x, Fang = x, etc. So what could it mean to say that a person synthesizes incompossible worlds by representing an object = x, if this object = x is itself a person? In short, and although Leibniz never puts it in quite this way,77 it appears that Deleuze wants to argue that there is a Davidsonian-style process of triangulation at work here, whereby knowledge of the world cannot be separated from knowledge of oneself (ones beliefs, etc.) as well as knowledge of other persons or minds. the positive, non-exclusionary relation between
several worlds appear as instances of solution for one and the same problem We are now faced with the aleatory point of singular points, with the ambiguous sign of singularities, or rather with that which represents this sign (LS, 114 emphasis added). 74 See Chapter 1, 29-30. 75 Leibniz, Principles of Nature and Grace, 5 and 14-15: As regards the rational soul or mind, there is in it something more than in monads, or even in simple souls. It is not only a mirror of the universe of created things, but also an image of the Deity. The mind not only has a perception of the works of God, but is even capable of producing something like them, though on a small scale For this reason all minds entering as they do by virtue of reason and the eternal verities into a kind of society with God, are members of the City of God. See also Leibniz, Monadology, 29 and 83-84 and Discourse on Metaphysics, 34-36. 76 Nevertheless, following Leibniz, monads are always capable of making progress, that is, of extending the range of their clear perceptions (knowledge) or becoming more perfect. See, on this, Leibniz, On the Ultimate Origination of Things, in Philosophical Essays, 154-155; Principles of Nature and Grace, 18; Letter to Louis Bourguet, August 5, 1715, in Philosophical Papers and Letters, 664. Compare also New Essays, II, xxi, 41. 77 References in Leibniz to a commonwealth of minds or spirits, however, could be seen to provide indications in this direction. See Leibniz, Principles of Nature and Grace, 15; Monadology, 84 and Discourse on Metaphysics, 36.
Now, triangulation in Davidsons work is designed to respond to the problem of correlating a concept with some unknown object, but without presupposing the concept as already given. As he writes: It takes [at least] two points of view to give a location to the cause of a thought [i.e., perception], and thus to define its content. We may think of it as a form of triangulation: each of two people is reacting differentially to sensory stimuli streaming in from a certain direction. Projecting the incoming lines outward, the common cause is at their intersection. If the two people now note each others reactions (in the case of language, verbal reactions), each can correlate these observed reactions with his or her stimuli from the world. A common cause has been determined. The triangle which gives content to thought and speech is complete. But it takes two to triangulate.78 How can this concept of triangulation be translated back into the DeleuzianLeibnizian vocabulary we have here been employing? It is by arguing that the reason why objects = x are to be understood as persons, follows from the idea that the unknowns which condition the positive relation between incompossible worlds refer to a problematic relation between persons or knowing subjects. In other words, the knowing subject does not directly represent some unknown thing (object = x), which problematically defines a non-exclusionary relation between incompossible worlds. Rather, he or she stands in a problematic relation to another person in an intersubjective and linguistic context, and in such a way that the determination of the nature of this other person (i.e., their reactions to stimuli, verbal behaviour, behaviour vis--vis further persons, etc.) is a necessary condition for the determination of the positive relation between incompossible worlds. So, in a manner not unlike our Sextus = x, such a person will be said to be common to those incompossible worlds which are to be determined as a function of the how this person is determined, that is, in terms of their beliefs, behaviours, etc. But by the same token, these incompossible worlds will be said to condition the determination of this person. For it is precisely in relation to the determination of the nature of the individuals belonging to these worlds (or rather, belonging to the world which will be said to be common to these divergent worlds) that this person will be determined. In short, the problem of the relation between incompossible worlds will be resolved to the extent that a three-fold determination takes place: that of the knowing subject (its beliefs, etc.), that of the other person (their
Donald Davidson, Three Varieties of Knowledge, in Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001), 212-213.
beliefs, etc.), and that of a world of individuals which can be said to be common to the incompossible worlds. This three-fold determination thus conforms to Deleuzes resolution of the problem of knowledge, such as this was examined above: when something is identified between divergent series or between incompossible worlds, an object = x or person appears transcending individuated worlds, and the person which thinks it itself transcends worldly individuals, thereby giving to the world a new value in view of the new value of the subject which is being established. And as was also examined above, for Deleuze, these persons are defined by predicates: no longer the analytic predicates of individuals determined within a world which carry out the description of these individuals, but predicates which define persons synthetically in relation to disjunctive syntheses of incompossible worlds, opening these divergent worlds and their corresponding individuals to them as so many variables or possibilities. Now, in Leibniz, there is a person who is common to all possible worlds: God. As Deleuze writes, as far as the absolutely common object in general is concerned, with respect to which all worlds are variables, its predicates are the first possibles [premiers possibles] or the categories The universal Ego is, precisely, the person corresponding to something = x common to all worlds, just as the other egos are the persons corresponding to a particular thing = x common to several worlds (LS, 115 translation modified). The first possibles, in this citation, refer of course to the irreducible concepts or absolute attributes of God.79 As has been seen, for Leibniz, the maximally compossible world of singularities-events is determined and brought into existence as a function of the perfections of God, and it is for this precise reason that the incompossibilities perceived by the individuals of this world are merely apparent. Yet this is only another way of saying that God, as a determined object = x, is absolutely common to these apparently incompossible worlds. Conversely, if finite, created individuals were able to show that perceived incompossibilities are in fact integral parts of the same, maximally compossible world the best of all possible worlds then these
Leibniz uses these terms as synonyms in Meditations on Knowledge, Truth, and Ideas, in Philosophical Papers and Letters, 293. The categories mentioned in this citation, on the other hand, refer to the synthetic a priori concepts which define the unity of apperception in Kant, insofar as these allow diverse appearances to be brought together in a law-like manner for the knowing subject. However, we shall not here deal with Deleuzes critique of Kant, except to say that Kant treats the knowing subject as an origin rather than as a produced form in accordance with the ontological priority of events over substances (see LS, 97-98, 105).
individuals would have effectively proved that God, in choosing this world for existence, evils and all, is all wise, all powerful, all good, etc.80 Leibnizs God, therefore, can be thought of in this sense as a person, determined in a triangular structure along with other persons and worldly individuals. Nevertheless, it is also clear that Leibnizs ontological proof for the nature and existence of God requires no recourse to such triangulation, relying as it does only on the principle of contradiction.81 Indeed, it is precisely because the nature of God can be determined independently in this way that the convergence of series of singularitiesevents is guaranteed and that perceived incompossibilities are merely apparent. Crucially, then, for the problem which guides our work in this chapter, Leibniz ultimately determines the ideal play of singularities-events with reference to an underlying substance: God. In other words, individuals and persons, for Leibniz, are not determined by singularities-events all the way down. Rather, the events which determine individuals and persons are themselves determined with reference to God. How, then, must the Leibnizian system be modified such that it can be said that events, considered only from the point of view of their ideal play, govern the genesis of worldly things? In short, following Deleuze, two requirements must be met: divergences must be affirmed as divergences, and the persons who are common to these divergences must always be considered as produced forms, brought about only by the play of converging and diverging events (LS, 113, 116, 172). Indeed, these two requirements are interrelated, for if persons are always derived from the play of events, there can be no original point of view from which it can be said that divergent worlds are reducible to the same world which is in principle identifiable; and conversely, if incompossible worlds are affirmed as incompossible, then persons, unable to finally
As Deleuze notes in his later work on Leibniz, being simple and infinite perfections, the primary terms, without relations in themselves, acquire relations by becoming the requisites or the definers of the derived, thereby bringing about the inherence of the divine attributes in the supreme monad: God. See The Fold, 46. See also on this Bowden, Deleuze, Leibniz and the Jurisprudence of Being, 110-111. See also Christiane Frmonts work on Leibnizs Theodicy. She argues that the story of Sextus Tarquin is designed to illustrate how we must understand that is, by comparing, for example, the effects which ensue from differently determined Sextuses how historical evils are not divergences from, but rather the conditions of, the best of all possible worlds. It follows from such a juridical proof that God must be all good, all wise, all powerful, etc. As she writes, one only justifies God by showing how evil is necessary. See Singularits, individus et relations, 86. 81 See note 23, above.
resolve divergences, remain forever open to further determinations within the above analyzed structure of triangulation.82 With regard to the first requirement of affirming divergences, Deleuze writes that Leibniz did not attain the free character of this play [of singularities-events], since he neither wanted nor knew how to breathe enough chance into it, or to make of divergence an object of affirmation as such (LS, 113-114).83 What, then, does it mean to affirm divergences? We shall return to this question at greater length in Chapter 3, but Deleuze does expand upon this idea in the Twenty-Fourth Series of the Communication of Events, immediately after his critique of the Stoics and his heralding of Leibniz as the first (though obviously not the last) important theoretician of the event (LS, 171). In this series, Deleuze argues that to affirm divergences means that different things must be affirmed through difference rather than through identity. In other words, instead of a form of identity determining things in their differences, it must be difference itself which relates things together insofar as they are different (LS, 172-173). What this implies is that, instead of a certain number of predicates being excluded from a thing insofar as this would contradict the form of identity, each thing must be open to the infinity of predicates through which it passes (LS, 174). Or to put it another way, as Deleuze does somewhat poetically, we must speak of the communication of series of singularities-events, no longer with reference to a world (cosmos), but within a chaosmos (chaos-cosmos) (LS, 174). What then causes events to communicate within this affirmative synthetic disjunction is the erection of a paradoxical instance which traverses the divergent series as divergent and causes them to resonate (LS, 174). But in fact, we have examined this paradoxical instance
As Deleuze puts it in The Fold, 137: Leibnizs monads submit to two conditions, one of closure and the other of selection. On the one hand, they include an entire world that does not exist outside of them; on the other, this world takes for granted a first selection, of convergence, since it is distinguished from other possible but divergent worlds, excluded by the monads in question Now the selection is what tends to be disappearing, first of all and in every way [N]ot only are dissonances excused from being resolved, divergences can be affirmed But when the monad is in tune with divergent series that belong to incompossible worlds, then the other condition is what disappears: it could be said that the monad, astraddle over several worlds, is kept half open as if by a pair of pliers (translation modified). 83 When, later on in The Logic of Sense, Deleuze writes that Leibniz makes use of this rule of incompossibility in order to exclude events from one another, this should be understood at the level of the different worlds compossible in themselves but incompossible with one another in the understanding of God. In other words, God will choose only one of these worlds for existence, thereby excluding a relation between incompossible events in reality. In this sense, Leibniz makes a negative use of divergence. As Deleuze writes, however, this is justified, however, only to the extent that events are already grasped under the hypothesis of a God who calculates and chooses, and from the point of view of their actualization in distinct worlds or individuals. It is no longer justified, however, if we consider the pure events and the ideal play whose principle Leibniz was unable to grasp, hindered as he was by theological exigencies (LS, 172).
above as the object = x or person common to incompossible worlds. It now follows that if we are to affirm divergences as such, the person can never be reduced to the form of identity in the manner of Leibnizs God, who calculates and chooses the maximally convergent world of singularities-events to the exclusion of all else. This is what Deleuze means when he writes that, in affirming divergences, the ideational centre of convergence is by nature perpetually decentred, it serves only to affirm divergence (LS, 174-175). This leads us to our second point: that of understanding this paradoxical instance this person as always produced and never as originary. Indeed, Deleuze writes that, in truth, the person is Ulysses, no one [elle nest personne] properly speaking, but a produced form, derived from this impersonal transcendental field (LS, 116). Deleuze is here playing on the homophony between the French noun personne or person and the pronoun personne or nobody, but there is also a deeper, philosophical transformation at stake. Indeed, we have seen how the person is determined as such (in their beliefs, behaviours, etc.) within a triangular structure involving another person and an object of experience, and such that each point of the triangle must be determined only in relation to the other two. Within such a structure, therefore, there is no unproduced point of view: every point of view could only be a result. If, however, there are no unproduced points of view, then there is no guarantee that perceived divergences could be reduced to a convergence, from which it also follows that persons remain open to further determinations. In this sense, the person is never an underlying substance but itself an event, produced entirely by the play of singularities-events. Deleuze confirms this productive relation of triangulation in the later Twenty-Fifth Series of Univocity when he writes that it is necessary for the individual to grasp himself as an event; and that he also grasp the event actualized within him as another individual grafted onto him. In this case, he would not understand, want, or represent this event without also understanding and wanting all other events as individuals, and without representing all other individuals as events [T]he individual, born of what comes to pass, affirm[s] his distance [i.e., difference] with respect to every other event. As the individual affirms the distance, he follows and joins it, passing through all the other individuals implied by the other events, and extracts from it a unique Event which is once again himself (LS, 178 translation modified).84
It is clear from the context here that for individual in this citation, we should read either person or individual or person, but only insofar as, by person, we understand nobody: a produced form. The
Or again, more poetically, in the Twenty-Fourth Series of the Communication of Events: Leibniz subjected the points of view to exclusive rules such that each opened itself onto the others only insofar as they converged: the points of view on the same town [O]n the contrary, the point of view is opened onto a divergence which it affirms: another town corresponds to each point of view, each point of view is another town, the towns are linked only by their distance and resonate only through the divergence of their series, their houses and their streets. There is always another town within the town [D]ivergence is no longer a principle of exclusion, and disjunction no longer a means of separation. Incompossibility is now a means of communication (LS, 173174).85 But now a question arises: if, for Deleuze, persons are always produced, if, in other words, there is no uncreated creator, what brings about the convergence of singularities-events which determine worldly individuals in the first place? Deleuze does not address this point directly, even though he continues to maintain that [i]ndividuals are infinite analytic propositions even after affirming that the person is nobody (LS, 118). So how must the individual and its analytic predicates of existence now be understood, in the absence of Gods divine ordering of them? It appears that Deleuze wants to argue, relatively uncontroversially, that the individual concepts which make up a world must, quite simply, be consistent with one another. In other words, if something is an individual in a given world, its concept must be consistent with those of the other individuals in that world. Indeed, this is only another way of saying that the world in question, if it is to be a world, must be law-like. Therefore, insofar as it is necessary for the definition of worldly individuals as such, the notion of consistency or rather, of convergence will be an integral part of the Deleuzian system. Thus, even if worldly consistency is no longer grounded in a divine act as it is for Leibniz, this
idea of grasping the event being actualized within me as another individual or person grafted onto me is no doubt a means of recalling this passage from the much earlier series which has been the focus of much of our work in this chapter: the Sixteenth Series of the Static Ontological Genesis. In truth, the person is Ulysses, no one [elle nest personne] properly speaking, but a produced form And the individual is always anyone [i.e., any individual, quelconque], born, like Eve from Adams rib, from a singularity prolonged [prolonge] over a line of ordinary points and starts from the pre-individual transcendental field (LS, 116 emphasis added and translation modified). 85 This citation is related to a comparison of Leibnizs point of view and Nietzsches perspectivism. While Deleuze affirms that Nietzsches perspectivism affirms divergence in the way in which we have analysed it here, he does not show how Nietzsche provides the conceptual machinery necessary for such an affirmation. As such, we have chosen to focus on other figures in developing our argument: not only Leibniz, but also, as will be seen in Chapters 3 and 4, Lautman, Simondon and various structuralists.
convergence will still be understood as the analytic prolongation of singular events over series of ordinary events, up to the neighbourhood of another singularity-event; and this convergence of series of events will still be ontologically prior to the way in which determined individuals will be said to express this continuum or world-series in their variably clear and obscure concurrent requisites. Now, if consistency or convergence is a necessary requirement for the determination of a world and the individuals which express it in law-like ways, how must we understand the further idea, examined above, that individuals are determined by relations between persons who are common to divergent worlds? First of all, it has been said that divergent worlds appear as a consequence of the fact that persons are, like any worldly thing, finite with respect to their clear expression, that is, with respect to the corporeal zone of expression or perceptual apparatus in terms of which they express their relations with the world (LS, 118). And again, that knowing subjects are finite in this way is, since Kant, a relatively uncontroversial claim. Nevertheless, as has also been seen, persons transcend their immediate worldly determinations insofar as they bring about syntheses of divergent worlds within a triangular structure simultaneously implicating other persons and a world of determined individuals which will be said to be common to the incompossible worlds. As Deleuze puts it, persons are grounded on individuals and, conversely, individuals are grounded by the person (LS, 118). With respect to these syntheses, then, the person as a knowing subject will be said to have been synthetically defined in relation to the divergent worlds. On the other hand, in accordance with the requirement noted above, the world of individuals common to the incompossible worlds will still be said to have resulted from a continuum of converging singularities-events; but now, this convergence must be considered to have been generated by the same synthesis of incompossible worlds which defined the knowing subject. In other words, even though convergence is a necessary relation with respect to determined worlds and worldly individuals, this must here be seen to be generated by prior divergences and their disjunctive syntheses in relation to persons. Several other important points must also be borne in mind in relation to this synthesis of incompossible worlds. First of all, because syntheses of divergent worlds are brought about by persons taken from the point of view of their finite zone of clear expression, these syntheses must themselves be considered to be finite. Secondly, as has been seen, since there is no original substance which would guarantee the reducibility 80
of divergences to an underlying convergence, persons and individuals will always remain open to further determinations. Indeed, Deleuze puts these two points together when he argues that persons are finite synthetic propositions: finite with respect to their definition, indefinite with respect to their application (LS, 118). Thirdly and finally, because the continuum of converging singularities-events is, on the one hand, a necessary relation for the determination of worlds and worldly individuals, and on the other hand, effectively generated by any number of prior syntheses of divergent worlds, it must be considered to be at once basic and infinitely divisible. In relation to this infinitely divisible continuum, then, individuals must correspondingly be understood to be infinite analytic propositions, that is, infinite with respect to what they obscurely express, but finite with respect to their clear expression (LS, 118). In other words, while in Leibniz individuals were held to be infinite analytic propositions because they expressed in various and complementary degrees of clarity and obscurity the same infinite world brought into existence by God, in Deleuze they are infinite analytic propositions because they express a chaosmos which is infinitely divisible in relation to persons understood as nobody: an aleatory point of singular points (LS, 114, 176). As Deleuze poetically expresses it: Everything [now] happens through the resonance of disparates, point of view on a point of view, displacement of perspective, differentiation of difference It is true that the form of the self ordinarily guarantees the connection of a series; that the form of the world guarantees the convergence of continuous and prolongable series; and that the form of God, as Kant had clearly seen, guarantees disjunction in its exclusive or limitative sense. But when disjunction accedes to the principle which gives to it a synthetic and affirmative value, the self, the world, and God share in a common death, to the advantage of divergent series as such The divergence of the affirmed series forms a chaosmos and no longer a world; the aleatory point which traverses them forms a counter-self, and no longer a self; the disjunction posed as a synthesis exchanges its theological principle for a diabolic principle Nothing other than the Event subsists, the Event alone which communicates with itself through its own distance and resonates across all of its disjuncts (LS, 175-176 translation modified). So, in accordance with the problem with which we began this chapter, it can now be seen how individuals and persons are mutually determined, and in an ongoing way, by relations of convergence and divergence between singularities-events and without any reference to an underlying, substantial unity. This is precisely what Deleuze means by the static ontological genesis. But now, what about the dimension of 81
conceptual signification? How can general concepts be said to be determined by this ideal play of events? It should be noted that Deleuze addresses this issue in very sparing terms. Nevertheless, in light of our above analyses, several highly condensed passages in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Series can be seen to provide us with sufficient signposts to reconstruct this static logical genesis. Deleuze writes that the variables which realize the possibilities of a person must be treated as concepts which necessarily signify classes and properties, and therefore as essentially affected by an increasing or decreasing generality (LS, 115). What does this mean? The first point that should be made is that these properties and classes are quite distinct from the individual aggregates of the first level (LS, 115). Indeed, we saw that the analytic predicates of existence at this first level were akin to tropes or abstract particulars, to the extent that they are as individual as the things they characterize. Insofar as they translate actual structures, then, determined individuals and persons considered in relation to these predicates of existence are ontological propositions (LS, 118). Generalities, on the contrary, appear only when [such] a predicate is determined in a [logical] proposition to function as the subject of another predicate (LS, 112). In other words, generalities appear to be, in Deleuze, founded upon structured classes of tropes or actual events.86 But the whole question is: what grounds this structuring operation? In fact, Deleuze posits a relation of mutual determination between logical and ontological propositions, a relation which is itself grounded on the person. As Deleuze explains, while on the one hand, the variables which effectively come to realize the possibilities of a person must be treated as general concepts which necessarily signify classes and properties, on the other hand, these properties and classes are themselves grounded in the order of the person. This is because persons themselves are primarily classes having one single member, and their predicates are properties having one constant. Each person is the sole member of his or her class, a class which is, nevertheless, constituted by the worlds, possibilities, and individuals which pertain to it. Classes as multiples, and properties as variables, derive from these classes with one single member and these properties with one constant (LS, 115).
On properties as classes of tropes, compare Macdonald, Tropes and Other Things, 334; John Bacon, Universals and Property Instances (Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell, 1995), 13-19; and Keith Campbell, Abstract Particulars (Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell, 1990), 81-85. For these authors, such classes are determined by variable and overlapping relations of similarity or resemblance.
Now, it is common for trope theorists to say that an individual is strictly equivalent to its set of compresent tropes.87 Deleuze, however, wants to extend this idea to persons who, as has been seen, are understood as synthetically defined in relation to incompossible worlds within a triangular structure implicating other such persons and what will be a world of individuals common to these incompossible worlds. What is interesting here is thus that the incompossible worlds implicated in the process of triangulation or disjunctive synthesis are structurally or virtually compresent with the person who is helping to bring about this synthesis. It thus follows that in order to (re-)define persons and individuals within a world which would be common to these incompossible worlds, relations must be sought between the individual tropes constitutive of the entities expressing these different possible worlds. These relations will thus effectively be realized by means of variable and overlapping classes of tropes, that is to say, in relation to the logical proposition, in concepts of increasing and decreasing generality. As Deleuze puts it with his characteristic (and often frustrating) brevity, while a particular world or garden may contain a red rose, there are in other worlds or in other gardens roses which are not red and flowers which are not roses (LS, 115). What Deleuze is gesturing to with this example is a synthesis of related and overlapping classes of tropes at different levels of generality: a trope of redness the class of all reds the class of all colours; a trope of roseness the class of all roses the class of all flowers, etc. These general classes allow us to determine a world of individuals common to incompossible worlds, that is to say, a world of differently coloured types of flower which had initially belonged to divergent gardens. What is more, once these classes and properties are determined, the individuals and persons which can be said to be common to the divergent worlds will be said to exemplify (participate in, instantiate, etc.) these properties, precisely because these overlapping relations between tropes are established by the process of triangulation whose very aim was the determination of these persons and common individuals.88 Again, it is by exemplifying in various ways the properties resulting from synthesized classes of tropes that individuals and persons will be said to share one and the same world.
See on this, Macdonald, Tropes and Other Things, 335; and Williams, On the Elements of Being,
9. This, then, is the Deleuzian evental solution to the problem of the relation between general properties and particular objects of experience, as much as it is to the problem of the fundamental link between the concept and the Ego (LS, 115).
Deleuze sums up this relation of mutual determination between logical and ontological propositions when he writes that, even though classes and properties ontologically depend on a relation between persons in an intersubjective and linguistic context, these classes are in fact embodied in the logical proposition. Or, put another way, insofar as they ontologically refer to a relation between persons, structured classes of tropes constitute the real condition or form of possibility of the logical proposition. But at the same time, within the logical proposition, they constitute this form of possibility only insofar as the individuals and persons to which they refer realize or exemplify the relations constitutive of the logical proposition: denotation (the individual), manifestation (the person) and signification (general concepts and conceptual relations characterizing individuals and persons). In Deleuzes own words: The third element of the ontological genesis, namely the multiple classes and variable properties which in turn depend on persons, is not embodied in a third proposition which would again be ontological. Rather, this element sends us over [nous fait passer] to another order of the proposition. It constitutes the condition or the form of possibility of the logical proposition in general. In relation to this condition and simultaneously within it, individuals and persons no longer play the role of ontological propositions. They act now as material instances which realize the possibility and determine within the logical proposition the relations necessary to the existence of the conditioned (conditionn): the relation of denotation as the relation to the individual (the world, the state of affairs, the aggregate, individuated bodies); the relation of manifestation as the relation to the personal; and the relation of signification defined by the form of possibility. We are thus better able to understand the complexity of the question: what is primary in the order of the logical proposition? For, if signification is primary as the condition or form of possibility, it nevertheless refers to manifestation, to the extent that the multiple classes and variable properties defining signification are grounded, in the ontological order, upon the person; as for the manifestation, it refers to denotation to the extent that the person is grounded upon the individual (LS, 118-119 translation modified). After laying out the static logical genesis in this way, Deleuze goes on to emphasize that, although individuals, persons and general concepts are produced by disjunctive syntheses in an intersubjective and linguistic context that is, in a relation of mutual determination between the ontological and the logical proposition these two types of proposition remain irreducible to one another. As he writes, reiterating the essential aspects of what we have called the process of triangulation:
between the logical genesis and the ontological genesis there is no parallelism. There is rather a relay which permits every sort of shifting and jamming. It is therefore too simple to argue for the correspondence between the individual and denotation, the person and manifestation, multiple classes or variable properties and signification. It is true that the relation of denotation may only be established in a world which is subject to the various aspects of individuation, but this is not sufficient. Besides continuity, denotation requires that an identity be posited and made dependent upon the manifest order of the person. This is what we previously indicated when we said that denotation presupposes manifestation. Conversely, when the person is manifested or expressed in the proposition, this does not occur independently of individuals, states of affairs, or states of bodies, which, not content with being denoted, form so many cases and possibilities in relation to the persons desires, beliefs, or constitutive projects. Finally, signification presupposes the formation of a good sense which comes about with individuation, just as the formation of a common sense finds its source in the person. It implicates an entire play of denotation and manifestation both in the power to affirm premises and in the power to state the conclusion. There is therefore, as we have seen, a very complex structure in view of which each of the three relations of the logical proposition is, in turn, primary. This structure as a whole forms the tertiary arrangement of language (LS, 119). We can thus finally see what we wanted to show in this chapter, namely, that the tertiary arrangement of language, and the circular relation between its dimensions, is entirely produced by relations of convergence and divergence between singularitiesevents, and without any reference to any underlying, substantial unity such as Leibnizs God or the Stoics Zeus. In other words, Deleuze has effectively re-described, in neoLeibnizian terms, the unconditioned fourth dimension of sense which makes the tridimensional model of the proposition function entirely from within. Indeed, not only does this play of singularities-events engender the logical proposition with its determinate dimensions (denotation, manifestation, and signification); it engenders also the objective correlates of this proposition which were themselves first produced as ontological propositions (the denoted, the manifested and the signified) (LS, 120).89 This fourth dimension of sense is thus nothing other than the static genesis itself, taken in both its ontological and logical aspects.
In fact, there arises here a further problem which will not be dealt with until we examine Deleuzes relation to psychoanalysis in Chapter 5. This problem can be formulated in the following way (see LS, 124): if relations of convergence and divergence between singularities-events entirely produce [i]ndividuation in bodies, the measure in their mixtures, the play of persons and concepts in their variations, what does it now mean to say, as we did in Chapter 1, that the event is produced by bodies? In short, it must be in a different way that the event is produced by bodies. The question for Chapter 5 will thus be: how can bodies taken in their undifferentiated depth themselves produce the events which individuate them and engender the logical proposition with its determinate dimensions?
It has thus been seen in this chapter how Deleuze initially follows Leibniz in arguing that the determination of individuals and persons or monads in the Leibnizian vocabulary presuppose relations of convergence and divergence between singularitiesevents. However, for Deleuze, Leibniz was not able to reach the point of affirming the ontological priority of events over substances, since, for him, relations between events are ultimately determined with reference to a given, divine substance. Leibniz, let us recall, only made a negative use of divergence, insofar as his God brings into existence a single, maximally compossible world, and excludes from existence anything incompossible with this world. Deleuze, however, extending certain Leibnizian concepts such as the ambiguous sign, argues that divergence must rather be affirmed as such. This affirmation of divergence effectively consists of the erection of a paradoxical instance the object = x or person understood as nobody which causes all of the divergent series of events to communicate through their differences. Within a triangular structure implicating other such persons, a world common to the incompossible worlds, and language or the logical proposition, disjunctive syntheses are then carried out which generate determined individuals, persons, concepts and their relations. Now, in order to explain Deleuzes relation to and critique of Leibniz, we have imported several philosophical concepts which cannot, strictly speaking, be found in The Logic of Sense: triangulation and tropes, in particular. We believe that these concepts capture, in a very precise way, what is at stake in Deleuzes dpassement of Leibniz. Nevertheless, Deleuze himself refers to other concepts and philosophical figures in order to develop his neo-Leibnizian take on the ontological priority of events. These concepts and figures will be the subject of Chapter 3.
Chapter 3: Deleuze, Lautman and Simondon
______________________________________________________________________ Let us examine the ground covered thus far. First of all, we examined how, after analyzing what is entailed by verbs of becoming in denoting propositions, Deleuze argues that events must be understood as ideal changes which are ontologically prior to individuated states of affairs. While they are not themselves objectively present or localizable, Deleuze maintains that they are nevertheless the prior condition for the constitution of new, present states of affairs, as well as for the simultaneous constitution of those presents which are determined as past with respect to these new presents. In other words, events picked out by verbs of becoming both express problematic relations between states of affairs (relations which elude the present), and determine these states in their temporal relations (past present, present present). It was also seen that events have a necessary relation to language. Indeed, when it comes to our knowledge of worldly things and their relations, what is crucial is how the events which determine their states are themselves determined, ordered and related using language. At the same time, however, it is clear that the present capacity of language and language speakers to undertake such a determination of events depends on supplementary events which could themselves only be determined at some future moment. The major question, then, for Deleuzes philosophy of the event is thus: given the ontological priority of events and their relation to language, what are the conditions of the event if everything, including the very language in which events are determined, must ultimately be reducible to events? We then saw how Deleuze turns to the Stoics in order to approach an answer to this problem. In particular, we observed that Deleuze takes up the Stoic ontological distinction between bodies and incorporeals, which itself implies a distinction, within Stoic logic, between the reference and sense of propositions. By comparing the event with the Stoic incorporeal sayable, which is both an effect of causal relations between bodies and the sense of propositions, Deleuze was able to affirm that events occurring in physical states of affairs (Chronos) must themselves be determined in relation to an ideal sense-event (Aion) which is nothing other than the ongoing articulation of a relation between the causal analysis of bodies, conceptual structure and
development, and the personal or ethical manifestation of the wise persons beliefs and desires. It was also seen how this Stoic understanding of sense or the event resolved two further problems. The first of these problems was described as the circularity of the definition of sense, or rather, the fact that the sense of the proposition is only ever deferred in a circular manner between the three dimensions of the proposition commonly identified in contemporary philosophy: denotation, manifestation and signification. The second problem was identified as the conflict also apparent in contemporary theories of the proposition between understanding the dimension of signification as the condition of possibility for a proposition to be true and, on the other hand, maintaining that the truth or falsity of a proposition is a matter of its correspondence (or lack thereof) with an objective state of affairs. With reference to the Stoics, Deleuze attempted to resolve these problems by arguing, first of all, that the ongoing determination of sense or the event should be seen as a fourth dimension of the proposition which determines the other three: causal analysis being aligned with denotation, the sages beliefs and desires with manifestation, and conceptual development with signification. But it also follows from this that, insofar as the ongoing determination of the sense-event generates the relation between the dimensions of signification and denotation, a relation is established, within sense, between sense as the condition of truth and the truth of propositions in relation to their corresponding, determined objects. Nevertheless, because the Stoics ultimately determined the senseevent, not with reference to the infinitely divisible Aion or the unique Event, but with reference to an underlying substance the body and name of Zeus Deleuze was obliged to look elsewhere for the conceptual tools needed to develop his philosophy of the event. Turning to Leibniz, Deleuze was then able to affirm, from a different perspective, how relations of convergence and divergence between series of singularities-events precede and generate the individuals, persons and general concepts with which we are ordinarily familiar. In particular, it was seen how individuals and persons must initially be considered as ontological propositions in relation to the trope-like individual events which characterize them in their expressive relations with one another within a world-series of compossible or convergent events. It was also observed that, because they clearly express only a finite portion of this world, persons perceive divergences between series of events. In relation to disjunctive syntheses of 88
such divergences, then, persons were seen to transcend their worldly relations and bring new values to the world. These disjunctive syntheses were held to be akin to events of knowing within a triangular structure implying the simultaneous and related determinations of: the knowing subject, another such subject, and a world of individuals common to the divergent worlds. While in Leibniz such syntheses are carried out in relation to the person of God, to whose coherent vision of things all divergences are reducible, in Deleuze, on the contrary, there is no such original and substantial form. Rather, persons are always produced and remain open to divergences or differences which, in the absence of an underlying convergence, must be affirmed as such. Finally, it was seen how general concepts are determined in this synthesis of diverging events which are compresent with the person, that is, in relation to the genesis of variable and overlapping classes of tropes which will be exemplified by the individuals and persons precisely insofar as they can be said to be common to the incompossible worlds. In this and the following chapter, we shall examine how Deleuze once again takes up these event-related problems, but goes beyond the Stoic and Leibnizian responses, by speaking of events as singularities which bear exclusively on problems, define their conditions, and generate solutions, that is, determined individuals, persons and concepts (LS, 52, 54). As he writes, we can speak of events only as singularities deployed in a problematic field, in the vicinity of which the solutions are organized (LS, 56). In fact, we shall see how, by means of these concepts of singularity and the problem, Deleuze completely revisits and re-solves the eventrelated problems examined in Chapters 1 and 2, transforming or re-founding in the process many of the conceptual solutions advanced therein. In particular, we shall see how Deleuze develops his concept of the problem in such a way that it accounts for the internal genesis of both the sense and the truth of propositions, along with the object which realizes this truth, and without reference to anything transcending the problem and determining it from the outside. For Deleuze, every true proposition will express a sense or a singularity-event, but this sense or singularity-event will itself be determined in relation to a sub-representative problem for which such propositions collectively function as elements of response or cases of solution. A true proposition, in other words, will make sense, in both the active and passive senses of this phrase, in relation to a sub-representative problem: it will be made sense of by the problem, just as it will contribute to making sense of the problem. As he writes, sense or the event is expressed as the problem to which propositions correspond insofar as they indicate 89
particular responses, signify instances of a general solution, and manifest subjective acts of resolution (LS, 121). In other words, sense, understood in this problematic way, must be understood as the fourth dimension of the proposition, which will engender the other three dimensions of the proposition (LS, 121). As for the nature of the objective correlates of these three dimensions, to which the sense of particular propositions will apply and which will realize the truth of these propositions, these will be engendered at precisely the same time that the problem [internally] determines itself (LS, 121). The truth of a proposition will thus be a matter of the propositions correspondence to an evental state of affairs determined within the problem, rather than a factual state of affairs existing independently of the problem. The internal determination of the problem must, therefore, be understood to be equivalent to the neoLeibnizian, static ontological and logical geneses, which were the focus of Chapter 2. Now, as will be seen, Deleuze ultimately characterizes the problem as the reciprocal, complete and progressive determination of purely differential elements by means of the adjunction and transformation of singularities-events, where singularities-events are understood to correspond to the values of relations between differential elements, and where differential elements are in turn determined by syntheses of singularities-events. In other words, the ongoing process of determining the elements of the problem is carried out in relation to singularities-events and, as an ongoing process, must itself be considered to be the evental determination of these events. By conceiving of the problem in this manner, then, Deleuze revisits two other event-related problems examined above. First of all, insofar as the problem is fully evental in the way just mentioned, it effectively conceptualizes the way in which events are always ontologically prior to things. In the second place, by means of the concepts of singularity and problem, Deleuze is able avoid treating the person as a substantial thing to which the play of events must be reduced.1 Indeed, at the end of Chapter 2, it was noted that in order to explicate Deleuzes extension of certain aspects of the Leibnizian system, in particular with respect to persons or minds, we were obliged to consider a concept which does not itself appear in The Logic of Sense: that of triangulation. While this concept clearly encapsulates what is at stake in Deleuzes neoLeibnizianism, Deleuze himself moves beyond Leibniz by elaborating the concepts of singularity and the problem (also called variously the problematic field, metaphysical
In the manner of Leibniz, but also, in different ways, in the manner of Kant and Husserl (LS, 99).
surface, transcendental field, unconscious surface or, more simply the problematic).2 As Deleuze writes: We seek to determine an impersonal and pre-individual transcendental field, which does not resemble the corresponding empirical fields, and which nevertheless is not confused with an undifferentiated depth. This field can not be determined as that of a consciousness What is neither individual nor personal are, on the contrary, emissions of singularities insofar as they occur on an unconscious surface and possess a mobile, immanent principle of autounification through a nomadic distribution, radically distinct from fixed and sedentary distributions as conditions of the syntheses of consciousness. Singularities are the true transcendental events Far from being individual or personal, singularities preside over the genesis of individuals and persons; they are distributed in a potential which admits neither Self nor I, but which produces them by actualizing or realizing itself, although the figures of this actualization do not at all resemble the realized potential. Only a theory of singular points is capable of transcending the synthesis of the person and the analysis of the individual as these are (or are made) in consciousness Only when the world, teeming with anonymous and nomadic, impersonal and preindividual singularities, opens up, do we tread at last on the field of the transcendental (LS, 102-103). It is clear from this, then, that the subject of this new discourse of problems and singularities is no longer, strictly speaking, the person. Rather, as Deleuze writes, and we shall come to understand, the true subject is this free, anonymous, and nomadic singularity which traverses men as well as plants and animals independently of the matter of their individuation and the forms of their personality (LS, 107). Let us now turn to examine this new discourse which, as has just been shown, promises so much in the way of understanding Deleuzes philosophy of the event in The Logic of Sense.
The most important series for our examination of the concepts of singularity and problematic field are the Ninth Series of the Problematic, the Fifteenth Series of Singularities, and the Seventeenth Series of the Static Logical Genesis. But in fact, it is in Difference and Repetition, published a year before The Logic of Sense, that one
For the use of these synonymous terms, see LS, 54, 56, 98-99, 102, 104, 105, 109, 113-114, 116-117, 120-123, 124-125, 207-208, 218-219, 221-223, 238, 239-243, 244, 248.
finds the full, technical elaboration of these concepts.3 Indeed, in this later text, Deleuze appears only to state the conclusions of his detailed work in the earlier text. In what follows, we shall thus primarily examine Deleuzes arguments in Difference and Repetition while noting the corresponding passages in The Logic of Sense. In point of fact, in Difference and Repetition, Deleuzes elaboration of the concept of the problem or the problematic Idea (along with the concept of singularity) arises, as it does in The Logic of Sense, in the context of an examination of the notion of sense. Or more precisely, it arises in the context of a critique of a certain image of thought, for which the privileging of the propositional dimension of designation over that of sense is one of the postulates. Deleuzes critique here can be outlined as follows.4 Sense is commonly defined as the condition of the true. Indeed, a proposition devoid of sense can be neither true nor false. Thus we ordinarily distinguish two dimensions of a proposition: expression, whereby a proposition says or expresses an idea or something ideal; and designation, whereby a proposition indicates the objects to which what is expressed applies. However, it is generally agreed that truth and falsity has to do with what words and sentences indicate or designate and not with what they express. Sense thus appears as the condition of the truth of the proposition, and yet at the same time it must remain indifferent or exterior to what it conditions. The dimension of sense is thus reduced to psychological flair or logical formalism and, in as much as it remains external to the dimension of designation, presents us with an irreducible duality between words and things.5 It is thus in response to the challenge implied by this critique that Deleuze sets out to show how the relation between the sense of a proposition and what it designates can be internally established within sense itself. Accordingly, as Deleuze says, the designated object, whose nature determines the truth or falsity of the proposition, cannot be posited in reality exterior to sense, but only at the limit of its process. The propositions relation to what it designates, insofar as this relation is established, is constituted within the unity of sense, along with the object which realizes this unity (DR, 154).
It is interesting to note that the doctoral thesis which would later become Difference and Repetition was originally conceived as a project dealing with the idea of the problem. See Franois Dosse, Gilles Deleuze et Flix Guattari Biographie Croise (Paris : La Dcouverte, 2007), 147. 4 For what follows, see Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, 153-154. All future references to this text will be cited as DR, followed by the relevant page number(s). 5 See also on this, Chapter 1, 31-32; and the corresponding sections in The Logic of Sense: LS, 18-19, 96.
Our primary interest here is that Deleuze first introduces his concept of the problem (and, as will be seen, of singularity) in order to establish the conditions for this internal genesis. In short, for Deleuze, every designating proposition has a sense, but this sense will itself be located in a sub-representative problem in relation to which these propositions in turn function as elements of response or cases of solution (DR, 157). Or again, as Deleuze puts it in The Logic of Sense, [s]ense is expressed as the problem to which propositions correspond insofar as they indicate particular responses, signify instances of a general solution, and manifest subjective acts of resolution (LS, 121). In other words, a proposition will be endowed with sense insofar as it is determined, with respect to at least one of its dimensions, as the solution to a problem. But it also follows from this that even philosophical propositions which treat the objective nature of the problem itself must obey this general schema. In other words, the philosophical concept of the problem must emerge as a solution to what we can thus call the problem of (the concept of) the problem. In The Logic of Sense, Deleuze refers to this self-reflexive nature of the problem when he writes that the problem determines its own conditions (LS, 122), or when he speaks of the self-determination of the problem (LS, 122). Now, if all representations, up to and including propositions with regard to the nature of the problem itself, must find their sense and truth value within the problem, it is clear that the problem must be sub-representative or non-propositional (LS, 122). However, it is equally clear that unless this problem is somehow articulated it could be nothing to the thinking, speaking and knowing subject, however conceived. Thus, as Deleuze qualifies, the problem is not propositional, although it does not exist outside of the propositions which express it (LS, 122). Or to put it another way, the problem is, paradoxically, both transcendent and immanent in relation to its solutions (DR, 163).6 As a form of shorthand, therefore, we will say that it is in relation to the problem that propositions make sense in both the active and passive senses of make sense as elements of response or cases of solution. As regards the precise nature of the object to which the sense of a given proposition applies, this will be determined at the same time that the problem itself is completely solved. In Difference and Repetition, Deleuze likens this object to the
In The Logic of Sense, following Lautman, Deleuze maintains both that the instance-problem and instance solution differ in nature, and that the singularities which constitute the conditions of the problem preside over the genesis of the solution (LS, 54. See also LS, 104-105 and n.4, 344-345).
Kantian object = x. For Deleuze, however, this object is determinable, not so much in relation to the already given categories of the understanding as in relation to the dialectical or problematic Ideas which would provide the totality of conditions for any given proposition, true and endowed with sense, in relation to its corresponding object of experience. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that in this text Deleuze calls problems Ideas and that to solve such a problem means, in the final analysis, to fully determine the Idea as an Idea, that is to say, the problem as a problem (DR, 159; LS, 54): a sub-representative problem in relation to which all meaningful and true propositions would be determined, up to and including propositions with regard to the nature of the problem itself.7 Or again, as Deleuze puts it in The Logic of Sense, the synthesis of the problem with its own conditions constitutes something ideational or unconditioned, determining at once the condition and the conditioned, that is, the domain of resolvability and the solutions present in this domain (LS, 122). What, then, are the conceptual components of the concept of the problem, and what is the method which Deleuze uses in order to construct it? As will be seen, in terms of method, Deleuze will first of all outline a highly abstract concept of the problematic Idea in terms of the reciprocal, complete and progressive differential determination of elements, which themselves have no prior signification, sensible form or function, by means of the adjunction and transformation of singularities. Then, in relation to things in general, Deleuze will follow the work of Gilbert Simondon and outline a theory of intensive individuation, which can be said to solve such a problem for actual things, insofar as such a problem must be presupposed as an ideal, preindividual field, wherein both the known and knowledge can be thought of as being individuated, in an ongoing and related way, without reference to anything falling outside the system. How, then, are these two moments related such that the problem is solved as the kind of problem in relation to which all true propositions endowed with sense are determined? In short, these two moments determine each other mutually. On
In Difference and Repetition, Deleuze writes that Ideas are essentially problematic and, conversely, problems are Ideas (DR, 168). In The Logic of Sense, Deleuze speaks of problems as Ideas only once, when he writes: Even if the problem is concealed by its solution, it subsists nonetheless in the Idea which relates it to its conditions and organizes the genesis of the solutions. Without this Idea, the solution would have no sense. The problematic is both an objective category of knowledge and a perfectly objective kind of being. Problematic qualifies precisely the ideal objectivities. Kant was without doubt the first to accept the problematic not as a fleeting uncertainty but as the very object of the Idea, and thereby as an indispensable horizon of all that occurs or appears (LS, 54). In any case, since the concepts of the problematic Idea and the problem are essentially identical, and we shall use these terms interchangeably in this chapter.
the side of solutions, the theory of intensive individuation shows how individual things in general emerge as solutions to the problem because the pre-individual field, which is necessarily presupposed by processes of individuation, has the same abstract form as that of the problem (the ongoing determination of purely differential elements is here solved as the pre-individual, as it were). And on the side of the problem, the theory of intensive individuation expresses the conditions of the problem in the way outlined above, that is, it makes sense, in the passive sense, as the theory which spells out how the problem is a problem for its solutions, and in the active sense, insofar as it is spells out part of the very nature of the problem. Indeed, Deleuze indicates to us this mutual relation between the concept of the problematic Idea and the theory of intensive individuation when he writes that the problem is determined [as a problem] at the same time as it is solved, that is to say, actualized in the individual solutions which collectively make sense of it (DR, 163). What can now be said about the concrete, conceptual components of this concept of the problem? It has been said that Deleuze constructs the concept of the problem in order to spell out the conditions of the relation between sense and designation in general, that is, between the sense and the truth of a proposition in relation to its object. As Deleuze says, a proposition or solution always has the truth it deserves according to the problem to which it is a response.8 But as we noted above, since any true proposition endowed with sense, up to and including propositions with regard to the nature of the problem itself, must itself find its sense and truth value in the problem, it must equally be said that the problem always has the solution it deserves in proportion to its own truth or falsity in other words, in proportion to its sense.9 At the limit, therefore, a solution (a true proposition endowed with sense) could only follow from the complete conditions under which its problem is determined as a problem. In addition, since such a problem does not exist outside of its solutions, it must also be said
A problem always finds the solution it merits, according to the conditions which determine it as a problem (LS, 54). 9 The genetic element is discovered only when the notions of true and false are transferred from propositions to the problem these propositions are supposed to resolve Or rather, it is the category of sense which replaces the category of truth, when true and false qualify the problem instead of the propositions which correspond to it. From this point of view, we know that the problem, far from indicating a subjective and provisional state of empirical knowledge, refers on the contrary to an ideational objectivity or to a structure constitutive of sense which grounds both knowledge and the known, the proposition and its correlates. The relation between the problem and its conditions defines sense as the truth of the problem as such. It may happen that the conditions remain insufficiently determined or, on the other hand, that they are overdetermined, in such a manner that the problem may turn out to be a false problem (LS, 120-121).
that the nature of the solution will also follow from the means and terms which are employed in order to pose [the problem] (DR, 159). For Deleuze, therefore, it is clear that both the sense and the truth and falsity of a proposition hinges, formally, on how its problem could be completely and internally determined as a problem, and concretely, on the problems comprehension and extension.10 What is more, these remarks must be applicable at two levels: at the level of propositions belonging to particular domains of investigation, with their specific interests, symbolic fields and means of formulating their own problems; and at the level of philosophy, which must show the general internal relation between the dimensions of sense and designation in all domains. As far as philosophy goes, therefore, formally, Deleuze must determine an entirely abstract concept of the problem; and concretely, he must show how this problem, so determined, effectively acquires its universal extension, that is, in relation to an effectively comprehensive set of concerns belonging to this and that domain. As will be seen, Deleuze will initially turn to certain mathematical notions to provide an abstract account of the most general aspects of the concept of the problem. He will then generalize some of the meta-mathematical theses of the philosopher of mathematics, Albert Lautman, in order to reattach this concept to a more general dialectic of problems.11
A proposition by itself is particular, and represents a determinate response. A series of propositions can be distributed in such a way that the responses they represent constitute a general solution But precisely, propositions, whether general or particular, find their sense only in the subjacent problem which inspires them. Only the Idea or problem is universal. It is not the solution which lends its generality to the problem, but the problem which lends its universality to the [general] solution. It is never enough to solve a problem with the aid of a series of simple cases playing the role of analytic elements: the conditions under which the problem acquires a maximum of comprehension and extension must be determined, conditions capable of communicating to a given case of solution the ideal continuity appropriate to it (DR, 162). 11 Jean-Michel Salanskis is one of the few to have addressed the question of the precise status of the mathematical expression of Deleuzes concept of the problem. He argues that, although Deleuze uses mathematics in order to get at a thoroughly abstract, universal concept of the problem, he ultimately conjures away, under the weight of a universality he is in fact entitled to affirm, the probable significance of an order of exposition of that universality, the necessity of which everything here points to and which is constantly attested by his own approach. See his Idea and Destination, in Deleuze: A Critical Reader, ed. Paul Patton (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 60-61; and Mathematics, Metaphysics, Philosophy, in Virtual Mathematics The Logic of Difference, ed. Simon Duffy (Manchester: Clinamen, 2006), 51. Now, it is clear that the specification of Deleuzes concept of the problem (as the progressive, complete and reciprocal determination of relations between purely differential or formal elements) is carried out in relation to various mathematical theories, and that it is the contentless formalism of these theories which lends the concept of the problem its appearance of universality. The trouble, however, is that while such a concept could, strictly speaking, only apply to mathematical objects, Deleuze also employs this concept while dealing with physical, biological, social, psychic, and other phenomena. But it seems to us that Deleuzes argument the one that we are reconstructing here is rather that, following Lautmans meta-mathematical theses, since mathematical theory itself only makes sense against the background of a dialectic of problematic Ideas which takes the same general form as the mathematical expression of the concept of the problem, the mathematical theories from which elements of the concept of the problem are drawn represent only one particular order within a more general problematic Idea. As Deleuze writes: The problematic or dialectical Idea is a system of connections between differential
Finally, in order to develop the comprehension and extension of the problem, Deleuze will turn to Gilbert Simondons work with the aim of showing the way in which the intensive individuation of things in general, in various scientific fields (physics, biology, psychology, sociology, etc.), presupposes a pre-individual field which takes the same form as that given by the concept of the problem. To return to the notion of sense, then, Deleuze will be able to articulate the most general conditions of the internal genesis of sense and truth in a series of philosophical (not mathematical, scientific, etc.) propositions.
3.1 Problematic Ideas and Singularities in Difference and Repetition: From Kant to the Calculus Deleuzes first resource for the determination of the concept of the problem is Kant, since Kants dialectical Ideas specify certain general aspects of subrepresentative problems.12 Indeed, Kants Ideas are at once: 1. objective, in the sense of objectively necessary (they allow us to represent objects of experience with a maximum synthetic unity); 2. undetermined (the object of an Idea is an object which can be neither given nor known, but must be represented without being able to be directly determined); 3. determinable (the Idea is determined by analogy with those objects of experience upon which it confers unity, but which in turn offer it a determination analogous to the relations it entertains with them); 4. and finally they are subject to the ideal of a complete and infinite determination (the Idea ensures a specification of the concepts of the understanding, by means of which the latter comprise more and more differences on the basis of a properly infinite field of continuity) (DR, 169).
elements, a system of differential relations between genetic elements. There are different orders of Ideas presupposed by one another according to the ideal nature of these relations and the elements considered (Ideas of Ideas, etc.). There is as yet nothing mathematical in these definitions. Mathematics appears with the fields of solution in which dialectical Ideas of the last order are incarnated, and with the expression of problems relative to these fields. Other orders of Ideas are incarnated in other fields and in other modes of expression corresponding to different sciences (DR, 181). 12 Kant was without doubt the first to accept the problematic not as a fleeting uncertainty but as the very object of the Idea, and thereby as an indispensable horizon of all that occurs or appears (LS, 54).
For Kant, however, problematic Ideas are subject to external constraints (Ideas are determinable only in relation to objects of experience and bear the ideal of complete determination only in relation to concepts of the understanding). And we have already seen that for Deleuze, problematic Ideas could only be subject to internal constraints, since they alone are responsible for the internal genesis of sense. A problematic Idea could only be determined by other, more comprehensive, problematic Ideas. So how could the Idea be entirely internally determined? Deleuzes solution is to characterize Ideas using certain abstract mathematical notions and then to show how these notions necessarily participate in a more general dialectic of Ideas which determines their sense. The first mathematical resource in relation to which Deleuze characterizes problematic Ideas is the differential calculus, or more precisely, the barbarous or prescientific interpretations of the calculus (DR, 170). Following Deleuze, in these interpretations and just as with Kants notion of the Idea, the symbol dx appears as simultaneously undetermined, determinable and determination. More importantly, though, for Deleuzes concept, is that, corresponding to these three aspects of the symbol dx are three principles which together form a sufficient reason for problems: a principle of determinability corresponds to the undetermined as such (dx, dy); a principle of reciprocal determination corresponds to the really determinable (dy/dx); a principle of complete determination corresponds to the effectively determined (values of dy/dx) (DR, 171). Let us firstly examine the undetermined dx which, in the history of the calculus, essentially concerns the problem of the status of the infinitesimal or differential. Following Deleuze, and just as in the modern interpretations of the calculus, the differential dx is in no way equal to zero, and nor does it imply the actual existence of the infinitely small. Rather, citing the philosopher Jean Bordas-Demoulin, whose work came some years before the final, rigorous formulation of the calculus,13 Deleuze
On the rigorous formulation see Carl B. Boyer, The History of the Calculus and its Conceptual Development (New York: Dover, 1959), 267-298. Deleuzes reference to Jean Bordas-Demoulin is to his work, Le Cartsianisme ou la vritable rnovation des sciences (Paris: Hetzel, 1843), 133-135. BordasDemoulin and the differential dx are also referred to in The Logic of Sense when Deleuze, taking the example of a circle, distinguishes between the relation of general and particular, on the one hand, and his own problem-solution relation, on the other. A circle qua circle is neither a particular circle, nor a concept represented in an equation the general terms of which must take on a particular value in each instance; it is rather a differential system to which an emission of singularities corresponds (LS, 123). Bordas-Demoulin shows clearly the difference between these two expressions of circumference: x2 + y2 R2 = 0, and y dy + x dx = 0. In the first, I am doubtless able to attribute diverse values to each term, but I must attribute to them one value in particular for each case. In the second, dy and dx are independent of
argues that dx represents only the cancellation of quantity in general: dx is strictly nothing in relation to x, as dy is in relation to y. At the same time, however, while the zeros involved in dx and dy express the annihilation of the quantum and the quantitas, of the general as well as the particular, they serve also to express the universal and its appearance (DR, 171). In other words, while dy/dx expresses the cancellation of individual values and the variation of individual relations within the function, it also elevates the differential relation itself to the status of a universal which remains the same with respect to changing values and relations. Or again, as Duffy writes, citing Deleuzes seminars on Spinoza, even though, as vanishing, the terms of the differential relation are unassignable, the differential relation itself, dy/dx, nevertheless subsists as a pure relation.14 Thus, even though dx is totally undetermined with respect to x, as is dy to y, since the relation subsists, they are in principle determinable with respect to each other. But in what form, precisely? As Deleuze writes, a principle of reciprocal determination corresponds to the determinability of the relation. By reciprocal determination, we take it that Deleuze means not only that dx and dy exist absolutely only in relation to each other at a point on a curve (the point of tangency), but also that the successive derivatives taken at this point are determinable only in relation to each other, and that the reciprocal relation or synthesis of these derivatives thereby characterizes a part of the curve or generates the primitive function (integration here being understood as summation in the form of a series).15 Indeed, the crux of the matter for Deleuze is that the problematic differential relation dy/dx is logically and ontologically prior to the primitive function whose slope the differential relation is normally said to represent. As Aden Evans puts it, in Deleuzes rereading of the calculus, the primitive function does not precede the differential relation, but is only the ultimate result or byproduct of the progressive determination of that relation. The differential is a problem, and its
any particular value, and their relation refers only to the singularities which define the trigonometric tangent of the angle which the tangent to the curve makes with the axis of the abscisses (dy/dx = x/y) (LS, n.3, 346). 14 Simon Duffy, The Logic of Expression: Quality, Quantity and Intensity in Spinoza, Hegel and Deleuze (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 49-50; and The Mathematics of Deleuzes Differential Logic and Metaphysics, in Virtual Mathematics The Logic of Difference, ed. Simon Duffy (Manchester: Clinamen, 2006), 119-120. See also Daniel W. Smiths analysis of this point in relation to an example drawn from Leibniz in The Conditions of the New, Deleuze Studies 1, 1 (2007): 10-11. 15 As Duffy has clearly shown, Deleuze is almost certainly here following certain aspects of Weierstrassian analysis from the local point of view. On Deleuze and Weierstrass see Duffy, The Logic of Expression, 69-75; The Mathematics of Deleuzes Differential Logic and Metaphysics, 127-132; and Schizo-Math: The Logic of Different/ciation and the Philosophy of Difference, Angelaki 9, 3 (2004): 204-205.
solution leads to the primitive function.16 Indeed, for Deleuze, following Wronskis pre-scientific ideas on the calculus, this process of the determination of the primitive function from the reciprocal synthesis of differential relations of different local orders takes place in an element of pure potentiality wherein the differential dx is essentially a problematic or ideal difference which is associated with the generation of the magnitude rather than being implicated in the laws of quantities already formed.17 We take it that Deleuze is referring to this process whereby the primitive function is generated from summing or integrating the power series of derivatives taken at a particular point when he writes: The whole question, then, is: in what form is the differential relation determinable? It is determinable first in qualitative form, and in this connection it expresses a function which differs in kind from the so-called primitive function. When the primitive function expresses the curve, dy/dx = (x/y) expresses the trigonometric tangent of the angle made by the tangent of the curve and the axis of the abscissaeThis is only a first aspect, however, for insofar as it expresses another quality, the differential relation remains tied to the individual values or to the quantitative variations corresponding to that quality (for example, tangent). It is therefore differentiable in turn In this sense the Idea has the differential relation as its object: it then integrates variation, not as a variable determination of a supposedly constant relation (variability) but, on the contrary, as a degree of variation of the relation itself (variety) to which corresponds, for example, the qualified series of curves (DR, 172-173).18 Now, to this process of reciprocal determination in the element of pure potentiality there corresponds a principle of complete determination, by which Deleuze means the composition of a form or the complete determination of the curve or object. For, in the process of taking successive differentiations in the manner of Weierstrass analytic continuation of the function19 and integrating them, the overall behaviour of the curve becomes apparent through the discovery of the precise number and distribution of singular points which are then used to determine the type or species of
Aden Evens, Math Anxiety, Angelaki 5, 3 (2000): 111. See also Duffy, The Mathematics of Deleuzes Differential Logic and Metaphysics, 126-132. 17 On Wronski, see Boyer, The History of the Calculus, 261-263. 18 Further on, when Deleuze writes that [p]ower is the form of reciprocal determination according to which variable magnitudes are taken to be functions of one another (DR, 174 emphasis added), we must remember that as a power series expands by means of the repeated differentiation of the differential relation at a given point, the exponent, or power, of each successive term increases. Indeed, given a function f(x), the general formula for a power series is a0 + a1x + a2x2 + a3x3 + anxn + (where a is a distinct constant). 19 See on this: Morris Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), 642-644.
the primitive function in question.20 Singular points are points on the curve where the curve changes behaviour such as turning and inflection points, local maxima and minima, and points of discontinuity and where the value of the differential relation becomes, for example, 0 or . And in fact, as Deleuze writes, it is only in relation to such singular points that the serial form within potentiality assumes its full meaning (DR, 175-176), for it is precisely from these points that the ordinary points of the function can be determined by power series expansions: The interest and necessity of the serial form appear in the plurality of series subsumed by it, in their dependence upon singular points, and in the manner in which we can pass from one part of the object where the function is represented by a series to another where it is expressed in a different series Just as determinability pointed toward reciprocal determination, so the latter points towards complete determination (DR, 176). Or again, as Duffy elaborates, the power series determines not only the specific qualitative nature of the function at the distinctive point in question but also the specific qualitative nature of all of the regular points in the neighbourhood of that distinctive point By examining the relation between the differently distributed distinctive points determined by the differential relation, the regular points which are continuous between the distinctive points, that is, in geometrical terms, the branches of the curve, can be determined To the extent that all of the regular points are continuous across all of the different branches generated by the power series of the other distinctive points, the entire complex curve or the whole analytic function is generated.21 So we have seen how, in the determination of species of curves, the differential dx symbolizes the entirety of the notion of the problematic Idea: while entirely undetermined in itself, it is reciprocally, differentially determinable with other differentials (in series of derivatives), leading in this way, via the discovery and investigation of singular points and their neighbourhoods, to the complete
See Evens, Math Anxiety, 112. For elementary examples of various species of function and their singularities in the early period of the calculus, see Kline, Mathematical Thought, 547-554; on Weierstrass see 643-644; for more advanced considerations on singularities, see 721-738. For a brief humanities-friendly outline of the theory of singularities of smooth functions with real values and its relation to elementary catastrophe theory, see also: Lucien Scubla, Toward a Morphogenetic Anthropology: Singularity Theory and Generative Violence in Chaos in the Humanities, ed. Patrick Brady (Knoxville: New Paradigm Press, 1994), 107-127. 21 Duffy, Schizo-Math, 204-205. See also LS, 52-53: the singular point is opposed to the ordinary each singularity is the source of a series [of ordinary points] extending in a determined direction right up to the vicinity of another singularity.
determination of the function of the curve under consideration.22 As Deleuze says, the solution emerges the more the problem is determined. Strictly speaking, however, the above-analyzed Weierstrassian local method of integration only leads to the primitive function if the series obtained at singular points converge with the function. In general, the analytic continuation of power series expansions can be continued in all directions up to the points in the immediate neighbourhood of certain types of singularities, called poles, where the series obtained diverge. In the case of divergence, therefore, the effective domain of an analytic function determined by the process of the analytic continuation of power series expansions is limited to that between its poles.23 What this implies, therefore, for our particular concerns here is that our differential problem that is, the problem of the differential still remains to be explored for series that diverge. It can, however, be argued that it is precisely in the context of this problem of divergent series that Deleuze turns, in Difference and Repetition, to Albert Lautmans analysis of Henri Poincars qualitative theory of differential equations (DR, 177). For Poincar therein devises a method for considering, via the study of certain essential singularities, discontinuous local functions in relation to one another. In short, it can be said that if the local discovery of the existence and distribution of singular points in general (including poles) can be said to provide the conditions for the complete determination of, and thus eventual solution to, a differential problem, then Poincars global approach to the role of singularities effectively extends this approach in order to obtain the conditions for solutions to nonlinear differential equations. Let us turn to a very brief sketch of Poincars theory.24
In speaking of differential series and singularities in relation to the minimal conditions for a structure which, as will be seen in Chapter 4, is another term for the problem Deleuze writes that each series is constituted by terms which exist only through the relations they maintain with one another. To these relations, or rather to the values of these relations, there correspond very particular events, that is, singularities which are assignable within the structure. The situation is very similar to that of the differential calculus, where distributions of singularities correspond to the values of differential relations Moreover, it seems that the singularities attached to a series determine in a complex manner the terms of the other series (LS, 50). 23 With regard to the convergence and divergence of series in the neighbourhood of singularities, that is to say, with regard to the differences between removable singularities and poles, see Duffy, The Mathematics of Deleuzes Differential Logic and Metaphysics, 130-131. In this paragraph, we are following the general lines of Duffys work, in particular his Mathematics of Deleuzes Differential Logic and Metaphysics, and Schizo-Math. 24 For a full examination of the topic, see June Barrow-Green, Poincar and the Three Body Problem (Rhode Island: The American Mathematical Society: 1997), in particular 29-33. See also Kline, Mathematical Thought, 732-738.
Under the impetus of the three body problem (the problem of modelling the mutual interactions of three solar system bodies such as the sun, earth and moon), which cannot be solved in a closed form by means of elementary functions, Poincar set out to examine the global properties of certain nonlinear differential equations. Or more exactly, he set out to geometrically examine the global nature of the solution curves to these nonlinear differential equations, as opposed to confining himself strictly to the local analysis of given points by means of power series. He did, however, employ the local method in order to establish the existence and distribution of the poles of discontinuous local functions from which he in turn created differential composite functions. Then, in the analysis of the kinds of solution curves that such nonlinear differential equations can have, what Poincar discovered was that certain essential singular points played a key role in organizing the space of the solutions. These essential singularities were effectively determined in relation to the poles of the local functions from which the composite function was composed, by the periodic fluctuations of the values that solutions to the composite function could receive. Poincar distinguished four recurring types of such singular points according to the geometrical look of the solution curves: focus points, saddle points, nodes and centres (foyer, col, nud, centre) and described the behaviour of the solution curves around such points (Deleuze names these points explicitly at DR, 177 and LS, 52 and 104). In brief, as Delanda has put it, the existence, number and distribution of these singularities were found to organize the space of solutions by acting as what we would now call attractors for the different trajectories in the system.25 Technical details aside, Deleuzes primary concern here quite apart from the nonlinear physics to which Poincar ideas would lead, and which is the focus of Manuel Delandas work in this area (dynamical systems theory)26 is, following the work of the
Manuel Delanda, Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy (London and New York: Continuum, 2002), 15. 26 Not only Delanda but also Jean-Michel Salanskis in Mathematics, Metaphysics, Philosophy, and Jean Petitot in his Morphogense du sens (Paris: PUF, 1985), have pointed out Deleuzes relation to dynamical systems theory. Contrary to Salanskis, however, and as indicated above, we are here arguing neither that Deleuze is using certain mathematical and scientific theories in order to tell the truth about individuation, nor that the strength of Deleuzes conception ultimately depends on the fact that it ultimately refers to our best transcendentally-based knowledge and to its mathematical apparatus (see Mathematics, Metaphysics, Philosophy, 54). Rather, we are arguing that Deleuzes interest in mathematics is as a singular solution to what has been called the problem of the problem. In other words, following the meta-mathematical theses of Albert Lautman (which we shall examine in the next section), since mathematical theory only makes sense against the background of a dialectic of problematic Ideas which takes the same general form as the concept of the problem, the mathematical theories from which elements of the concept of the problem are drawn represent only one particular
philosopher of mathematics, Albert Lautman, to show how the singular points both refer to the complete conditions of a differential problem and are immanent in the solutions to that problem.27 If the differential dx can be said to formalize the notion of the problem itself (undetermined, determinable, determination), singularities can in turn be said to show how this problem is both transcendent and immanent to its solutions. If the differential dx is the problem, then singularities provide the complete conditions of that problem as a problem while at the same time being always-already implicated in the global solution, which emerges as the problem is determined reciprocally and completely as a differential problem. As Deleuze writes, No doubt the specification of the singular points (for example, dips, nodes, focal points, centres) is undertaken by means of the form of integral curves, which refer back to the solutions for differential equations. There is nevertheless a complete determination with regard to the existence and distribution of these points which depends upon a completely different instance namely, the field of vectors defined by the equation itself (DR, 177).28 Or again, in a long note in The Logic of Sense, citing Lautman: The geometrical interpretation of the theory of differential equations clearly places in evidence two absolutely distinct realities: there is the field of directions and the topological accidents which may suddenly crop up in it, as for example the existence of the place of singular points to which no direction has been attached; and there are the integral curves with the form they take on in the vicinity of the singularities of the field of directions. The existence and distribution of singularities are notions relative to the field of vectors
order within a more general problematic Idea. Indeed, when Deleuze is questioned over his use of mathematics he immediately invokes Lautmans thesis that mathematics necessarily participates in a dialectic of Ideas which surpasses it. See Gilles Deleuze, The Method of Dramatization, 107. As Deleuze writes in Difference and Repetition, Ideas always have an element of quantitability, qualitability and potentiality; there are always processes of determinability, of reciprocal determination and complete determination, always distributions of singular and ordinary points; always adjunct fields which form the synthetic progression of a sufficient reason (DR, 181). 27 On this, see also Daniel W. Smith, Axiomatics and Problematics as two modes of formalization: Deleuzes epistemology of mathematics, in Virtual Mathematics The Logic of Difference, ed. Simon Duffy (Manchester: Clinamen, 2006), 161-162. 28 Similarly, in The Logic of Sense: A problem is determined only by the singular points which express its conditions. We do not say that the problem is thereby resolved; on the contrary, it is determined as a problem. For example, in the theory of differential equations, the existence and distribution of singularities are relative to a problematic field defined by the equation as such. As for the solution, it appears only with the integral curves and the form they taken in the neighbourhood [voisinage] of singularities inside the field of vectors. It seems, therefore, that a problem always finds the solution it merits, according to the conditions which determine it as a problem. In fact, the singularities preside over the genesis of the solutions of the equation. Nonetheless, it is still the case, as Lautman said, that the instance-problem and the instance-solution differ in nature as they represent the ideal event and its spatio-temporal realization (LS, 54 translation modified).
defined by the differential equation. The form of the integral curves is relative to the solution of this equation. The two problems are assuredly complementary, since the nature of the singularities of the field is defined by the form of the curves in their neighbourhood [voisinage]. But it is no less true that the field of vectors on one hand and the integral curves on the other are two essentially distinct mathematical realities (LS, n.4, 344-345 translation modified).29 We can see that this schema corresponds, in an analogous way, to our problem of sense. Every designating proposition has a sense (just as a solution curve has its singularity), but this sense is itself located in a sub-representative (differential) problem in relation to which these propositions serve or make sense as elements of response or cases of solution (solution curves specifying the nature of the singularity). Singularities carry out the complete determination of the problem as such insofar as they both direct and are specified by the solution curves. It is clear, however, that the requirement of showing the internal genesis of sense prevents Deleuze from using the differential calculus as a model or paradigm which would analogously determine the sense of sense. Rather, Deleuzes task in Difference and Repetition must now be to show how this differential model of sense itself emerges as a solution to a more general problem, or what he will call a dialectic of problems. The way that Deleuze goes about this task takes three moments: first of all, he will invoke some of the theses of Albert Lautman in order to show how such mathematical theories necessarily participate in a dialectic of problems and solutions, which takes the same abstract form as the one examined above; secondly, he will briefly examine some other mathematical expressions of the problem-solution complex (group theory and differential geometry) and reattach some of their characteristics to this metamathematical concept or dialectic of the problem; finally, he will outline the relation that this concept of the problem has with a general theory of intensive individuation, which can be shown to be at work in various scientific domains (not only mathematics but also physics, biology, psychology, etc.), thereby effectively enlarging the concrete comprehension and extension of the concept of the problem and accounting for the internal genesis of sense and truth.
See the collection of Albert Lautmans works, Les mathmatiques, les ides et le rel physique (Paris: Vrin, 2006), 295-296.
3.2 Albert Lautman and the Dialectic of Problematic Ideas For Deleuze, Lautmans meta-mathematical theses and concrete analyses of certain mathematical theories are essential in two respects. We have already seen the first: Deleuze essentially follows Lautmans analyses of Poincars qualitative theory of differential equations in order to show how the solutions to a differential problem are dictated by certain salient traits of the problem itself, that is, by the singularities of this problem and the way in which they are distributed in a system.30 Strictly speaking however, Lautmans interest in his analysis of Poincar is to show how and we shall see what this means certain dialectical couples such as the local and the global and the discrete and the continuous are posed and resolved in Poincars work. And indeed, this is precisely the second aspect of Lautmans work that Deleuze takes on board: his general meta-mathematical theory of the dialectical Ideas or problems that govern the development of mathematics. As Deleuze explains it, following Lautmans general theses, a problem has three aspects: its difference in kind from solutions; its transcendence in relation to the solutions that it engenders on the basis of its own determinant conditions; and its immanence in the solutions which cover it, the problem being the better resolved the more it is determined. Thus the ideal connections constitutive of the problematic (dialectical) Idea are incarnated in the real relations which are constituted by mathematical theories and carried over into problems in the form of solutions (DR, 178-179).31 In order to better understand the importance of Lautman for Deleuze, we will here briefly explicate the general lines of Lautmans project.32 Lautman distinguished several layers of mathematical reality. Apart from mathematical facts, entities and theories, Lautman also argued for the existence of a dialectic of Ideas which governs the development of theories and provides them with
On this, see also Jean-Michel Salanskis, Pour une pistmologie de la lecture, Alliage 35-36 (1998), http://www.tribunes.com/tribune/alliage/accueil.htm. See also his Idea and Destination, 61. 31 It is clear that it is a discussion of this last point which is missing from Deleuzes references to Lautman in The Logic of Sense. As seen above, Deleuze refers directly to Lautmans discussion of the qualitative theory of differential equations in order to talk about the difference in nature between the problem and the solution, as well as about the transcendence/immanence of the problem in relation to its solutions. He does not, however, mention the Lautmanian thesis, defended in Difference and Repetition, that the constitution of such mathematical theory itself presupposes the problem or problematic Idea. 32 For the following account of Lautman, see also Sean Bowden, Alain Badiou: Problematics and the Different Senses of Being in Being and Event, Parrhesia 5 (2008): 36. This text can be found online at http://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia05/parrhesia05_bowden.pdf.
their unity, meaning and philosophical value.33 This dialectic, following Lautman, is constituted by pairs of opposites (same and other, whole and part, continuous and discontinuous, essence and existence, etc.), and the Ideas of this dialectic present themselves as the problem of establishing relationships between these opposed notions.34 As prior questions or logical concerns relative to possible affirmations of existence within mathematical discourse, these problematic Ideas are thus transcendent with respect to mathematics and can be posed outside of mathematics. Indeed, many of the pairs of opposites analyzed by Lautman can be found in the history of philosophy. However, since the Ideas, in order to be thought concretely, require an appropriate matter in which they can be thought, any effort to respond to the problems that they pose is to effectively constitute mathematical theory. In this sense, therefore, the dialectic must equally be said to be immanent to mathematics (as Lautman then goes on to argue, the link between this transcendence and this immanence is established by the notion of genesis).35 Thus, for example,
Lautman, Les mathmatiques, 223. On the question of the meaning that the dialectic of Ideas imparts to the theories, see in particular Jean Petitot, Refaire le Time Introduction la philosophie mathmatique dAlbert Lautman, Revue dhistoire des sciences 40, no. 1 (1987): 79-115. For an introduction to the work of Lautman in English, see Charles Alunni, Continental Genealogies. Mathematical Confrontations in Albert Lautman and Gaston Bachelard, in Virtual Mathematics The Logic of Difference, ed. Simon Duffy (Manchester: Clinamen, 2006), 65-80; and Simon Duffy, Deleuze and Lautman, in Deleuzes Philosophical Lineage, ed. G. Jones and J. Roffe (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, forthcoming). 34 Lautman, Les mathmatiques, 229, 243, 260 and 276. 35 Ibid., 66, 229, 243-244 and 262. The problem of genesis or of the precise link between the transcendence and immanence of the dialectic with respect to mathematics forms the problematic core of Lautmans theory and commentators are divided with respect to its solution. Catherine Chevalley suggests that this problem is in fact left unresolved by Lautman and that he invokes an image of a type of biological spontaneity of knowledge in order to shore up the gap. Here, however, the mathematician is sometimes the agent of a creative intellectual experiment in touch with the Ideas, sometimes a passive medium for the genesis of mathematical theory from the Ideas. See her Albert Lautman et le souci logique, Revue dhistoire des sciences 40, no. 1 (1987): 71. Salanskis argues that Lautman avoids qualifying the subjective place implied by the notion of logical concern and that he slides into a metaphysical description in the third person, in conformity with the Hegelian notion of dialectics. See his Idea and Destination, 67-68. Emmanuel Barot, in a similar way, affirms Lautmans Hegelianism on this point in Lobjectivit mathmatique selon A. Lautman: entre Ides dialectiques et ralit physique, Cahiers Franois Vite 6 (2003): 3-27. Finally, Jean Petitot provides a Husserlian resolution of the problematic relation between the transcendence and the immanence of Ideas by arguing that it is best understood in terms of the noetic-noematic correlation. See his Refaire le Time, 89-95. Perhaps it can be said that Deleuze resolves the problem of genesis in Lautmans work in his own way in Difference and Repetition when he invokes the notion of the imperative question which both lies at the origin of problems and is developed in problems. The question indeed indicates a subjective moment, yet insofar as it must be developed under the auspices of those problematizing fields alone capable of determining it within a characteristic science, it is clear that the question also implies an impersonal moment, altogether given over to the ongoing determination of a given problem. Thus, perhaps it can be said that Deleuze, with his conception of the subject as a fractured I which corresponds to a dissolved self, resolves Lautmans notion of genesis by unifying the two aspects of the figure of the mathematician that Chevalley identifies as problematic in Lautman: at once the agent of a creative intellectual experiment in touch with the Ideas and a passive medium for the genesis of mathematical theory from the Ideas (see in
The question of knowing whether forms of solidarity exist between space and matter is in itself a philosophical problem which lies at the heart of Cartesian metaphysics. But any effort to resolve this problem necessarily leads the mind to constitute an analytical mechanics wherein a relationship between geometry and dynamics can be affirmed.36 In order to avoid the charge of a naive idealism (indeed, Lautmans affirmed Platonism bears little resemblance to that which is ordinarily labelled Platonism in mathematics), Lautman is careful to qualify the transcendence of Ideas as simply the possibility of experiencing concern for a mode of connection between two ideas.37 The anteriority of Ideas is here rational, logical or ontological as opposed to psychological or historical.38 And this is precisely why Lautman argues that mathematics not only incarnates traditional metaphysical problems; it can also give birth to problems which could not have been previously posed. The philosophy of mathematics does not, therefore, consist so much in finding a classical metaphysical problem within a mathematical theory, as grasping the overall structure of a theory in order to extract the logical problem which is at once defined and resolved by the very existence of this theory.39 Nevertheless, as Lautman goes on to argue, just as, in the very meaning of these terms, intention precedes design and the question the response, the existence of established mathematical relations necessarily refers to the prior, positive Idea of the search for such relations.40 Or to put it another way, because the sufficient reason for the diversity and development of mathematical theories, along with their progressive integrations and interferences, cannot be found within mathematics itself,41 we are obliged to affirm the prior existence of something like the dialectic of Ideas. In short, to conceive of the historical development of mathematical theories and their mixes42 as responses or solutions to problematic Ideas is to give unity and meaning to these theories.
particular DR, 194-200). We return to these notions of the imperative question and the divided subject below. 36 Lautman, Les mathmatiques, 262 (my translation). 37 Ibid., 229. 38 Ibid., 260. 39 Ibid., 229. 40 Ibid., 242. 41 Nor, evidently, can we find this sufficient reason in the theories greater or lesser abilities to appropriate an already given empirical real. See Chevalley, Albert Lautman et le souci logique, 61. 42 The terms mixtes is Lautmans. See Les mathmatiques, 197-210.
So what does Deleuze draw from this work? In short, Lautmans work allows Deleuze to generalize, at a meta-mathematical level, his concept of the problem such as this was developed in relation to the differential calculus. As we have already noted in relation to his analysis of the calculus, for Deleuze, a problem has in general three moments: undetermined, reciprocal determination and complete determination. Or again, as undetermined, the problem is transcendent to its solutions, and yet it does not exist outside of its solutions, thanks to the singularities which both express the complete conditions of the problem as a problem, and are immanent in the solutions. And are these not precisely Lautmans theses, generalized and repeated at a meta-mathematical level? On the one hand, the pairs of opposites function as ideal and undetermined differential relations constitutive of the dialectical or problematic Idea which is transcendent (universal) with respect to the different mathematical theories in which they can be incarnated; on the other hand, concrete mathematical theories themselves carry out the immanent definition and resolution of this problematic Idea, and the couples constitutive of it, in relation to the development of a characteristic symbolic field which will have adequately expressed the differential conditions of the problematic Idea. As in the example cited above, the conditions of the undetermined relation between space and matter is itself expressed in the development of a relation between geometry and dynamics, which is in turn specified and resolved by the existence of an analytical mechanics and its solutions to concrete problems. It is thus a generalized dialectic of problems that Lautmans work allows Deleuze to formulate. As he writes, Differential calculusis an entirely mathematical instrument. It would therefore seem difficult to see in it the Platonic [that is, in Lautmans sense] evidence of a dialectic superior to mathematics. At least, it would be difficult if the immanent aspect of problems did not offer an adequate explanation. Problems are always dialectical: the dialectic has no other sense, nor do problems have any other sense. What is mathematical (or physical, biological, psychical or sociological) are the solutions That is why the differential calculus belongs entirely to mathematics, even at the very moment when it finds its sense in the revelation of a dialectic which points beyond mathematics (DR, 179). Given this situation, therefore, it is clear that, for both Lautman and Deleuze, the differential calculus could only be one possible mathematical expression of a more general concept of the problem. Deleuze in fact maintains that other procedures, and in 109
particular the development group theory, have better expressed the concept of the problem. Indeed, for Deleuze, group theory allows the specification of a final figure of the sufficient reason of the problem-solution complex: to reciprocal and complete determination is now added a principle of progressive determination.43 What is important for Deleuze in group theory, and in particular in the work of Abel and Galois, is that it spells out how the conditions of a mathematical problem can be determined in such a way as to progressively specify its solvability (DR, 179-180). In particular, Deleuze emphasizes, following the work of Jules Vuillemin, the procedure of adjunction in the work of Galois: Starting from a basic field (R), successive adjunctions to this field (R, R, R) allow a progressively more precise distinction of the roots of an equation, by the progressive limitation of possible substitutions. There is thus a succession of partial resolvants or an embedding of groups which make the solution follow from the very conditions of the problem (DR, 180). These mathematical developments came about as a means of approaching the problem of the quintic, that is to say, the problem of providing a general solution, via a formula, to equations raised to the fifth power. In short, Galois developed a general theory of transformations (permutations or substitutions) of the solutions to quadratic, cubic and quartic equations, concentrating on those permutations that preserve all algebraic relations between the solutions. He then noted that a certain relation held between these permutations: if two of them are performed in turn, then the result is always another permutation in the same system. Such a system is called a group of permutations. Within a group of permutations, when a given permutation of one solution by another leaves the equation valid, the two solutions become, in a sense, indistinguishable as far as this validity is concerned. The equation is, as it were, indifferent to the switch. Following this, the solutions to the equation then become
Deleuze takes up these notions of complete and progressive determination (as well as the grouptheoretical concept of adjunction) in his discussion of the problem in The Logic of Sense: The relation between the problem and its conditions defines sense as the truth of the problem as such As for the determination of conditions, it implies, one the one hand, a space of nomad distribution in which singularities are distributed (Topos); on the other hand, it implies a time of decomposition whereby this space is subdivided into sub-spaces. Each one of these sub-spaces is successively defined by the adjunction of new points ensuring the progressive and complete determination of the domain under consideration (Aion) (LS, 120-121 emphasis added). Although Deleuze does not speak of determinability or reciprocal determination in The Logic of Sense, he does say that, in line with the discussion above, the series constitutive of a structure or problem are constituted by terms which exist only through the [differential] relations they maintain with one another (LS, 50). On the systematic and serial distribution of differences in the problem, see also LS, 103.
increasingly more accurately defined as the original group gives rise to sub-groups which progressively limit the substitutions which leave the relations invariant. In other words, with the successive adjunctions of these sub-groups, the problem itself becomes progressively better specified and, as a by-product, individual solutions emerge. As the culmination of his work, Galois then showed that equations that can be solved by a formula must have groups of a particular type, and that the quintic has the wrong sort of group.44 The importance of Galois work for Deleuze is twofold. On the one hand, it allows him to specify a final aspect of his concept of the problem: progressive determination. As he writes, Galois progressive discernibility unites in the same continuous movement the processes of reciprocal determination and complete determination (pairs of roots and the distinction between roots within a pair). It constitutes the total figure of sufficient reason, into which it introduces time (DR, 180). On the other hand, by his very use of Abel and Galois work, Deleuze is able to illustrate how progressive determination is also at work in the Lautmanian dialectic of Ideas which is behind the concept of the problem that Deleuze is developing in relation to mathematical theory. For, as Deleuze notes, the work of Abel, who pioneered group theory, concerned above all the integration of differential formulae (DR, 180), indicating thereby that, just as for Lautmans mathematical mixtes, the same transcendent dialectic of problematic Ideas is governing the development of mathematics even in the apparent fragmentation of the discipline. This is what Deleuze means when he writes that: What matters to us is less the determination of this or that break [coupure] in the history of mathematics (analytic geometry, differential calculus, group theory) than the manner in which, at each moment of that history, dialectical problems, their mathematical expression and the simultaneous origin of their fields of solvability are interrelated. From this point of view, there is a continuity and a teleology in the development of mathematics which make the differences in kind between differential calculus and other instruments merely secondary (DR, 180-181).
See on this, Ian Stewart and Martin Golubitsky, Fearful Symmetry (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), 42; and Delanda, Intensive Science, 182-184. For more advanced considerations, see Kline, Mathematical Thought, 755-763. On Deleuze and group theory see Daniel W. Smith, Mathematics and the Theory of Multiplicities, The Southern Journal of Philosophy 45 (2003): 427; and Salanskis, Mathematics, Metaphysics, Philosophy, 52-53.
Thus, following Deleuze, we can speak generally about problems and say that Ideas always have an element of quantitability, qualitability and potentiality; there are always processes of determinability, of reciprocal determination and complete determination, always distributions of singular and ordinary points; always adjunct fields which form the synthetic progression of a sufficient reason (DR, 181). Indeed, given this enlarged concept of the problem, we are in a better position to understand why Deleuze also takes up the vocabulary of Riemannian differential geometry in order to announce that Ideas are multiplicities. In brief, it is in order to adjoin to our generalized concept of the dialectical or problematic Idea its appropriate mathematical expression: that of an intrinsic geometry that is, one which requires no supplementary dimension for the reciprocal, complete and progressive determination of any space whatsoever.45 And indeed, that Deleuze is here continuing to follow the historical development of mathematics, in relation to a dialectic of problematic Ideas which governs it, is clear when we consider that differential geometry has its roots in the differential and integral calculus, and that the notion of groups is essential to it (in relation to the so-called differential invariants, for example).46 In any case, it is clear that certain general characteristics of Riemannian differential geometry provide Deleuze with his final definition of the problematic Idea. As he writes: An Idea is an n-dimensional, continuous, defined multiplicity By dimensions, we mean the variables or co-ordinates upon which a phenomenon depends; by continuity, we mean the set of relations between changes in these variables; by definition, we mean the elements reciprocally determined by these relations, elements which cannot change unless the multiplicity changes its order and its metric (DR, 182-183).47
On the importance of Riemanns work (and its extensions) for Deleuze, see Arkady Plotnitsky, Manifolds: On the Concept of Space in Riemann and Deleuze, in Virtual Mathematics The Logic of Difference, ed. Simon Duffy (Manchester: Clinamen, 2006), 187-208. 46 On differential invariants, see Kline, Mathematical Thought, 900. The way in which all of the abovementioned branches of mathematics (the differential calculus, singularity theory, group theory and differential geometry) converge in dynamical systems theory, and the relation of this latter to Deleuzes philosophy, is the subject of Delandas Intensive Science. 47 Morris Kline provides a characterization of a manifold in his Mathematical Thought, 890: Riemann developed an intrinsic geometry for any space. He speaks of n-dimensional space as a manifold. A point in a manifold of n dimensions is represented by assigning special values to n variable parameters, x1, x2,, xn, and the aggregate of all such possible points constitutes the n-dimensional manifold itself The n variable parameters are called coordinates of the manifold. When the xis vary continuously, the points range over the manifold Riemanns 1854 Habilitationsschrift lecture was originally published as, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry, trans. William Kingdon Clifford, Nature 8, no. 183-184 (1873): 14-17, 36-37.
He then concludes that there are three conditions that allow us to define the problematic Idea in general: (1) the elements of the multiplicity must have neither sensible form nor conceptual signification, nor, therefore, any assignable function. (2) These elements must in effect be determined, but reciprocally, by reciprocal relations which allow no independence whatsoever to subsist. Such relations are precisely non-localizable ideal connections [i.e., singularities], whether they characterize the multiplicity globally or proceed by the juxtaposition of neighbouring regions. In all cases the multiplicity is intrinsically defined, without external reference or recourse to a uniform space in which it would be submerged (3) A multiple ideal connection, a differential relation, must be actualized in diverse spatio-temporal relationships, at the same time as its elements are actually incarnated in a variety of terms and forms (DR, 183). Here, then, we can see how these three conditions for a multiplicity or problematic Idea are a restatement of Deleuzes four principles which together form a sufficient reason for problems: (1) corresponds to the principle of determinability; (2) corresponds not only to the principle of reciprocal determination, but also to complete and progressive determination, insofar as the reciprocal determination of merely determinable elements cannot not imply completion even over discontinuous domains, and insofar as such a complete, internal determination could only be carried out progressively from one series of determinations to another and back again; and finally (3) corresponds to the principle of progressive determination, in this same sense that the reciprocal and complete determination of merely determinable elements immediately implies the ongoing, intrinsic and step by step securing of terms or forms and their relations.48 It should be noted, however, that in what follows, Deleuze abbreviates this
[T]he essential aspects of sufficient reason determinability, reciprocal determination, complete determination find their systematic unity in progressive determination. In effect, the reciprocity of determination does not signify a regression, nor a marking time, but a veritable progression in which the reciprocal terms must be secured step by step, and the relations themselves established between them. The completeness of the determination also implies the progressivity of the adjunct fields In this sense, by virtue of this progressivity, every structure has a purely logical, ideal or dialectical time. However, this virtual time itself determines a time of differenciation, or rather rhythms or different times of actualization which correspond to the relations and singularities of the structure (DR, 210-211). Now, it should perhaps be noted here that, given this definition of problematic Ideas, specifying using simple terms what a particular Idea of such and such a thing might consist of appears to be impossible. Deleuze does give some examples in Difference and Repetition: colour, for example, but also atomism as a physical Idea, the organism as a biological Idea, and Marxist social Ideas (DR, 184-186; 206). However, it is clear that these Ideas all imply elements which have already been determined in some way, according to other Ideas, or other orders within the same Idea. Indeed, it is in this sense that Deleuze says that Ideas are essentially perplicated in one another, and that they are objectively determined by their conditions to participate in one another according to the circumstantial requirement of the synthesis of Ideas (DR, 187). Thus, as Deleuze writes elsewhere, we must distinguish between the total structure of
complex process of reciprocal, complete and progressive determination by simply talking about the determination of differential relations with respect to the adjunction (or apprehension) and condensation (or transformation) of singularities (for example: DR, 187, 188-190, 192, 197-199, 201, 210-211, 220, 258-259). For, precisely, as we have seen, singularities are capable of determining a series of differences which may be prolonged over ordinary points up to the vicinity of another apprehended singularity, as much as essential singularities are capable of differentially condensing and transforming (that is, specifying) discontinuous singular poles, and thereby prolonging discontinuous series, the ones into the others. The question now is how we go from this characterization of problems to things in general and their relation to the propositions which characterize them. For Deleuze, every thing is a solution to a problem.49 He will therefore show how, beneath the qualities and extensities that we ordinarily perceive in various systems (physical, biological, psychic, social, etc.), there are necessarily what he calls spatio-temporal dynamisms or dramatizations, or, our preferred term, intensive individuations which progressively actualize virtual differences in such a way that these qualities and extensities appear as the resolution of these virtual differences (DR, 214). However, what could it mean for virtual differences to be actualized in diverse qualified and extended things and their corresponding spatio-temporal relations, since the formless elements and singularities of a problematic multiplicity must be of an entirely different nature than the constituted qualities and extensities that we ordinarily perceive? We already know what this process of actualization cannot be: it cannot be modelled on the
a domain as an ensemble of virtual coexistence, and the sub-structures that correspond to diverse actualizations in the domain. Of the structure as virtuality, we must say that it is still undifferenciated, even though it is totally and completely differentiated. Of structures which are embodied in a particular actual form (present or past), we must say that they are differentiated, and that for them to be actualized is precisely to be differenciated. See Deleuze, How do We Recognize Structuralism? 179 (translation modified). What is important, then, as Deleuze emphasizes, is not so much to determine the Idea of this or that thing, as to attain the total structure, to reach that point where we can speak of merely determinable elements and their reciprocal, complete and progressive determination: In the most diverse cases, we can ask whether we are indeed confronted by ideal elements, that is to say, without figure or function, though reciprocally determinable in a network of differential relations: do phonemes fall under this case? And what about physical particles? Or biological genes? In each case we have to continue the search till we obtain these differentials, which exist and which are determined only in respect to one another. See Deleuze, The Method of Dramatization, 99. See also DR, 278. 49 As Salanskis puts it, a plural game of singularitiesgenerates a proper space of the problem, an internal topology of the virtual, through a process which Deleuze called differentiation. But this process cannot avoid simultaneously being the process of the concrete formation of real individuals, and the design of actual areas in the world, occupied by these individuals: such an effective and actual process Deleuze calls differenciationThis description, or, better said, this matrix-story, is supposed to hold for the individuation of every being in the universe, whether natural or cultural. See his Mathematics, Metaphysics, Philosophy, 51.
form of an analogy which would hold between the mathematical expression of problemsolution complex and the resolution of problems in these other systems; nor can it take the form of a direct application of the mathematical expression of problems to these other domains; nor, finally, can the above-analyzed concept of the problem function as the general concept for which these other domains would be particular instantiations. Rather, in accordance with the task announced at the outset, we must show how the problem such as it has been characterized above is determined as the problem for which things in general make sense, in both the active and passive senses of make sense. As will be seen, the way in which Deleuze understands things in general, as the actualization of virtual differences, is by turning to a general theory of intensive individuation for which the problem must necessarily be presupposed as a preindividual field, which individuals will be said to resolve through their various and related becomings (spatio-temporal dynamisms). As will also be seen, this relation between problems and solutions results in an immanent philosophical system: on the one hand, the general theory of individuation will be determined in relation to the concept of the problem (it will make sense as the theory that relates the problem to the whole set of relations belonging to actual existence see DR, 209); and on the other hand, the concept of the problem such as it has been developed above will itself be objectively determined as a solution within this more general problem (the theory of individuation will make sense of the problem insofar as this latter is thought of as a pre-individual field). Let us then turn to look at Deleuzes theory of intensive individuation, or rather, let us examine the work of Gilbert Simondon, since this is the basis of Deleuzes theory of intensive individuation in Difference and Repetition, and since Simondon is one of the major references in The Logic of Sense as regards the concepts of singularity and the problem. As Deleuze writes in this latter text, Simondons Lindividu et sa gense physico-biologique, has special importance, since it presents the first thought-out theory of impersonal and pre-individual singularities. It proposes explicitly, beginning with these singularities, to work out the genesis of the living individual and the knowing subject (LS, n.3, 344).
3.3 Gilbert Simondon and the Theory of Individuation Simondons undertaking in Lindividu et sa gense can be summarized in the following way: it is the attempt to think the self-identical individual through a process of individuation, rather than the process of individuation through the already constituted individual.50 According to Simondon, Western philosophy has only ever attempted one of two things: either, in order to explain the individual, philosophy begins with the already constituted individual in order to ask about its conditions, thereby presupposing what it wants to explain the individual; or, in order to account for the individual, philosophy posits a first term which is already an individual and thereby defers the problem of accounting for the individual in general (INFI, 24). The challenge, for Simondon, is thus to grasp the individuated being by means of individuation alone (INFI, 31-32). But it thereby follows that, if we cannot presuppose the individual, either in reality or in thought, we shall only be able think the process of individuation through a simultaneous and corresponding individuation of the thought of the individual. As Simondon writes, this consists in following being in its genesis, in accomplishing the genesis of thought at the same time that the genesis of the object is carried out (INFI, 34). So how is Simondons philosophical system constructed in order to carry out what can be called an immanent double genesis of being and thought?51 First of all, in order to account for individuation without recourse to an already constituted individual, Simondon posits the existence of what he calls the preindividual, and a corresponding operation of individuation which is carried out in relation to it (as will be seen, the pre-individual internalizes a difference that the individual actualizes or structures). In order to avoid thinking the pre-individual as itself an already individuated, objective thing akin to a kind of primordial soup, Simondon
Since this was the only text published at the time of Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense and the only one to which Deleuze refers, we will here confine our remarks to Simondons Lindividu et sa gense physico-biologique which can now be found, along with the second half of his doctoral thesis and several shorter texts, in Lindividuation la lumire des notions de forme et dinformation (Grenoble: Millon, 2005). All future references to this text will be marked by INFI, followed by the page number. All translations from this text are my own. 51 On this, see also Jacques Gareli, Transduction et information, in Gilbert Simondon une pense de lindividuation et de la technique, ed. Gilles Chtelet (Paris: Albin Michel, 1994), 55-56; Barnard Aspe and Muriel Combes, Lacte fou, Multitudes 18 (2004); Jean-Hugues Barthlmy, Penser Lindividuation Simondon et la philosophie de la nature (Paris: LHarmattan, 2005), 37-38. See also Muriel Combes comparison of Simondon and Parmenides with respect to the question of the unity of being and thinking in her Simondon: Individu et collectivit (Paris: PUF, 1999), 19.
proposes to determine its general nature from an encyclopaedic,52 but in principle open, series of investigations into the individuation of entities in different scientific domains: physical entities, but also biological, psycho-social, and technological. The determination of the pre-individual is effectively carried out from one analysis of a process of individuation to another, within each of these domains, and then from one domain to another, in such a way that the conceptual components of the concept of the pre-individual are constantly being specified, while the concept itself remains open. The concept of the pre-individual will thus not be able to correspond to an objective thing, but nor will it be able to function as a general concept for which these concrete processes would be particular instantiations. Rather (and we shall see what this means below), Simondon argues that the concept of transduction, which ultimately characterizes the processes of individuation in these diverse domains, also characterizes the individuation of the very thought of individuation in these domains (INFI, 36). In other words, individuation will be known through transduction understood as a concrete process which generates both individuals and the thought of these individuals, rather than by means of a static concept of transduction. So let us turn to a brief exposition of the system. The key to understanding Simondons work is through his postulation of a realism of relations, whereby a relation is not an accident with respect to a substance but rather a prior, constitutive condition of substance (INFI, 82-83).53 Indeed, granting primacy to relations over individuals can be said to be a consequence of Simondons commitment to an anti-substantialist approach to the primacy of processes of individuation: for Simondon, the individual is the reality of a constitutive relation, but where this constitutive relation does not refer to an already given term but only to other relations (INFI, 62).54 As Simondon writes,
On Simondons encyclopaedism, see Pascal Chabot, Lencyclopdie idale de Simondon, in Gilbert Simondon: une pense oprative, ed. Jacques Roux (Saint-Etienne: Publications de lUniversit de SaintEtienne, 2002), 149-161; and the two articles: Jean-Hugues Barthlmy, Deux points dactualit de Simondon, and Vincent Bontems, Encyclopdisme et crise de culture, Revue Philosophique de la France et de lEtranger 3 (2006): 299-324. See also, more generally, Jean-Hugues Barthlmys Simondon ou l'encyclopdisme gntique (Paris: PUF, 2008). 53 See also Didier Debaise, Les conditions dune pense de la relation selon Simondon, in Simondon, ed. Pascal Chabot (Paris: Vrin, 2002), 53-68; Didier Debaise, Quest-ce quune pense relationnelle ? Multitudes 18 (2004); Barthlmy, Penser lindividuation, 100. 54 Indeed, for Simondon, a particular relation is only ever an aspect of the internal resonance of the system (INFI, 28-29), which is to say of the whole set of relations constituting the entire system.
A relation must be grasped as relations in being, a relation of being, a manner of being and not a simple relationship between two terms that could be adequately known by means of concepts because they would have effectively separate existences If substance is no longer the model of being, it is possible to think of relations as the non-identity of being with respect to itself, the inclusion in being of a reality which is not identical with it, with the result that being as being, before individuation, can be grasped as more than a unity and more than an identity (INFI, 32). So what is the link between processes of individuation, prior to any individual, and this realism of relations? We have seen that if we are to grasp the individuated being by means of individuation alone, we must postulate the existence of a preindividual, but how can this pre-individual be said to be relational? The first characteristic of the pre-individual, for Simondon, is that it is distributed according to different orders of magnitude (INFI, 31-32). Indeed, these orders of magnitude may be thought of in a variety of ways in different concrete contexts, for example: the different inter-elemental forces in the clay and in the mould in the operation of casting a brick (INFI, 43-44); the different potential energies corresponding to two different structures such as a supersaturated solution and a seed crystal (INFI, 76-77); the difference in polarity between a polarized molecule and a population of randomly distributed molecules in the process of crystallization (INFI, 97); the difference between particle and wave, or again particle and field, in wave mechanics (INFI, 110-111, 149); the difference between a single nucleus and a population of nuclei in nuclear fission (INFI, 150); the difference between, on the one hand, different species of chemicals in the earth and atmosphere and, on the other hand, solar energy, in the case of the individuation of a plant (INFI, n.12, 34); the difference between the internal milieu and the external environment, or even between levels of internal organization, in the case of the individuation of an animal (INFI, 28, 225-226); and so on. Following Simondon, what we are dealing with in each of these cases is a pre-individual which is comprised only of disparate orders of magnitude which are, primitively, without communication (INFI, 34). What is important, then, is that a relation will be established between these orders by a process of individuation (INFI, 26). That is to say, the pre-individual will form a system of relations which governs the genesis of the individual, but only insofar as the individual, in its coming to be, actualizes or structures these relations.55 Indeed, this manner of conceiving the pre-individual both allows one to think the individual in
See also on this, Muriel Combes, Simondon: Individu et collectivit, 37.
terms of relations, and prevents us from postulating Simondons orders of magnitude as the type of already individuated things between which there would be existing, concrete relations.56 Now, Simondon uses several different manners of expressing the relationship between these different orders. In thermodynamical terms, Simondon speaks of a metastable system wherein there is a potential energy between different orders of magnitude and where the process of individuation corresponds to the progressive degradation of this potential energy through a series of transformations (a potential energy is said to be actualized by these transformations) (INFI, 26). In terms of the theory of vision, Simondon speaks of a disparation between two orders of magnitude, whereby two twin ensembles which are not totally super-imposable, such as left and right retinal images, are seized together in a system and allow the formation of a unique ensemble of a higher degree which integrates all their elements (INFI, n.15, 205-206). Indeed, it is in light of these various characterizations that Deleuze says that we may, in speaking of individuation, speak as much of the establishment of interactive communication between different orders of magnitude or disparate realities as the actualization of a potential energy or the integration of singularities, as the resolution of the problem posed by the disparates by the organization of a new dimension in which they form a unique ensemble of a higher degree.57 In any case, what is crucial, as we have already noted, is that a pre-individual relation between different orders of magnitude is both established by and governs a process of individuation which actualizes or structures these relations. But now, what brings these orders of magnitude into communication if it cannot be the individual? Indeed, since the individual does not exist prior to the relation that it will have been said to actualize, it cannot, strictly speaking, be what establishes the relation. For Simondon, it is a singularity which begins individuation (INFI, 62, 97). As Simondon writes, concretely, a singularity may be the stone that begins the dune, the gravel which is the seed for an island in a river carrying sediment (INFI, n.5, p.44); or again, it may be the information contained in a seed crystal such that it induces further crystallization when added to a supersaturated solution (INFI, 78).58 As Deleuze
On this, see Barthlmy, Penser lindividuation, 103. Gilles Deleuze, On Gilbert Simondon, in Desert Islands and Other Texts 1953-1974, ed. David Lapoujade, trans. Michael Taormina (New York: Semiotexte, 2004), 87. 58 As Combes writes, a physical system is said to be in metastable equilibrium (or false equilibrium) when the slightest modification of the systems parameters (pressure, temperature, etc.) is sufficient to
notes, however, we must carefully distinguish singularity and individual, for singularities are by definition pre-individual.59 Nevertheless, there is a relation between the singularity and the individual: the individual is said to prolong a singularity; or again, an individual (itself presupposing a pre-individual) may play the role of a singularity when it enters into another system in a state of metastable equilibrium and brings about a transformation (INFI, 82; n.9, 82).60 But what is important is that, functionally, a singularity is simply whatever brings about a break in a metastable situation and causes its heterogeneous orders to communicate in a process of individuation which actualizes its potentials and transforms it (INFI, 78). It thus has a strictly local definition, relative to the different orders between which it brings about communication and transformation.61 Indeed, it is in this manner that, for Simondon, a singularity is also information (INFI, n.8, 48; 97), in a sense that can be generalized from cybernetics and information theory. In the theory of information, information is what passes between an emitter and a receptor (or a cascade of such emitters and receptors) in such a way that it allows the receptor to make a decision with respect to the state of the emitter (whether this decision be a reaction, an adaptation, a decoding or some other transformation, depending on whether one is dealing with physical, biological, technological, etc., systems). However, it is essential to note that information here cannot be equated with the individual message itself, but rather depends upon relations between the natures of the emitter and the receptor, that is upon probabilistic relations between the possible states or events which define each of them, and factors such as the background interference or noise due to the nature of the information channel itself. In this sense, information is essentially, in the words of one early Cybernetician, a set of possibilities, and the problem that cybernetics and information theory were originally designed to deal with is that of formalizing the probabilistic conditions under which the correct or intended message can be reliably selected from a set of possible
break this equilibrium. It is in this way that, in supercooled water , the slightest impurity having a structure which is isomorphic to the structure of ice plays the role of a seed crystal and is capable of causing the water to turn to ice. See her Simondon: Individu et collectivit, 11 (my translation). 59 Deleuze, On Gilbert Simondon, 87. 60 However, this capacity of the individual to be a singularity for a metastable system depends as much on the nature of the metastable system involved as it does on the nature of the individual. As will be seen, a singularity, as such, is strictly relative to the two orders of magnitude which it causes to communicate. 61 See also on this, Didier Debaise, Le langage de lindividuation, Multitudes 18, (2004).
messages.62 Technical details aside, what is important for Simondons philosophical concept of information or singularities is that it must obey certain, purely relational (or again, purely operational INFI, 220) conditions with respect to the different orders between which it functions. On the one hand, information must be in some sense unforeseeable for the receptor if it is not to be received as the simple external repetition of an already existing internal state or simply confused with background noise (in information theory, the total probability for the receptor of a particular state of the emitter, as much as the non-distinction of the information signal due to noise, means no information, that is, no decision or transformation on the part of the receptor with respect to the emitter). On the other hand, information must be in some sense foreseeable if it is to be meaningful for and capable of being integrated by the receptor, since the receptor already has its own possible states and mode of functioning with which to make a decision with respect to the state of the emitter (or again, more technically, if all states of the emitter are equiprobable for the receptor, then there is no information) (INFI, 221-223). It is thus clear that there is information only when what emits and what receives the signal can form a differential system in relation to something non-immanent to, but almost entirely coinciding with, that particular system (INFI, 79, 223). As Simondon writes, information is between the two halves of a system in a relation of disparation (INFI, n.30, 223), meaning thereby that, if there is information, a unique ensemble of a higher degree is formed which integrates the elements of the two halves in common processes. And indeed, extrapolating from this, insofar as it refers to the systems constitutive difference, information is something like the sense or meaning (Simondon typically writes, signification) of this system, provided that one also adds that this sense only emerges in the concrete transformations that actually take place in the system.63 In other words, information is this through which the incompatibility of the non-resolved system becomes the
For useful introductions to Cybernetics and Information Theory, see: W. Ross Ashby, An Introduction to Cybernetics (London: Chapman & Hall Ltd, 1957); Francis Heylighen and Cliff Joslyn, Cybernetics and Second-Order Cybernetics in Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 3rd Edition, ed. R.A. Meyers (New York: Academic Press, 2001); John R. Pierce, An Introduction to Information Theory Symbols, Signals and Noise, 2nd Edition (New York: Dover, 1980); and Kenneth M. Sayre, Cybernetics and the Philosophy of Mind (London: Routledge, 1976). 63 As Simondon writes, information is never relative to a unique and homogeneous reality, but to two orders in a state of disparation: it is the meaning [signification] which will emerge when an operation of individuation discovers the dimension according to which two disparate realities can become a system[I]nformation is this through which the incompatibility of the non-resolved system becomes the organizing dimension in its resolution; information presupposes a systems change of phase, for it presupposes a primary pre-individual state which is individuated according to the organization which has been discovered (INFI, 31 emphasis in the original).
organizing dimension in its resolution (INFI, 31 emphasis in the original). Meaning, for Simondon, is relational (INFI, 223). But how precisely, for Simondon, does the individual emerge from such communication between heterogeneous orders, brought about by a singularity or information? The concept that Simondon introduces in order to account for the emergence of the individual is that of transduction.64 As Simondon writes, We understand by transduction an operation, physical, biological, mental, social, through which an activity spreads step by step [de proche en proche] within a domain, this propagation being founded on a structuring of the domain which is carried out from one space to another [de place en place]: each region of the constituted structure serves as the principle for the constitution of the following region, in such a way that a modification is thus progressively extended at the same time as this structuring operation A crystal which, from a tiny germ, grows and spreads in all direction in its solution furnishes the simplest image of the operation of transduction: each constituted molecular layer serves as the structuring basis for the layer which is currently being formed (INFI, 32-33). In effect, transduction is the name given to the ongoing actualization or structuring of the potential energy of a metastable system whose constitutive, heterogeneous orders have been brought into communication by a singularity which functions as a structural germ.65 It is in this way that the structured individual which emerges from this process is said to prolong this singularity (INFI, 78, 82, 532). Now, a complete individuation would correspond to the total use of potential energy contained in the metastable system before structuring. Incomplete individuation, on the other hand, corresponds to a structuring which has not absorbed all of its potential energy (INFI, 79-80). But in fact, incomplete individuation is the general case, since the individual always tends to emerge at the same time as a characteristic milieu or environment (such as a crystal and its solution) (INFI, 24-25). This milieu
Gilbert Hottois suggests that Simondon derives the notion of transduction from that of the transducer, which is any apparatus which is capable of transforming energy (for example, a microphone). See his Simondon et la philosophie de la culture technique (Bruxelles: De Boeck, 1993), 45. See also Barthlmy, Penser Lindividuation, 131-132. It can also be noted that the notion of transduction is also used in genetics and physiology in a sense which is analogical to its technological meaning. 65 It should be noted that Simondon also speaks of internal resonance in much the same way as transduction: Internal resonance is the most primitive mode of communication between realities of different orders. It contains a double process of amplification and condensation (INFI, n.11, 33). Internal resonance is an exchange of energy and movements in a determined enclosure, a communication between a microphysical matter and a macrophysical energy from a singularity of a medium dimension, topologically defined (INFI, 45).
emerges precisely because the individual is not capable of exhausting all of the potentials of the pre-individual reality from which it emerges. And indeed, this is why Simondon says that the milieu is itself a system, synthetically grouping together two or more levels of reality (INFI, n.6, 30). It can thus be considered the individuals reserve of pre-individual charge (INFI, 62-63). In any case, the picture that emerges here is of a world composed of heterogeneous orders between which there exists a potential energy which may be actualized in various ways by appropriately structured singularities. The individuals which are produced by these transductive operations may in turn serve as singularities for other systems or even as relatively amorphous structures (in themselves, or in relation to their milieus) which may be re-structured in encounters with other singularities. As Simondon writes, a being is genetically constituted by a relation between an energetic condition and a structural condition which prolong their existence in the individual, an individual which can at any moment behave like a structural germ or like an energetic continuum; its relation differs depending on whether it enters into a relation with a milieu which is equivalent to a continuum or with a milieu which has already been structured (INFI, 110-111). Of course, these processes of individuation may be more or less complex, depending on the number of systems and subsystems involved and in how many other such systems and subsystems their constitutive orders are implicated. For example, transduction is direct and at a single level in physical systems, and indirect and hierarchized in the living being (INFI, 160). As Simondon writes, the structure of a complex organism is not only integration and differentiation; it is also this institution of a transductive mediation of interiorities and exteriorities, going from an absolute interiority to an absolute exteriority through different mediating levels of relative interiority and exteriority (INFI, 226). And things are even more complex when we consider the relation between the physical and the biological, or again, the biological and the psychic. In the final analysis, such a conception of transduction would thus consider the energetic regimes and the structural states as convertible into each other through the becoming of the whole (INFI, 148-149). It should be noted, however, that this whole does not dissolve the difference between, and the specificity of, the different domains of individuation. The individual does not have a direct relationship with the whole of Nature (INFI, 65). On the contrary, each regime, as we have seen, is characterized by the type and number of relations and processes it implicates, or in 123
which it is implicated. This is precisely what allows Simondon to specify the difference between, for example, the biological and the physical in terms of information and transduction: [T]here is physical information when the system is capable of receiving information just once, then develops and amplifies this initial singularity. If the system is capable of successively receiving several contributions of information, of compatibilizing several singularities instead of repeating the initial singularity, the individuation is vital (INFI, 152) So we have our characterization of processes of individuation via the concept of transduction. However, Simondon also gives us another, and at first sight, unrelated definition of transduction: Transduction is a mental process [procd] and, even more than a process, a movement [dmarche] of the discovering mind. This movement consists in following being in its genesis, in accomplishing the genesis of thought at the same time that the genesis of the object is carried out Transduction is thus not only movement of the mind; it is also intuition, since it is through transduction that, within a problematic domain, a structure appears as bringing about the resolution of the problems posed (INFI, 34). So how is this second definition of transduction to be reconciled with the first? We have already examined two aspects of Simondons thought which allow us to see how these two aspects of transduction are to be thought together. The first is Simondons anti-substantialist assertion that being is through and through relational. In other words, if relations virtually precede their terms in all domains, then not only will we have to characterize concrete processes of individuation in physical, biological, etc., systems in relational terms, the very thought of these concrete processes, and thus the determination of the terms in which these processes are characterized, must also emerge in a relational way. It can thus be said that Simondons dual definition of transduction as both objective and subjective makes sense in terms of this requirement for a relational description of both objective and subjective processes, and indeed, the relation between them (knowledge). As he writes: knowledge is not a relation between a substance object and a substance subject, but the relation between two relations, one of which is in the domain of the object and the other in the domain of the subject (INFI, 82-83). Or to go even further, summing it up in a phrase which also expresses the sheer scope and ambition of Simondons philosophical speculation, relational being in 124
general possesses a unity, not a unity of identity, but a transductive unity (INFI, 31). In other words, transduction characterizes not only being and thinking, but also the relation between them which is productive of knowledge. Transduction can thus be said to unify objective, subjective and cultural processes and products. The second and related aspect of Simondons thought which shows us precisely what he means by transduction is his method, that is, as has been seen, his encyclopaedic (if, in principle, open) investigation of processes of individuation which leads to an increasingly complex specification of the notion of individuation. Indeed, this method incorporates both the objective and the mental aspects of transduction in a single, speculative philosophy. For Simondons initial analysis of the formation of crystals through transduction functions as the elementary paradigm for the individuation of the thought of individuation. In other words, the use of this paradigm in different and increasingly complex, problematic domains of knowledge acts as a structural germ for the gradual transformation of our understanding of transductive processes of individuation in these other domains, and in turn leads to an ongoing individuation of the very concept of individuation (INFI, 33, 83-84, 555).66 As Simondon describes his method: Having thus attempted to seize, on the one hand, the epistemological role of the notion of the individual in this domain, and on the other hand the phenomenological contents to which this notion refers, we will try to transfer the results of this first test to domains which are logically and ontologically subsequent [This method] is founded on the search for a structure and an operation which is characteristic of the reality that one may name the
This point is attested to in Combes, Simondon: Inidividu et collectivit, 24-28 ; and Hottois, Simondon et la philosophie de la culture technique, 39. This is also, though with some reservations, the thesis of Isabelle Stengers in her Pour une mise laventure de la transduction, in Simondon, ed. Chabot, 137159. With regard to the problematic nature of the domains of knowledge where the paradigm of crystallization will play the role of a structural germ, Barthlmy has pointed out certain tensions which Simondon effectively exploits: the coexistence and reciprocal limitation of the individuality and interaction of particles in the physical world (following De Broglies concerns over the definition of potential energy); the opposition between mechanism and vitalism in biology; the problem of the relation between perception and action in the living creature; the opposition of psychologism and sociologism in thinking the becoming-transindividual of the living creature; and the opposition of subject and object in epistemology. See, respectively, his Penser Lindividuation, 110-111, 151-152, 174, 187 and 224, 235 and 239-240. We could also add to this list: the relationship between induction and deduction in epistemology, the problematic relation between the physical and the living in bio-chemistry, the problematic postulation of a neoteny between different species, and the problem of the different levels of individuality applicable to the study of collectivities in biology (INFI, 111, 152, 171, 157-158). It can also be said that this understanding of Simondons method also explains his use of scientific notions outside of their usual contexts. For names such as metastability, order of magnitude, potential energy, singularity, information, etc., stand for concepts which must now be understood, not in relation to the scientific domains from which they have been extracted, but from the point of view of an antisubstantialist, relational and transductive conception of being.
individual; if this reality exists, it can be applicable to different forms and levels, but must authorize the intellectual transfer from one domain to another, by means of necessary conversions; the notions that it will be necessary to add in order to pass from one domain to the next will thus be characteristic of the order of reality which makes up the content of these domains (INFI, 555).67 Or more simply, as Jean-Hugues Barthlmy has put it, if we are dealing with relations all the way down, as it were, then to pass from the polarization of the crystal to that of the living being, is to pass from one degree of individuality to an other by a multiplication of the relation.68 In short, transduction thus describes, at once, real processes of individuation in their analogically connected diversity and the kind of thought which allows them to be understood.69 But what now of Deleuzes relation to the philosophical system that Simondon establishes in Lindividu et sa gense physico-biologique? And what of the relation between processes of individuation and the problem or problematic Idea?
3.4 Deleuze, Simondon and Lautman: Singularity and Problem For Deleuze, just as for Simondon, the individuation of things (whether they are physical, biological or otherwise) as well as the individuation of our perceptions of these things or, in other words, the individuation of the known and knowledge takes place by difference: difference of order, of magnitude, or as Deleuze says in Difference and Repetition, difference of intensity or of intensive quantity.70 As he writes, [e]verything which happens and everything which appears is correlated with orders of differences: differences of level, temperature, pressure, tension, potential, difference of
As Combes explains, logical subsequence here refers to the process of going from the simple to the complex, while ontological subsequence refers to the different levels of being which emerge as ongoing and related resolutions of the pre-individual: from the physical to the biological to psychic and social individuals and finally to the technological (even if higher levels are irreducible to lower ones, since each domain has its own particular characteristics). See her Simondon: Individu et collectivit, 27. It should also be said that, at each ontological stage, the earlier paradigm does not determine a later process as such. Rather, in accordance with our relational definition of information and singularity, the transposition of the paradigm-germ from level to level is simultaneously a construction of this germ. 68 Penser Lindividuation, 176-177 (my translation). 69 Hottois, Simondon, 44 (my translation). 70 Indeed, Deleuze writes with reference to Simondon, that the essential process of intensive quantities is individuation. Intensity is individuating, and intensive quantities are individuating factors All individuality is intensive , comprising and affirming in itself the difference in intensities by which it is constituted (DR, 246). Also, in his review of Simondon, Deleuze notes that Simondons concept of orders of magnitude is very close to that of intensive quantity. See Deleuze, On Gilbert Simondon, 87.
intensity Every intensity is E E, where E itself refers to an e e, and e to , and so on, ad infinitum (DR, 222). The entirety of Chapter 5 of Difference and Repetition is devoted to the elaboration of this concept of intensity and its relation to problematic Ideas. And it is important to note, for our purposes here, that both Deleuzes concept of intensity and his method for determining this concept parallels in a very clear way Simondons work on individuation and its encyclopaedic ambition. Indeed, Deleuze examines many different intensive systems in order to determine his concept: classical thermodynamics (DR, 222-223; 240-241); Curies work on symmetry (DR, 222-223; 234);71 the visual perception of space (DR, 229-231); number theory and order theory (DR, 232-233; 237-238); biological classification (DR, 248-252); embryogenesis (DR, 249-252); Darwinism and biological evolution more generally (DR, 255-256); and the relation between self and other in psycho-social systems (DR, 256-261).72 It is beyond the scope of this thesis to examine such systems in detail. What is essential to appreciate, however, is that Deleuze essentially follows Simondon in arguing that processes of individuation insofar as these take place only by difference and the actualization of potentials are what generate things in general: the known and knowledge, that is, individuals, persons and general concepts. But now, what of the relation between these processes of intensive individuation and the above analyzed problematic Idea? In fact, Deleuze thinks Simondons preindividual through the lens of his own concept of the problem or problematic Idea. As he writes, Gilbert Simondon has shown recently that individuation presupposes a prior metastable state in other words, the existence of a disparateness such as at least two orders of magnitude or two scales of heterogeneous reality between which potentials are distributed. Such a pre-individual field nevertheless does not lack singularities: the distinctive or singular points are defined by the existence and distribution of potentials. An objective problematic field thus appears, determined by the distance between two heterogeneous orders. Individuation emerges like the act of solving a problem, or what amounts to the same thing like the actualization of a potential and the establishing of
In Curies work on symmetry, it is understood that a certain minimal dissymmetry is a necessary condition for physical phenomena in general. Both Simondon (see ILNFI, 88-90) and Lautman (Les mathmatiques, 265-267) cite Curies principle of symmetry in relation to their own concerns. 72 With respect to different types of intensive systems, Deleuze writes elsewhere in Difference and Repetition that the intensive character of the systems considered should not prejudice their being characterized as mechanical, physical, biological, psychic, social, aesthetic or philosophical, etc. (DR, 117-118).
communication between disparates. The act of individuation consists not in suppressing the problem, but in integrating the elements of the disparateness into a state of coupling which ensures its internal resonance. The individual thus finds itself attached to a pre-individual half which is not the impersonal within it so much as the reservoir of its singularities. In all these respects, we believe that individuation is essentially intensive, and that the pre-individual field is a virtual-ideal field, made up of differential relations Individuation is the act by which intensity determines differential relations to become actualized... [I]t is always a question of pre-individual singularities distributed within the Idea It is because of the action of the field of individuation that such and such differential relations and such and such distinctive points (preindividual fields) are actualized (DR, 246-247). So our question becomes: how precisely does Deleuze understand this connection between the problematic Idea and processes of intensive individuation? There are in Difference and Repetition three steps to Deleuzes argument. First of all, primarily with respect to a critique of classical or equilibrium thermodynamics, Deleuze constructs a concept of intensity which accounts for what objectively happens in physical and biological systems.73 In the second place, chiefly in relation to a critique of Kants account of perception, which is understood in terms of syntheses of intensive magnitudes of sensation in extensive time and space (intuition), Deleuze will argue that space, time and sensation are all intensive, and so intensity must be said to account for what subjectively appears.74 Finally, Deleuze will outline a concept of a divided subject which, whilst thoroughly dissolved in the spatio-temporal, intensive processes constituting it (biological, perceptual, psychic, social, etc.), is led by such differential processes to think their unity or co-existence, along with the relation between the individuals to which they give rise, in the same form as the ongoing determination of the problematic Idea (reciprocal, complete and progressive determination of differential elements by the adjunction and transformation of singularities).75 By thinking in this
On the critique of classical thermodynamics, see DR, 223-224, 228-229 and 240-241. On Deleuzes intensive account of physical and biological systems, see generally DR, Chapter 5. 74 On the critique of Kant, see DR, 231-232. On the intensive nature of spatial perception, see DR, 229231; on time and intensity see DR, 70-96 and 116-121. 75 On this question of the unity of intensive processes in the problematic Idea, see DR, 280-281: Perplication is what we called this state of Problems-Ideas, with their multiplicities and coexistent varieties, their determination of elements, their distribution of mobile singularities and their formation of ideal series around these singularities Complication is what we called the state of chaos which retains and comprises all the actual intensive series which correspond to these ideal series, incarnating them and affirming their divergence. This chaos thus gathers in itself the being of the problems and distributes it to all the systems and fields which form within it the persistent value of the problematic. Implication is what we called the state of intensive series insofar as these communicate through their differences and resonate in forming fields of individuation. Each is implicated by the others, which it implicates in turn; they constitute the enveloping and enveloped, the solving and the solved of the system. Finally,
way the relation between its constitutive, intensive processes, and the related individuals which make up its world, the divided subject is said to actualize the elements and singularities which make up the problem into the cases of solution to the problem, that is, into the qualities and extensities characterizing actual things.76 As Deleuze puts it: It is because of the action of the field of individuation that such and such differential relations and such and such distinctive points (pre-individual fields) are actualized in other words, organized within intuition along lines differenciated in relation to other lines. As a result, they then form the quality, number, species and parts of an individual, in short, its generality (DR, 247). Or again: Every body, every thing, thinks and is a thought to the extent that, reduced to its intensive reasons, it expresses an Idea the actualization of which it determines. However, the thinker himself makes his individual differences from all manner of things: it is in this sense that he is laden with stones and diamonds, plants and even animals. The thinker is the individual, the universal individual. It is he who makes use of all the power of the clear and the confused, of the clear-confused [i.e., of enveloped and enveloping intensities], in order to think Ideas in all their power as distinct-obscure [i.e., as fully differentiated but not yet differenciated] (DR, 254). Now, let us recall that the original aim of the above analyses was to examine Deleuzes contention that the sense and truth value of all propositions in relation to their corresponding objects are located in a sub-representative problem in relation to which these propositions make sense, in both the passive and active senses of make sense, as cases of solution. In particular, it was argued that philosophical propositions with respect to the objective nature of this problematic Idea must also find their sense and truth value in relation to the problem. In other words, the problematic nature of the Idea will be made sense of at the same time as it is fully determined as the kind of problem in relation to which things in general actively and passively make sense. And we have seen Deleuzes solution to this problem of the problem: it objectively makes sense to characterize the problematic Idea by the reciprocal, complete and progressive
explication is what we called the state of qualities and extensities which cover and develop the system, between the basic series: it is here that the differenciations and integrations which define the totality of the final solution are traced out (emphasis added). See also DR, 124: The essential point is the simultaneity and co-existence of all the divergent series, the fact that all coexist. 76 On the dissolved self which is dissolved in intensity, and its correlation with the fractured I which thinks problematic Ideas, see DR, 199-200, 252-254 and 258-259. On the actualization of Ideas in the qualities and extensities characterizing actual things, see DR, 244-247 and 252-255.
determination of differential elements in relation to the adjunction and transformation of singularities, precisely insofar as it also makes sense to say that everything that happens and everything that appears is due to differential intensive processes (along with their corresponding potentials for transformation) which, via the intermediary of the intensive individuation of a divided subject, actualize this Idea for this subject in the qualities and extensities which make sense of the things populating our world.77 However, two questions still remain for us to consider. First of all, in what form do we find these considerations from Difference and Repetition expressed in The Logic of Sense? Secondly, how are these considerations as regards the concepts of the problem and singularity supposed to apply to particular, non-philosophical propositions belonging to diverse domains and bearing on states of affairs which, Deleuze contends, are constituted by events? Indeed, at this stage, we can only affirm in a general way, following Deleuzes alignment of Simondons work with his own on the problematic Idea, that insofar as intensive processes actualize the problematic Idea thereby generating knowledge and the known in diverse domains then propositions which are constitutive of knowledge and bear on the known must be said to find their sense and truth-value in the problem. But in fact, this presupposes that we can determine the language in which these propositions are formulated, in these same, differential and intensive terms and, therefore, as determined or made sense of within the problematic Idea.78 We shall leave this second question for Chapter 4, when we examine Deleuzes use of structuralism in The Logic of Sense. Even though, as will be seen, Deleuzes understanding of structuralism follows from his account of the concepts of singularity and the problem, most of his pronouncements with regard to the serial or differential organization of objective events and things, on the one hand, and propositional
See also Alberto Gualandis work on the relation between Ideas and intensities. See his Deleuze (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1998), 62-71. As he writes: For Deleuze, as for Simondon, [intensive] individuation is in effect a process which concerns all of the domains of being: physics and biology, perception and language, society and love. The contracting and contemplating body is the result of a process of ontogenetic individuation which, in man, is prolonged in a set of complex and interrelated activities: nutritional, perceptive, linguistic and cultural The process of individuation [then] actualizes the elements, relations and singular points which constitute the Idea It is intensity which determines the Idea to be actualized, for the distinctive feature of intensity is to resolve its differences in a process of individuation which creates new individuals If the Idea is the capacity [puissance] that Being has to give itself to thought, intensity is the capacity that Being has to exist and affect us (my translation). 78 It should be mentioned that, in Difference and Repetition, Deleuze does analyze language in intensive terms, in particular with respect to literary systems (DR, 121-124), linguistic systems in their relation to psychic systems (DR, 122-126), and in psycho-social systems (DR, 261). Such considerations with regard to language, however, are not nearly as developed in Difference and Repetition as they are in The Logic of Sense.
expressions and denotations on the other, are formulated using a structuralist vocabulary. So, in light of our analyses of Difference and Repetition, let us now rather answer the first question by examining Deleuzes full account of the problem and singularity in The Logic of Sense. As noted above, the most important series for our examination of the concepts of singularity and problematic field are the Ninth Series of the Problematic, the Fifteenth Series of Singularities, and the Seventeenth Series of the Static Logical Genesis. In particular, in the Fifteenth Series, Deleuze outlines five characteristics of the world of singularities and the problem which coincide with the above analyses. The first characteristic is that singularities-events correspond to heterogeneous series which are organized into a system which is neither stable nor unstable, but rather metastable, endowed with a potential energy wherein the differences between series are distributed. (Potential energy is the energy of the pure event, whereas forms of actualization correspond to the realization of the event) (LS, 103). In effect, there are two points packed into this one. The first of these is in fact elided in the citation. It is that heterogeneous series are composed of ordinary points or terms which exist only through the relations they maintain with one another (LS, 50). To be precise, then, singularities-events correspond, not simply to heterogeneous series, but to the values of these relations between the terms or ordinary points which constitute such series (LS, 50).79 What is essential for our purposes here, of course, is to understand that this metastable system of singularities and series of ordinary points is identical to what was called above the problematic Idea. Indeed, as was said, the problem is composed of merely determinable elements which are reciprocally determined in relation to each other with reference to singularities which correspond to the values of the relations between these elements. The second point at stake in the above citation concerns the notion of potential energy and its actualization. It is clear that Deleuze is here following, at least to some extent, Simondons use of this term to describe the potential for transformation which exists in the relation between different orders of magnitude, whatever these may be. However, it should be emphasized that Deleuze uses the term potential energy here only to qualify the pure event which is to say the Unique Event, Aion or the
It is from this point of view that Deleuze writes that the singular point is opposed to the ordinary (LS, 52).
problematic Idea and not some existing, corporeal state of affairs. As Deleuze puts it in Difference and Repetition, with respect to the problematic Idea, the differential relation is a pure element of potentiality (DR, 175). Now, corresponding to the realization of the potential energy of the problem or of the differences constitutive of this potential are forms of actualization. And this maps equally neatly onto the discussion of the problematic Idea above, since the determination of the problematic Idea automatically entails the genesis of determined individuals. In other words, the problematic Idea is the differential pre-individual field which will have been said to be (reciprocally, completely and progressively) determined insofar as it is actualized in the qualities and extensities characterizing worldly individuals, that is, to the extent that a divided subject thinks these individuals as having resulted from intensive processes which are irreducible to some original or subtending individual. In fact, it must be noted that this is precisely what was meant in Chapter 2 when it was argued that individuals will be determined in their related differences insofar as the singularity-events which characterize them are analytically prolonged over a series of ordinary points up to the vicinity of another singularity (LS, 109 translation modified).80 Indeed, let us recall that for Leibniz, and Deleuze following him, there are within a world both distinct or singular events, and obscure or ordinary events, characterizing the individuals belonging to this world. Following a principle of sufficient reason, singular events are said to be analytically prolonged over series of ordinary events insofar as the reason why these series of ordinary events are attributable to a series of related individuals is explained by a relation between individuals characterized by the distinct or singular events. In other words, the analytic prolongation of singularities-events over series of ordinary events, up to the neighbourhood of other such singularities, determines these ordinary events in their relations, and thereby also determines the law-like relations between those worldly individuals which are inter-defined by these events, whether ordinary or singular.81 As Deleuze puts it in his work on Leibniz in the Sixteenth Series of Ontological Genesis, returning to the notion of potential energy: it is in the same way that a singularity is prolonged over a line of ordinary points and that a potential energy is actualized and falls to its lowest level (LS, 110).
Or again, each singularity is the source of a series [of ordinary points] extending in a determined direction right up to the vicinity of another singularity (LS, 52-53 emphasis added). 81 See Chapter 2, 62-64.
Now, following once again the Fifteenth Series of Singularities, Deleuze states that the second characteristic of the world of singularities and the problem is that singularities possess a process of auto-unification, always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the emissions, all dice throws, in a single cast (LS, 103). To what aspect or aspects of the problematic Idea does this characteristic correspond? As examined above, the problematic Idea is not only reciprocally determined, but also completely and progressively determined. As was argued, on the one hand, the reciprocal determination of merely determinable elements cannot not imply completion even over divergent series; and on the other hand, such a complete, internal determination could only ever be carried out progressively and experimentally,82 from one series of determinations to another and back again. In other words, the reciprocal and complete determination of merely determinable elements automatically implies the ongoing, intrinsic, and step by step securing of terms or forms, by means of the adjunction and transformation of the singularities-events corresponding to the values of the relations between these elements. As Deleuze puts it in The Logic of Sense: As for the determination of the conditions [of the problem], it implies, on the one hand, a space of nomad distribution in which singularities are distributed (Topos); on the other hand, it implies a time of decomposition whereby this space is subdivided into sub-spaces. Each one of these subspaces is successively defined by the adjunction of new points ensuring the progressive and complete determination of the domain under consideration (Aion). There is always a space which condenses and precipitates singularities, just as there is always a time which progressively completes the event through fragments of future and past events. Thus, there is a spatio-temporal self-determination of the problem, in the sequence of which the problem advances Solutions are engendered at precisely the time that the problem determines itself (LS, 120121 emphasis added). So, we now understand the idea of a mobile and displaced that is to say, progressive process of the auto-unification (complete determination) of singularitiesevents, but what about the paradoxical element on which this process depends? Let us recall that in Chapter 1, it was suggested that the paradoxical element or instance could
That the determination of the problem is also experimentation is what Deleuze means when he speaks of dice throws and aleatory points. That these experiments are carried out and determined within the problem is what Deleuze means when he writes that these dice throws are gathered up in a single cast. We shall return to this notion of the throw of the dice below.
be understood in terms of the Aion or Unique Event represented and actualized by the Stoic sage who identifies with it which runs through and gathers together the particular events which characterize the universe.83 In Chapter 2, the paradoxical instance was characterized as the person understood as nobody. On the one hand, because it is common to divergent worlds, the person was said to be an operator in the disjunctive synthesis or, we might say, the differential determination of divergent series of events. On the other hand, the person was also said to only ever be a produced form, derived from such syntheses which also imply relations to other persons, worlds and event-determined individuals. The person, then, as a general operator, is by nature perpetually displaced or decentred.84 Now, in the vocabulary of singularities and the problem, Deleuze writes that: If the distributions of singularities corresponding to each series form fields of problems, how are we to characterize the paradoxical element which runs through the series, makes them resonate, communicate and branch out, and which exercises command over all the repetitions, transformations and redistributions? This element must itself be defined as the locus of a question. The problem is determined by singular points corresponding to the series, but the question is determined by an aleatory point corresponding to the empty square or mobile element. The metamorphoses or redistributions of singularities form a history; each combination and each distribution is an event. But the paradoxical element is the Event in which all events communicate and are distributed. It is the Unique event, and all other events are its bits and pieces The question is developed in problems, and the problems are enveloped in a fundamental question (LS, 56). We thus see that, in this new vocabulary, the paradoxical element once again implies both a personal moment, insofar as the question necessarily implies a questioner, and an impersonal moment insofar as the question is developed in problems which, as we know, are ontologically prior to any determined form. Here, it is useful to recall that, in Difference and Repetition, Deleuze explains how these two aspects of the question are related by speaking of questions as imperative questions (see, for what follows, DR, 195-200).85 In short, that a question is imperative means that the question is forced upon or experienced as a problem by a questioner: the
See Chapter 1, 47, 49. See Chapter 2, 72-79. 85 For a more fully developed account of the question in Difference and Repetition and its relation to the personne, see Leonard Lawlor, The End of Ontology Interrogation in Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze, in Thinking Through French Philosophy, 95-108. In particular, Lawlor analyzes Deleuzes difference from Heidegger, and also Merleau-Ponty, with respect to the concept and role of the question in ontology.
experience of a problem (the divergence of series within a world, for example) puts the worldly questioner into question, as it were, and forces it to answer. On the other hand, problems are said to emanate from questions, for the distribution of the singularities-events which condition the problem, along with the solutions in which this problem is incarnated, will depend on the answer forced from the questioner (that is, in Deleuzes neo-Leibnizian vocabulary, on the disjunctive synthesis of the divergent series which the questioner experienced as a problem). Furthermore, it follows from the above that the questioner is never the ultimate source of problems and questions, for insofar as it is itself a solution or derived form, its capacity to be affected by problems could only be the result of prior distributions of singularities-events. And nor is the question an original instance, for it refers only to the infinite power of the problem to put such questioners into question. Finally, it follows that the problem itself is always derived, for the determination of its conditions as a problem refers back to imperative questions and thus to questioners. Comparing this situation to a throw of the dice, Deleuze writes: The singular points are on the die; the questions are the dice themselves; the imperative is to throw. Ideas are the problematic combinations which result from the throws The throw of the dice carries out the calculation of problems, the determination of differential elements or the distribution of singular points which constitute a structure. The circular relation between imperatives and the problems which proceed from them is formed in this manner (DR, 198). Or again, as Deleuze puts it in The Logic of Sense: Each throw operates a distribution of singularities, a constellation. But instead of dividing a closed space between fixed results which correspond to hypotheses, the mobile results are distributed in the open space of the unique and undivided cast. This is a nomadic and non-sedentary distribution, wherein each system of singularities communicates and resonates with the others, being at once implicated by the others and implicating them in the most important cast. It is the game of problems and of the question (LS, 60). So now we see how Deleuze understands singularities to possess a process of auto-unification or complete determination, which itself refers to a progressive and experimental determination which is always-already underway. What is more, it is clear that this process implies a subject or questioner (or rather an open series of such 135
subjects) which, while never the ultimate source of problems and questions, is a necessary operator in their open, circular relation. As was argued above, this questioner is the divided subject, thoroughly dissolved in the (biological, psychosocial, etc.) intensive processes constituting it, and which, in the absence of some original, identifiable thing, is forced by such differential processes to think their related co-existence, along with the relations between the worldly individuals to which they give rise, in the form of the ongoing determination of the problematic Idea. Or again, in Deleuzes neo-Leibnizian vocabulary, the questioner is personne, nobody, but a produced form which is also an operator in the disjunctive syntheses of divergent series of ordinary events and the singularities-events on which they depend. Finally, the questioner is also the Stoic sage who sets up shop at the surface [of sense], on the straight line which traverses it, or at the aleatory point which traces or travels this line (LS, 146). But now we also know that if it is the sage who throws the dice, it is, nevertheless, ultimately the Aion [which] is the ideal player of the game [and] the unique cast from which all throws are qualitatively distinguished (LS, 64).86 Following these analyses, we are now in a better position to understand what Deleuze describes as the third characteristic of the world of singularities and the problem: that singularities or potentials haunt the surface (LS, 103). The two examples which Deleuze here provides of singularities and surfaces are, following Simondons work, the development of a crystal at the surface (or, rather, at its edges, no doubt in relation to a seed crystal acting as a singularity in relation to the structuring of tensions in a super-saturated solution), and mucous membranes, which put the entire internal organization of an organism in contact with its external environment at the level of the skin. Now, we want to argue, with respect to this third point, that Deleuze is essentially talking about those intensive processes (here, physical and biological) which will be said to actualize the problematic Idea. Although Deleuze does not talk about intensive processes as such in The Logic of Sense, in the Seventeenth Series of the Static Logical Genesis, he does talk in very general terms about a physics of surfaces (LS, 124-125). He in fact returns to the Stoic notion that sense or the event, as incorporeal, is both an effect of relations between bodies and is connected to an ideal quasi-cause presiding over the determination of these bodies. In a clear parallel with
Referring to Nietzsche, Deleuze similarly writes that the subject is not so much the individual or the person as it is this free, anonymous, and nomadic singularity which traverses men as well as plants and animals independently of the matter of their individuation and the forms of their personality. Overman means nothing other than this (LS, 107).
the relation between problematic Ideas and intensive individuation in Difference and Repetition, Deleuze then asks: How can we maintain both that sense produces even the states of affairs in which it is embodied, and that it is itself produced by these states of affairs or the actions and passions of bodies (an immaculate conception) (LS, 124)? And he responds that, when we say that bodies and their mixtures produce sense, it is not by virtue of an individuation which would presuppose it. Individuation in bodies, the measure in their mixtures, the play of persons and concepts in their variations this entire order presupposes sense and the pre-individual and impersonal neutral field within which it unfolds. It is therefore in a different way that sense is produced by bodies (LS, 124). So, on the one hand, individuation in bodies presupposes sense or the problematic Idea; on the other hand, bodies contribute to the production of this sense in a way which is, strictly speaking, independent of this individuation. In short, this is only to say that we must recognize that bodies are caught up in their own processes, while at the same time they are individuated for the subject which thinks them as the results of intensive processes all the way down, and thus ultimately in the form of (the ongoing determination of) the problematic Idea. So, following Deleuze, the question is now about bodies taken in their undifferentiated depth and in their measureless pulsation. As he writes: This depth acts in an original way, by means of its power to organize surfaces and to envelop itself within surfaces. This pulsation sometimes acts through the formation of a minimum amount of surface for a maximum amount of matter (thus the spherical form), and sometimes through the growth of surfaces and their multiplication in accordance with diverse processes (stretching, fragmenting, crushing, drying and moistening, absorbing, foaming, emulsifying, etc.) There is therefore an entire physics of surfaces as the effect of deep mixtures a physics which endlessly assembles the variations and the pulsations of the entire universe, enveloping them inside these mobile limits (LS, 124-125).87 It is thus with reference to this physics of surfaces that singularities or potentials for transformation will be said to haunt the surface. But now, it should also
This type of physics of surfaces in relation to, for example, soap bubbles, salt-crystals and bodies of water is analysed in intensive terms in Delanda, Intensive Science, 15, 70, 150-151, n.76.
be noticed that Deleuze immediately reattaches these pronouncements with regard to the physics of surfaces to the notion of sense or the problematic Idea. He continues: And to the physics of surfaces a metaphysical surface necessarily corresponds. Metaphysical surface (transcendental field) is the name that will be given to the frontier established, on one hand, between bodies taken together as a whole and inside the limits [of the physical surfaces] which envelop them, and on the other, propositions in general In all these respects, the surface is the transcendental field itself, and the locus of sense and expression. Sense is that which is formed and developed at the surface. Even the frontier is not a separation, but rather the element of an articulation, so that sense is presented both as that which happens to bodies and that which insists in propositions (LS, 125). And in fact, this is precisely the fourth characteristic of the world of singularities and the problem which Deleuze spells out in the Fifteenth Series of Singularities: not only do singularities or potentials haunt the surface, as illustrated by processes of crystallization and the development biological organisms, this surface is the locus of sense, and signs [i.e., singularities-events] remain deprived of sense as long as they do not enter into the surface organization which assures the resonance of two series (two images-signs, two photographs, two tracks, etc.) (LS, 104).88 Apart from this allusion to two series, however, Deleuze does not at this point spell out exactly how the physical and metaphysical surfaces are supposed to correspond. We must rather examine Deleuzes work on structuralism and, finally, psychoanalysis to appreciate this point, and this will form part of the subject matter of Chapters 4 and 5 respectively. Nevertheless, Deleuze does reiterate the role of the divided subject in this relation. Thus he writes in relation to this fourth characteristic that, this world of sense does not yet imply unity of direction or community of organs. The latter requires a receptive apparatus capable of bringing about a successive superimposition of surface planes in accordance with another dimension (LS, 104). In other words, while the relation between various physical surfaces and the metaphysical surface can be thought in the form of a problem, this problem will only be actualized insofar as a subject thinks it (superimposition of surfaces) in accordance with its own particular constitution (receptive apparatus). Again, however, we know that this subject does not bring about the actualization of the problem as though it were some constitutive
We know that Deleuze equates events and singularities. He equates events and signs at LS, 63.
instance external to the problem, for it is itself the result of such processes of actualization. Indeed, this is precisely why Deleuze goes on to write that this world of sense, with its events-singularities, offers a neutrality which is essential to it. And this is the case, not only because it hovers over the dimensions according to which it will be arranged in order to acquire signification, manifestation, and denotation, but also because it hovers over the actualization of its energy as potential energy, that is, the realization of events, which may be internal as well as external, collective as well as individual (LS, 104). This then leads us to Deleuzes fifth and final characteristic of the world of singularities and the problem, whereby this world of sense has a properly problematic status: singularities are distributed in a properly problematic field and crop up in this field as topological events to which no direction is attached This allows us, as we have seen, to give an entirely objective definition to the term problematic and to the indetermination which it carries along, since the nature of directed singularities and their existence and directionless distribution depend on objectively distinct instances (LS, 104-105). In relation to these five points, we can now see that the full definition of the problem or problematic Idea such as this can be found in Difference and Repetition is applicable to the world of sense, Aion or the static genesis found in The Logic of Sense. The problem will thus be said to be composed of merely determinable, differential elements which are reciprocally, completely and progressively determined by the adjunction and transformation of singularities in relation to a divided subject or, rather, to an open series of such subjects which, without reference to some subtending substance, is forced to experimentally think its intensively constituted world, and its own self therein, in the form of this problem, thereby actualizing its elements and singularities in the determined individuals which populate this world. What is more, because this subject is itself only a provisional result of such processes, the experimental actualization which it brings about will remain internal to the problem, and the pure, differential form of the problem will thus be said to persist in and remain distinct from all of its solutions. What, however, of that aspect of the problem which concerns the sense and truth of propositions in relation to their corresponding object? (Let us recall once more that, 139
for Deleuze, every proposition has a sense, but this sense is located in a subrepresentative problem in relation to which such propositions function as elements of response or cases of solution.) In fact, there are three further characteristics of singularities and the problem which are not discussed by Deleuze in the Fifteenth Series, but which are discussed elsewhere in The Logic of Sense, and which correspond to this final aspect of the problematic Idea. Thus, first of all, in the Seventeenth Series, Deleuze writes that the problem is not propositional, although it does not exist outside of the propositions which express it (LS, 122). However, because we are leaving a discussion of language and propositions until Chapter 4, when we address Deleuzes relation to structuralism, we shall deal with this point then. The second and related point is that singularities-events are expressed in propositions. Indeed, as we have already seen, Deleuze argues that the verb of the proposition expresses an event (see LS, 5, 21, 24, 184, 186). It is clear that this particular point also follows from the above idea that problems do not exist outside of the propositions which express them, as well as from the notion that singularities-events condition the problem as such. In any case, because further consideration of this point necessitates an examination of Deleuzes treatment of language and propositions, we shall return to it in Chapter 4. The third and final point is that the world of the problem and singularities-events both engenders the logical proposition with its determinate dimensions (denotation, manifestation, and signification) and engenders also the objective correlates of this proposition which were themselves first produced as ontological propositions (the denoted, the manifested, and the signified) (LS, 120). Indeed, Deleuze elsewhere writes that singularities-events characterize each of the objective correlates of the three dimensions of the proposition: concepts, states of affairs and persons. As he writes: an ideal event is a singularity or rather a set of singularities or of singular points characterizing a mathematical curve, a physical state of affairs, a psychological and moral person. Singularities are turning points and points of inflection; saddle points, nodes, focus points, and centres [des cols, des nuds, des foyers, des centres]; points of fusion, condensation and boiling; points of tears and joy, sickness and health, hope and anxiety, sensitive points (LS, 52 translation modified).89
It should be noted that concepts are figured here, in a manner which recalls Leibniz, by a mathematical curve representing a relation between the differentia constitutive of a given state of affairs.
In Chapter 2, in fact, we analyzed this genetic role of singularities-events. We said that disjunctive syntheses of divergent world-series of singularities-events imply the simultaneous and related determinations of: a knowing subject, another such subject, a world of individuals common to the divergent worlds, and variable and overlapping classes of trope-like events which structure relations between these divergent worlds and thereby determine the worldly individuals common to these worlds in their logical relations. But again, we must ask, what is the role of language in these disjunctive syntheses? Surely the relation between knowing subjects established in these disjunctive syntheses along with the relation between these subjects, the determined concepts which they share, and the identifiable objects falling under these concepts must be mediated by language?90 Again, we will be obliged to return to this point in Chapter 4.
To conclude this chapter, while we are yet to determine a differential or intensive account of language and the proposition, we can nevertheless provisionally sum up the work to which Deleuze puts his concepts of the problem and singularities. First of all, by means of these concepts, Deleuze gets around some of the problems he identifies in the work of the Stoics and Leibniz. In other words, instead of determining the ongoing sense-event or Aion with reference to a substantial instance (the body and name of Zeus), or again, instead of reducing the differential play of events to an underlying convergence guaranteed by the person of God, Deleuze is now able to talk about events as ontologically dependent only on other events. Indeed, as has been seen, the ongoing determination of the singular and ordinary events which constitute the problem is precisely the evental-determination of these events. In the second place, by means of these two concepts, Deleuze is able, not only to affirm the evental-determination of the event, but also that events are ontologically prior to things in general that is, individuals or individuated states of affairs, persons and general concepts all the way down. This is the result of the re-description of the static ontological and logical geneses in terms of problem and singularity. In effect,
On the role of language in the relation between others in psycho-social systems, see also DR, 261.
singularities-events both express problematic or differential relations between individuals, persons and concepts, and, insofar as these events are eventally determined in the problem (disjunctive synthesis), constitute these things in their relations. We have yet to see, however, precisely how the concepts of the problem and singularities account for the internal genesis of both the sense and the truth of propositions, along with the object which realizes this truth. In order do so, we must turn to examine Deleuzes approach to language and the proposition.
Chapter 4: Deleuze and Structuralism
______________________________________________________________________ As noted in the previous chapter, Deleuzes work on the relation between language and the problem is primarily couched in a structuralist vocabulary, and no longer explicitly in terms of problems and solutions. However, as we shall see, Deleuzes concept of structure is, to all intents and purposes, identical to that of the problem. Indeed, in Difference and Repetition the text which formed the basis of our examination of the concept of the problem in The Logic of Sense, and published only one year before this latter Deleuze explicitly aligns the problematic Idea and structure. He writes, for example, that the Idea is thus defined as a structure. A structure or an Idea is a complex theme, an internal multiplicity in other words, a system of multiple, nonlocalizable connections between differential elements which is incarnated in real relations and actual terms (DR, 183. See also DR, 191. On the rapprochement of the linguistic Idea and structuralism in linguistics, see DR, 203-205). It will thus be the task of this chapter to elucidate Deleuzes concept of structure in The Logic of Sense, its identity with the concept of the problem, and how it guides Deleuzes thinking about language. In this chapter, we shall also examine how some of the issues previously examined in relation to the Stoics and Leibniz can be re-described in structuralist terms. In particular, with respect to the Stoics, we shall observe how the dualities inherent in the Stoic system (cause/effect, body/language, thing/incorporeal sense), along with the infinite regress of sense, can be dealt with in a structuralist and hence problematic vocabulary. Furthermore, we shall see, with regard to Deleuzes neo-Leibnizianism, how syntheses of singularities-events are most effectively described in structuralist terms and thus, finally, in terms of problems and solutions.
4.1 Structuralism in The Logic of Sense and How do We Recognize Structuralism? Deleuzes concept of structure, as found in The Logic of Sense (published in 1969), had been elaborated in its entirety two years previous, in his 1967 essay How do We
Recognize Structuralism?1 What is more and importantly for our purposes here this earlier essay presents the concept of structure in a particularly clear way. In this section, we shall thus examine, point by point, Deleuzes earlier exposition of a structures formal criteria of recognition (HRS, 171). At the same time, we shall correlate these criteria with the relevant passages from The Logic of Sense, as well as show how they are reflected in the works of several well known structuralists, and in particular in the work of the structural linguist, Roman Jakobson. The first criterion of a structure is the Symbolic, that is, the positing of a symbolic order, irreducible to the orders of the real and the imaginary (HRS, 171, 173). As Deleuze explains, the structure proper to a domain has no relation to form, nor signification, nor representation, nor content, nor given empirical reality, nor hypothetical functional model, nor intelligibility behind appearances (HRS, 173). Rather, structure occupies a third order, the symbolic, which is irreducible to the traditional categories of realities and images but is, as will be seen, incarnated in them (HRS, 171, 172). For example, as Deleuze writes, Beyond the history of men, and the history of ideas, Michel Foucault discovers a deeper, subterranean ground that forms the object of what he calls the archaeology of thought. Behind real men and their real relations, behind ideologies and their imaginary relations, Louis Althusser discovers a deeper domain as object of science and of philosophy (HRS, 172). This three-fold division between the symbolic, the imaginary and the real comes from Lacan.2 Following one of Lacans famous definitions of it, the real, whatever upheaval we subject it to, is always and in every case in its place; it carries its place stuck to the sole of its shoe.3 As opposed to this dumb reality, the symbolic is this in relation to which something can not be in its place, like a book which is mislaid
Deleuze, How do We Recognize Structuralism? This essay will be cited from this point on in the body of the text by HRS, followed by the page number. Although the original publication of this essay was 1972 see Histoire de la philosophie vol. VIII: le XXe sicle, ed. Franois Chtelet (Paris: Hachette, 1972), 299-335 it was clearly written much earlier: as Deleuze writes in the opening lines, This is 1967 (HRS, 170). Deleuze also sent copy of this text, with an accompanying letter to be found in the Althusser archives, to Louis Althusser in February, 1968. See Dosse, Gilles Deleuze et Flix Guattari Biographie Croise, 273. 2 Lacan does, however, explicitly acknowledge his debt to Lvi-Strauss and Mauss formulations with respect to the symbolic. See, for example, Jacques Lacan, A Theoretical Introduction to the Functions of Psychoanalysis in Criminology, in crits, trans. Bruce Fink (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006), 108: Let us thus concur with Marcel Mauss clear formulations: The structures of society are symbolic; individuals, insofar as they are normal, use them in real behaviours; insofar as they are mentally ill [psychopathe], they express them by symbolic behaviours. 3 Jacques Lacan, Seminar on The Purloined Letter, in crits, 17 (emphasis added).
according to the terms laid out in a librarys cataloguing system. Indeed, in terms of this system of references, even if the book were on an adjacent shelf or in the next slot, it would be hidden there, however visible it may seem there.4 In contrast to these two orders, the imaginary for Lacan is not so much illusory5 (indeed, it is an inescapable aspect of the human beings relation to the world), as a type of apprehension in which factors such as resemblance and homoeomorphism play a decisive role.6 This occurs, for instance, when a relation of identity is posited between a signifying term or representation and an object in its reality, without regard for the fact that the signifying term in question is caught up in an entire system of symbolic relations, or for the fact that the dimensions of the symbolic and the real are irreducible to one another.7 In these respects, symbolic structure can be likened to the surface of sense examined in previous chapters, for both are clearly opposed to the real depths of bodies in Chronos, as well as to the tertiary organization of language. Indeed, according to the above analysis, this latter must now be understood to be imaginary insofar as it would posit a relation of identity between a true proposition and its corresponding factual state of affairs, without taking into account the symbolic, social and linguistic relations constitutive of sense (static genesis) which is understood to be the very condition of possibility for this proposition being true. But now, of what, precisely, does structure consist? As Deleuze writes, since it is [d]istinct from the real and the imaginary, the symbolic cannot be defined either by pre-existing realities to which it would refer and which it would
Lacan, Seminar on The Purloined Letter, in crits, 17. Now, it should also be noted that Lacan follows Lvi-Strauss in arguing for the all-embracing nature of the symbolic. As Lvi-Strauss writes, culture may be looked upon as an ensemble of symbolic relations, in the front rank of which are to be found language, marriage laws, economic relations, art, science and religion (cited in Jean Laplanche and Jean-Bertrand Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-Analysis, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (New York: Norton, 1973), 440). As Lacan himself writes: Symbols in fact envelop the life of man with a network so total that they join together those who are going to engender him by bone and flesh before he comes into the world; so total that they bring to his birth, along with the gifts of the stars, if not with the gifts of the fairies, the shape of his destiny; so total that they provide the words that will make him faithful and renegade, the law of the acts that will follow him right to the very place where he is not yet and beyond his very death; and so total that through them his end finds its meaning in the last judgment, where the Word absolves his being or condemns it. See Jacques Lacan, The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis, in crits, 231. 5 Jacques Lacan, Variations of the Standard Treatment, in crits, 290. 6 Laplanche and Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-Analysis, 210. 7 Thus Lacan speaks of a function of misrecognition when the child initially identifies itself with its mirror image, that is, at a stage prior to its social determination in the symbolic dimension of language and culture. See generally Jacques Lacan The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I Function, in crits, 75-81. We shall return to these ideas in Chapter 5.
designate, or by the imaginary or conceptual contents which it would implicate, and which would give it a signification. The elements of a structure have neither extrinsic designation, nor intrinsic signification (HRS, 173).8 What the elements of a structure do have, however, is a sense which is necessarily and uniquely positional (HRS, 174), that is, a sense which depends on its place in relation to the other elements of the structure. As Deleuze puts it in The Logic of Sense, each term has sense only by virtue of its position relative to every other term (LS, 70). This, then, is the second criterion of a structure: Local or Positional (HRS, 173). The notion of position is of course not to be understood spatially, but rather relationally. In other words, an elements place in a structure (and thus its sense) will be defined by its relation to all of the other elements in the structure, whatever this relation turns out to be. It is in this manner, for example, that the structural anthropologist, LviStrauss, understands the sense of kinship terms, that is, as a set of contrastive relations integrated into a system. Such a system or structure is made up of several elements, none of which can undergo a change without effecting changes in all the other elements.9 Of what, then, do these symbolic elements or units of position consist? In fact, it is at this point that it begins to become clear that the concept of structure coincides with the concept of the problem, for, precisely, both consist of elements which are held in a differential relationship. In other words, structure consists of elements which, while having no determined value themselves, determine each other reciprocally in the relation (HRS, 176). Furthermore, corresponding to the determination of these differential relations that is, to their values are singularities or distributions of singular points. As Deleuze continues, the reciprocal determination of symbolic elements continues henceforth into the complete determination of singular points that constitute a space corresponding to these elements (HRS, 176-177). The third criterion of a structure is thus named by Deleuze as The Differential and the Singular (HRS, 176). Let us take an example of a structure in order to concretize the above criteria. Phonology, as defined by the structural linguist Roman Jakobson, has as its object, not
As Lvi-Strauss (who is following the work of Jakobson in phonology) puts it, sense always results from the combination of elements which are not themselves signifying. See Claude Lvi-Strauss, Rponses quelques questions, Esprit 33, no. 11 (1963): 637 (my translation). 9 Claude Lvi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology I, trans. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 34, 279.
the word understood from the point of view of its physiological, physical or psychoacoustical reality, nor the word taken from the point of view of its imaginary semantic or conceptual associations, but the word understood structurally in relation to differential elements called phonemes. The term phoneme, following Jakobson, designates the smallest linguistic unit capable of being used in a given language to distinguish words of unlike meaning (HRS, 176).10 For example, /b/ and /p/ are two phonemes used in the English language to distinguish between the words bat and pat. In other words, phonemes are sound differences which are relative to distinctions of meaning. It should be noted, however, that because not every sound difference distinguishes between words of differing meaning, not every sound difference uttered constitutes a different phoneme. For example, it makes no difference to an English speakers understanding that another English speaker has said the word crown, if the r is pronounced in the standard English fashion /r/, or if it is rolled. On the other hand, should this same person understand the other to have said clown and not crown, then what will have been said to have been used is a different phoneme: /l/. As Deleuze writes, therefore, as a contrastive unit, the phoneme does not have a positive value in itself. It is, rather, inseparable from the phonemic relation which unites it to other phonemes (HRS, 176), a relation, that is, which determines each phoneme as a pertinent difference with respect to other pertinent differences. What more can we say about this relation? Following Jakobson, the phonemic relation of a given language can initially be understood in relation to the presence or absence in a given phoneme of a number of particular distinctive features characteristic of that language. What is more, the distinctive features characteristic of a given language system form a number of binary oppositions, the elements of which are either compatible or incompatible with the elements of other oppositions, i.e., capable or incapable of being combined in a single voiced unit. In standard French, for example, the distinctive features are: vocality vs. consonantness, nasality vs. orality, saturation vs. dilutneness, gravity vs. acuteness, tenseness vs. laxness and continuousness vs. interception. The opposition tenseness/laxness is then incompatible with nasality but compatible with the oral
Roman Jakobson, Phoneme and Phonology, in Selected Writings I Phonological Studies (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1962), 231.
feature, etc.11 In short, then, for Jakobson, it is because the phonemes of a particular language can be understood to be bundles of the presence and absence of such related distinctive features that that phonemic system can be said to have a structure wherein each phoneme has a well-defined position or place.12 In line with Jakobsons understanding of the phoneme, Deleuze argues in Difference and Repetition and How do We Recognize Structuralism? that the distinctive features of a phonemic system constitute the differential relations between phonemes, that is, the relations through which phonemes, as the smallest linguistic differential elements, reciprocally determine one another as the pertinent sound differences within a given language system (DR, 203 and HRS, 176). He then goes on to argue that, so determined, phonemes take on the value of singular points which completely determine the phonemic structure (DR, 203 and HRS, 176-177). Here, however, it should be emphasized that, by complete determination, Deleuze is not simply referring to the way in which phonemes express their constitutive distinctive features, but more particularly to how phonemes are also expressed in relation to a second system of elements having their own particular differential relations, different from the first. In short, phonemes understood as singularities are also necessarily bound up with a system of morphemes, that is, the system of the smallest, meaningful units of a given language, considered from the point of view of their grammatical and semantic relations.13 The reciprocal determination of a particular set of phonemes through their distinctive features will thus be said to be completed with reference to the constituted significations of a particular language. As Deleuze puts it in Difference and Repetition, the selection of phonemes possessing pertinent value in this or that language is inseparable from that of morphemes as elements of grammatical constructions [bringing] into play the virtual whole of the language (DR, 205). Jakobson affirms this dual aspect of the phoneme when he writes that, if the listener receives a message in a language he knows, he correlates it with the code [i.e., structure] at hand and this code includes all the distinctive features to be manipulated, all their admissible combinations into bundles of concurrent
For the full account of the phonemic structure of French, see Roman Jakobson and J. Lotz, Notes on the French Phonemic Pattern, in Selected Writings I Phonological Studies (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1962), 426-434. 12 See, for example, the diagram of the French phonemic structure in Jakobson and Lotz, French Phonemic Pattern, 433. 13 Deleuzes major reference with respect to morphology is the French linguist Gustave Guillaume. See, for example, DR, 205; LS, 184, and n.1, 351.
features termed phonemes, and all the rules of concatenating phonemes into sequences.14 So, in line with our concept of the problem, we see how structures implicate differential elements, relations and singular points which are caught up in processes of reciprocal and complete determination. As Deleuze puts it in The Logic of Sense, a structure is constituted by terms which exist only through the relations they maintain with one another. To these relations, or rather to the values of these relations, there correspond very particular events, that is, singularities which are assignable within the structure For example, the differential relations among phonemes assign singularities within language, in the neighbourhood of which the sonorities and significations characteristic of language are constituted. Moreover, it seems that the singularities attached to one series [of terms] determine in a complex manner the terms of the other series (LS, 50 translation modified).15 We must be careful, however, not confuse structure and the actual things in which structure is incarnated (HRS, 179). Indeed, even though, in the above example, we spoke in terms of concrete languages, linguistic structure must not, strictly speaking, be confused with the determined phonemes and morphemes of particular languages. Following Deleuze, linguistic structure is virtual as opposed to actual. It consists only of elements called phonemes, which reciprocally determine one other through differential relations (distinctive features), and which are completely determined in relation to elements called morphemes which imply their own differential relations, that
Roman Jakobson and Morris Halle, Fundamentals of Language (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1956), 5. Deleuze, however, ultimately criticizes the phonology of the Prague School for taking oppositions between distinctive features as primary in determining phonemic structures, in relation to morphological structures understood as already given and not as having been produced and continuing to evolve. As he writes, following the work of Gustave Guillaume, the selection of phonemes possessing pertinent value in this or that language is inseparable from that of morphemes as elements of grammatical constructions. Moreover, the morphemes, which on their own account bring into play the virtual whole of the language, are the object of a progressive determination which proceeds by differential thresholds and implies a purely logical time capable of measuring the genesis or actualization. The formal reciprocal determination of the phonemes refers to that progressive determination which expresses the action of the virtual system on the phonic matter; and it is only when the phonemes are considered abstractly in other words, when the virtual [whole of language] is reduced to a simple possible [i.e., to a system of already constituted, although perhaps not yet realized, units] that their relations take the negative form of an empty opposition, rather than that of filling differential positions around a threshold (DR, 205). For an example of the genesis or actualization of morphological structures in this case, verbal systems see Gustave Guillaume, Temps et Verbe (Paris: Champion, 1929). 15 It can be noted that while Deleuze does not here speak explicitly of reciprocal and complete determination, it is certain that he has these processes in mind when he speaks of one series of terms determining in a complex manner the terms of another series.
is, their own processes of reciprocal and complete determination in relation to other elements and differential relations (lexemes or semantemes, for example, but also series of things to be conceptualized), and so on. For Deleuze, this virtual structure exists and is completely determined by its abstract, constitutive relations before any positive content can be given to any particular phoneme, distinctive feature, morpheme, semanteme, etc. The phonemic and morphological system of a particular language at a given moment in time, then, will be said to be said to be an actualization or differenciation of this virtual structure. This, then, is the fourth criterion of a structure: Differenciation (HRS, 178). As Deleuze writes: What is it that coexists in the [virtual] structure? All the elements, the relations and relational values, all the singularities proper to the domain considered. Such a coexistence does not imply any confusion, nor any indetermination, for the relations and differential elements coexist in a completely and perfectly determined whole. Except that this whole is not actualized as such. What is actualized, here and now, are particular relations, relational values, and distributions of singularities; others are actualized elsewhere or at other times. There is not a total language [langue], embodying all the possible [i.e., actual] phonemes and phonemic relations. But the virtual totality of the language system [langage] is actualized following exclusive rules in diverse, specific languages, of which each embodies certain relations, relational values, and singularities Of the structure as virtuality, we must say that it is still undifferenciated, even though it is totally and completely differentiated. Of structures which are embodied in a particular actual form (present or past), we must say that they are differenciated, and that for them to be actualized is precisely to be differenciated (HRS, 179 translation modified). Jakobson provides us with an example which illuminates this point. He points out the fact that an audible sound difference (determined in English as // /n/), reciprocally determined in relation to the same distinctive features (here, the velar vs. the dental), may nevertheless not be actualized in two distinct phonemes in two different languages if the morphological and lexical rules which characterize each language are different. As he writes, in Czech, the velar //, e.g. in [veku], and the dental [n], e.g. in [venek], are variants of one and the same phoneme /n/; the first variant appears before /k/ and /g/, the second in all other positions. In English, however, the dental nasal /n/ and the velar nasal (spelled ng) may occur in identical positions and thus
serve to differentiate meanings (e.g., sin, sing); they are, then, two different phonemes.16 In other words, following this example, the virtual relations between phonemes and distinctive features, abstractly conceived, have been differenciated into the determined phonemic relation // /n/ in English, but have been actualized or differenciated in a different way in Czech, precisely insofar the lexical rules of each language are different. As Deleuze summarizes: All differenciation, all actualization is carried out along two paths: species and parts. The differential relations are incarnated in qualitatively distinct species, while the corresponding singularities are incarnated in the parts and extended figures which characterize each species: hence, the language species [e.g., Czech and English], and the parts [e.g., morphemes and lexemes] of each one in the vicinity of the singularities [e.g., phonemes] of the linguistic structure (HRS, 179). It is also clear from the above why the differenciation or actualization of structure can in no way be compared to the instantiation of a general concept. The structure of a particular language, for example, is never the exemplification of a general linguistic structure. The pertinent distinction here is not between the particular and the general, but rather between the total structure of a domain as an ensemble of virtual coexistence, and the sub-structures that correspond to diverse actualizations in the domain (HRS, 179). Indeed, were structures to be considered general concepts for which sub-structures are particular instantiations, we would not be able to account for the different forms the actual structure of a language can take at different points in time. Or, rather, this change could only be conceived of as a discontinuous leap. As Jakobson puts it in relation to linguistic structure, no sound change can be comprehended without reference to the system which undergoes that change.17 In other words, the mutations of structure cannot be referred to a fortuitous origin or a conglomerate of changes of an accidental nature, but must rather be referred to a
Jakobson, Phoneme and Phonology, 231. Ibid., 233.
structure of mutations,18 that is, to what Deleuze calls the differenciation of virtual structure.19 In order to head off a possible objection, it should also be noted here that we are not confusing two different things in saying that the structural mutation of a particular language over time is characterized by the same type of process of differenciation as the divergent actualizations of virtual relations and singularities in historically unrelated languages such as Czech and English. Indeed, as Jakobson himself notes, emphasizing structural over historical approaches to the evolution of languages, the study of the geographic distribution of different phonological types is not confined to cognate dialects and or languages, but ascertains that the boundaries between different phonological features often do not coincide with the boundaries between languages or language families.20 In other words, the boundary between different languages, no matter what their historical relation, is always a question of the differenciation of structure. Now, essential for our purposes here, there is a final point to be teased out in relation to the structural criterion of differenciation. It is that the process of actualization always implies an internal temporality according to which the elements of virtual coexistence are actualized [seffectuent] at diverse rhythms (HRS, 179-180 translation modified). In other words, it appears that structures are subject not only to reciprocal and complete determination, but also, like the problematic Ideas examined in Chapter 3, a progressive determination, which is simultaneously the actualization of the structure (note, however, that Deleuze does not use the term progressive determination as such in the Structuralism essay). Indeed, if the reciprocal determination of elements through differential relations is continued in a complete determination of these elements in relation to other elements having their own differential relations, and so on, then, as was seen in Chapter 3, such an internal determination could only be carried out
Roman Jakobson, Remarques sur lvolution phonologique du russe, in Selected Writings I Phonological Studies (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1962), 110. 19 Indeed, it is clear that the problem of structural mutation is intimately related to the problem of events, such as this has been examined above. Let us recall that two states of affairs connected together by a relation of temporal succession ontologically depend for their constitution on an event (Chapter 1). Knowledge of these two evental states of affairs let us say, of their actual structures concern the way in which each ones constitutive events are ordered and related by disjunctive syntheses, processes of triangulation or the static genesis (Chapter 2). But we have now seen how Deleuze re-describes the static genesis in terms of problems and singularities (Chapter 3). And it is the task of this chapter to show how Deleuze understands the problem and its singularities in structural terms. Insofar as we are able to do so, then, we must say that the actual structures of the two, temporally related states of affairs refer to a structure which determines the change in question: a structure of mutations, as it were. 20 Jakobson, Phoneme and Phonology, 232.
progressively and experimentally, from one series of determinations to another and back again.21 In the Structuralism essay, this internal nature of the determination is implied by Deleuze when he writes that structure is in itself a system of elements and differential relations, but it also differenciates the species and parts, the beings and functions in which the structure is actualized. It is differential in itself and differenciating in its effect (HRS, 180 translation modified). Or again, more fully, as Deleuze puts it in Difference and Repetition in relation to the concept of structure: the essential aspects of sufficient reason determinability, reciprocal determination, complete determination find their systematic unity in progressive determination. In effect, the reciprocity of determination [signifies] a veritable progression in which the reciprocal terms must be secured step by step, and the relations themselves established between them. The completeness of the determination also implies the progressivity of the adjunct fields. In going from A to B and then B to A, we do not arrive back at the point of departure [R]ather, the repetition between A and B and B and A is the progressive tour or description of the whole of a problematic field. In this sense, by virtue of this progressivity, every structure has a purely logical, ideal or dialectical time. However, this virtual time itself determines a time of differenciation, or rather rhythms or different times of actualization which correspond to the relations and singularities of the structure and, for their part, measure the passage from virtual to actual (DR, 210-211 emphasis added). It should be noted, however, that in The Logic of Sense, Deleuze does not speak of actualization or progressive determination in relation to structures (what is more, he does not speak at all of differenciation). As examined in Chapter 3, he speaks rather of actualization and progressive determination in relation to problems. He does write, however, that the problem [refers] to an ideational objectivity or to a structure constitutive of sense (LS, 120 emphasis added). It is this problem or structure which (as Deleuze puts it several lines after the last citation) implies, on the one hand, a space of nomad distribution in which singularities are distributed (Topos); on the other hand, it implies a time of decomposition whereby this space is subdivided into sub-spaces. Each one of these sub-spaces is successively defined by the adjunction of new points ensuring the progressive and complete determination of the domain under consideration (Aion) By means of an appropriate process, the problem is determined in space and time and, as it is determined, it determines the solutions in which it persists (LS, 121 emphasis added).
See Chapter 3, 113, 133.
From this, we can conclude that, even though Deleuze does not, in The Logic of Sense, explicate his understanding of structure in the same way he does in the Structuralism essay and in Difference and Repetition, he nevertheless retains the same concept of structure which is found in these earlier works, and explicitly aligns it with the concept of the problem. The fifth criterion of a structure is the serial nature of structures (HRS, 182). Following Deleuze, the symbolic elements that we have previously defined, taken in their differential relations, are organized in series. But so organized, they relate to another series, constituted by other symbolic elements and other relations: this reference to a second series is easily explained by recalling that singularities derive from the terms and relations of the first, but are not limited simply to reproducing or reflecting them. They thus organize themselves in a second series capable of an autonomous development (HRS, 182). This concept of series here can be seen to have the same general conceptual components as the series we examined in Chapter 3 in relation to the Deleuzes use of the differential calculus in the construction of his concept of the problem. As was seen, to the extent that a particular curve is defined by its distribution of singular points, the primitive function of this curve can be found by the integration of a series of differentiations taken at a singular point and analytically continued into other series generated at other singular points on the curve. The curve will thus be said to be completely determined by a relation between different series of reciprocally determined differences (differentiations) to whose values the singularities constitutive of that particular curve correspond. What is more, it was seen that even in the case where the series diverge at discontinuous points or singular poles, the curve of a non-linear function may still be determined by means of a composite function which, insofar as it expresses the differential relation between the power series expansions of the local functions characterizing the poles, is continuous across this group of discontinuous functions. The specific nature of this composite function is then said to be determined by an essential singularity which represents the fluctuations of the values that solutions to the composite function can receive. In other words, once again we have a complete determination of a curve by means of a relation between different series of reciprocally determined differences (power series representing discontinuous local
functions at singular poles), to whose values the singularities constitutive of that particular curve (including poles and essential singularities) correspond. Deleuze now wants to argue that these same conceptual components symbolic elements (dy, dx), differential relations, singularities, and multiple series define the concept of structure. Indeed, in line with our example, Deleuze explicitly argues that these components hold for phonemic structure, for phonemes and morphemes (HRS, 182). We have seen how this works. On the one hand, phonemes form a series of differentially related terms to the extent that they reciprocally determine one another through the distinctive features characteristic of a given language. On the other hand, they take on the value of singular points in relation to a series of voiced morphemes which are considered from the point of view of their grammatical and semantic relations (complete determination). Lvi-Strauss serial approach to the problem of totemism would be another example to which we could refer in this regard. As he writes, there are not, first, animals which resemble each other (because they all share animal behaviour), then ancestors which resemble each other (because they all share ancestral behaviour), and lastly an overall resemblance between the two groups; but on the one hand there are animals which differ from each other (in that they belong to distinct species, each of which has its own physical appearance and mode of life), and on the other there are men among whom the ancestors form a particular case who also differ from each other (in that they are distributed among different segments of society, each occupying a particular position in the social structure). The resemblance presupposed by socalled totemic representations is between these two systems of differences.22 A totemic identification within a given social structure, then, will be a singularity corresponding to the simultaneous determination of the values of the terms of both series (animal and social), but only insofar as each series of terms is understood to be reciprocally determined by very different types of differential relation. To speak generally, therefore, and say that structural elements, taken in their differential relations, are necessarily organized in series, is simply to say that each term of the structure has a value (position) which is determined, first of all, by its reciprocal relation to other terms of the same type and, secondly, by the way in which it is related to a second, heterogeneous set of terms (having their own relations and values or positions) through the singularities which correspond to the values of all of the terms of the structure. As Deleuze puts it in The Logic of Sense,
See Claude Lvi-Strauss, Totemism, trans. Rodney Needham (London: Merlin Press, 1964), 77, 85-89.
the serial form is realized in the simultaneity of at least two series , each one of which is constituted by terms of the same type or degree, although these terms differ in nature from those of the other series (they can of course differ also in degree). The serial form is thus essentially multi-serial. This is indeed the case in mathematics, where a series constructed in the vicinity of a point is significant only in relation to another series, constructed around another point, and converging with, or diverging from, the first (LS, 36-37). Now, it should also be noted that, in The Logic of Sense, Deleuze mentions a characteristic of series or, rather, of the relation between series which is not addressed in the Structuralism essay: The law governing two simultaneous series is that they are never equal. One represents the signifier, the other the signified. But thanks to our terminology, these two terms acquire a particular meaning. We call signifier any sign which presents in itself an aspect of sense; we call signified, on the contrary, that which serves as the correlative to this aspect of sense, that is, that which is defined in a duality relative to this aspect. What is signified therefore is never sense itself [What is] signified is any thing which may be defined on the basis of the distinction that a certain aspect of sense established with this thing (LS, 37). We are not yet, however, in a position to fully appreciate these relations of signification between series, and so we shall return to this point when we examine the structural criterion of the empty square or paradoxical element, for it is this element which determines the relations of signification between series. To continue the explication of the structural criterion of series, such as it is presented in the Structuralism essay, it should be remarked that a further characteristic of series is that their organization supposes a veritable mise en scne a true creation (HRS, 183). The determination of a structure occurs not only through a choice of basic symbolic elements and the differential relations into which they enter, nor merely through a distribution of the singular points which correspond to them. The determination also occurs through the constitution of a second series, at least, that maintains complex relations with the first (HRS, 183). Now, it can be argued that this staging is another way of talking about the progressive determination of the structure. For if the relations within and between series are established by reciprocal and complete determination, whatever the nature of the 156
terms and relations involved, the choice or constitution of a second (at least) series amounts to an experimental or progressive determination of the structure which bears on and affects the reciprocal and the complete determination. The construction of a second series, with its terms and corresponding singularities, therefore, is precisely what we described in Chapter 3 as the adjunction and transformation of singularities in the determination of the problematic Idea. Hence, a structure, just like the problem, is characterized by the reciprocal, complete and progressive determination of purely differential elements by means of the adjunction (apprehension) and transformation (condensation) of singularities, where singularities are understood as corresponding to the values of relations between differential elements, and where differential elements are in turn determined by syntheses or condensations of adjoined singularities. As Deleuze writes in Difference and Repetition, with respect to his concept of problematic Ideas, problems are inseparable from a power of decision This power of decision is exercised to the highest degree in the two fundamental procedures of adjunction and condensation (DR, 197). And again, speaking of the actualization or differenciation of the problem: On the one hand, in the progressive determination of the conditions [of the problem], we must in effect discover the adjunctions which complete the initial field of the problem as such On the other hand, we must condense all the singularities in a sublime occasion, Kairos, which makes the solution explode like something abrupt, brutal and revolutionary (DR, 190 emphasis added). The objection here, of course, is that Deleuze appears to have made structure dependent upon an agent who chooses the terms of each series of the structure. But we know from Chapters 2 and 3 that he absolutely excludes the idea that such an agent is foundational. What is more, it was above affirmed that progressive determination is always internal to the structure. What is it, then, in relation to which the variety of terms and the variation of differential relations are determined in each case (HRS, 184)? What is it, in other words, in relation to which the progressive determination of elements by the adjunction and transformation of singularities is carried out? This question is answered by Deleuzes sixth criterion of a structure: the Empty Square, paradoxical element or object = x which drives the structure (HRS, 184). As he puts it, if the series of the structure
present relative displacements in relation to each other, this is so because the relative places of their terms in the structure depend first of the absolute place of each, at each moment, in relation to the object = x that is always circulating, always displaced in relation to itself. It allows the structure to be defined as an order of places subject to the variation of relation Distributing the differences through the entire structure, making the differential relations vary with its displacements, the object = x constitutes the differenciating element of difference itself (HRS, 185-186).23 Deleuze cites a number of different examples of such a paradoxical element in the work of various structuralists: Lacans phallus (which will be examined in the following chapter), Lvi-Strauss mana and Jakobsons zero phoneme. In line with our linguistic example, then, we shall illustrate some of the characteristics of the paradoxical element by examining the zero phoneme. In their article, Notes on the French Phonemic Pattern, Jakobson and Lotz define the zero-phoneme, such as it is manifested in the French language, as opposed too all other French phonemes by the absence both of distinctive features and of a constant sound characteristic. On the other hand, the zero phoneme is opposed to the absence of any phoneme whatsoever. In the initial prevocalic position this phoneme is know under the name h aspir; although under emphasis it can be implemented under aspiration, usually it is a lack of sound, which acts in the given sequence as do French consonants. The vocalic variant of the zero phoneme, which appears in other positions, is called e caduc and alternates between the presence and absence of a vowel.24 It appears that despite this absence both of distinctive features and of a constant sound characteristic, the zero phoneme has a very important role to play in the French phonemic system. For example, as h aspir, it permits an audible distinction between phrases such as les zros [lezeo] (the zeros) and les hros [le'eo] (the heroes). In this and many other cases, the h aspir is manifested as a glottal stop functioning as a phantom consonant. This both prevents a liaison (or, in certain cases, an elision) between the preceding particle and the vowel-sound with which nouns commencing with h typically begin, and also aids in the articulation of this vowel-sound in the manner of a consonant. Without such a stop and corresponding absence of a liaison, les
Compare this passage from The Logic of Sense: If the terms of each series are relatively displaced, in relation to one another, it is primarily because they have in themselves an absolute place; but this absolute place is always determined by the terms distance from this [paradoxical] element which is always displaced, in the two series, in relation to itself (LS, 40-41). 24 Jakobson and Lotz, French Phonemic Pattern, 431.
hros would thus have a pronunciation identical to that of les zros. A comparable example of such a zero phoneme in English would be the optional glottal stop which serves to distinguish a name from an aim.25 It can also be noted that the h aspir has permitted the introduction of many non-Latin and non-Greek words into the French language without a modification of the existing phonological system (thus: hros, harpe, hareng, harem, hamac, haricot, etc.).26 The e caduc, or e muet as it is more commonly known in French, is similarly characterized by the fact that it is undetermined in relation to any phonological rule while nevertheless having a number of certain indispensible functions. On the one hand, its sound freely oscillates between the central [], the closed [] and the open []; and it disappears quite frequently in the spoken chain without modifying the meaning of the message.27 On the other hand, it has an important epenthetic function, permitting the distinction of words in short, spoken chains, that is, in the absence of a larger phonemic context (e.g., ours blanc (white bear), often pronounced [us'blm]). It also aids in the distinction of words characterized by consonantal groups which are unknown or infrequently used (such as in the imported words gnome (gnome) and pneu (tire), which the French have the tendency to pronounce, respectively, [g'nm] and [p'n]). The e muet can also often be heard at the end of words terminating with a consonant, even though this final sound should, strictly speaking, be purely consonantal. In this case, its function is to support the final consonant, preventing its disappearance from the chain and thus its confusion with a word of different meaning (this is particularly relevant in distinguishing feminine from masculine forms). In sum, therefore, the extremely variable zero phoneme, while not a phoneme itself (being determined, neither in relation to the network of distinctive features, nor in relation to word-units to be distinguished by these means), nevertheless determines the presence of phonemes as the pertinent sound differences capable of distinguishing words of different meaning. In many important respects, therefore, it is due to this element, which is neither a phoneme nor a morpheme or semanteme, that a series phonemes and a series of morphemes/semantemes can form a structure. As Deleuze
Ibid., 431; Roman Jakobson and Linda Waugh, The Sound Shape of Language (New York: Mouton, 1987), 153-155. 26 See on this: Adrain Battye and Marie-Anne Hintze, The French Language Today (London: Routledge, 1992), 134. 27 For this and for what follows, see Andr Berri, Aspects phontiques et phonologiques du E-muet du franais, Revista Fragmentos 30 (2006): 199-217.
puts it, Jakobsons zero phoneme does not by itself entail any differential character or phonetic value, but it is in relation to this element that all the phonemes are situated in their own differential relations, that is, in a differential relation to each other and in a differential relation to series of morphemes/semantemes (HRS, 186). This highlights a number of important features of the paradoxical element, as elaborated by Deleuze in the Structuralism essay, as well as in The Logic of Sense. First of all, as has been clearly seen in the case of the zero phoneme, it is in relation to this object = x that the terms, differential relations and singularities of the structure are determined with respect to one another (HRS, 184). Or again, as Deleuze puts it in The Logic of Sense, the paradoxical element has the function of linking the two series together, of reflecting them in one another, of making them communicate, coexist, and be ramified (LS, 51 translation modified). In the second place, if, as has been argued, the series of the structure are in themselves composed of purely differential terms and (reciprocal) relations, and if the paradoxical element brings these series into a determinate relation (complete and progressive determination), it follows that this object = x essentially functions as the differenciator of these elements and relations and as the principle of the emission of singularities corresponding to the values of these terms (LS, 51). Indeed, in our example, it is because the zero phoneme brings a series of sound differences into relation with the series of different acoustic word-images corresponding to the semantemes of a given language, that the relations and terms of the first series are differenciated with respect to the second, or, what amounts to the same thing, that phonemes are determined as singularities corresponding to the pertinent values of the sound differences in their relation to the series of semantemes. Thirdly, as mentioned above, the paradoxical element determines each series either as signifying or as signified. More precisely, it determines as signifying the series in which it is in excess and as signified the series in which it is lacking (LS, 41, 51). Thus, on the one hand, the zero phoneme, while not itself a phoneme, functions as a type of supplementary sound difference at the same level of phonemes. On the other hand, this is a sound difference which does not by itself correspond to any difference of meaning at the level of the series of morphemes and semantemes. Thus, following Deleuze, insofar as it can be said to be in excess in the series of phonemes, but lacking in the series of word units, the zero phoneme determines the former as
signifying in relation to the latter which is signified.28 It is in this way that, as noted above, the signifying series presents in itself an aspect of sense with respect to the signified series (LS, 37). In other words, insofar as it is supplemented by an excessive paradoxical element which brings the two series into differential communication, the signifying series can be said to have a determining role with respect to the terms of the signified series, that is, with respect to their relative positions in the structure. Or again, the signifying series represents the differential conditions of the signified series, while the signified series, once brought into communication with the signifying series by means of the paradoxical element, brings about the differenciation of these conditions or their actualization (we differentiate between words in oral discourse by means of sound differences, but which sound differences end up being pertinent depend on the words to be distinguished). Finally, the paradoxical element, despite its determining role, is not, strictly speaking, assignable within the structure. As Deleuze asserts, it has no identity except in order to lack this identity, and has no place except in order to be displaced in relation to all places (HRS, 188). This is particularly clear in the case of the zero phoneme. For it is at precisely the same instant that the zero phoneme situates the series of phonemes in their reciprocal relations (network of distinctive features), as well as determining them as singularities with respect to the elements and relations constitutive of the series of morphemes and semantemes (pertinent sound differences), that it gives each phoneme an identity and a structural position which it, itself, essentially lacks. It is in this sense, as Deleuze writes, that the paradoxical element has the property of being always displaced in relation to itself (LS, 40). In other words, because the paradoxical element determines the order of positions or places within a structure while not itself being of this structure, it can be said to be dis-placed in relation to these places it determines. So, as seen in the case of the zero phoneme, the paradoxical element, while not assignable within the structure, nevertheless brings the series of the structure into communication, differenciating their terms and distributing their singularities in relation to one another, and determining one of the series as signifying and the other as signified. Deleuze also mentions several other characteristics of this object = x which
This conforms (albeit for different reasons) to the standard Saussurian definitions of signifier and signified as the sound-image and the concept respectively. See: Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, trans. Wade Baskin (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959), 67.
are less visible in the case of the zero phoneme. In particular, Deleuze emphasizes the mobility and perpetual circulation of the paradoxical element (HRS, 186-187; LS, 40, 51, 70). How is this notion of mobility to be understood? In fact, this takes us back to our discussion of the processes of determination of the elements of the structure. Let us recall that the reciprocal determination of the terms of a single series is prolonged in a complete determination in relation to a second series. What is more, this second series has its own reciprocally determined elements and differential relations which are, in turn, completely determined in relation to a third series, and so on, progressively, from one series to another (adjunction and transformation of singularities). If, as has been argued above, such heterogeneous series are brought into communication by paradoxical elements, then these processes of reciprocal, complete and progressive determination necessarily depend on the presence of such paradoxical elements. It appears, therefore, that the perpetual circulation of the paradoxical element refers to the way in which the determination of each particular series or order of the structure refers us to the determining role of all of the objects = x in all of the other series or orders of the structure. As Deleuze relates it, for each order of structure the object = x is the empty of perforated site that permits this order to be articulated with the others in a space that entails as many directions as orders. The orders of the structure do not communicate in a common site, but they all communicate through their empty place or respective object = x (HRS, 188). How can this communication of the different orders of structure through diverse paradoxical elements be made more comprehensible? Following Deleuze, it appears that the paradoxical element is caught up in the complex relations of subordination and actualization between the different orders of the structure. As he writes, in each structure, the object = x must be disposed to give an account 1) of the way in which it subordinates within its order the other orders of structure, that then only intervene as dimensions of actualization; 2) of the way in which it is itself subordinated to the other orders in their own order (and no longer intervenes except in their own actualization); 3) of the way in which all the objects = x and all the orders of structure communicate with one another, each order defining a dimension of space in which it is absolutely primary; 4) of the conditions in which, at a given moment in history or in a given case, a particular dimension corresponding to a particular order of the structure is not deployed for itself and remains subordinated to the actualization of another order (HRS, 188-189). 162
But what exactly are these relations of subordination and actualization for which paradoxical element must account? In fact, it appears that they can be described in terms of the signifying relations between series, examined above. In other words, one series subordinates another if it is signifying in relation to this other series which is, in turn, signified. The signified series is then understood to be a dimension of the actualization of the signifying series. However, it must also be understood that, in a structure of multiple orders or series, these relations of signification can be very complex. A series which is signified from the point of view of a particular object = x may be, in turn, signifying in relation to a different object = x. Thus, for example, even though series of morphemes and semantemes are signified in relation to the series of phonemes and the functioning of the zero phoneme, as well as represent a dimension of the differenciation or actualization of the series of phonemes, they must also be held to be signifying from the point of view of the paradoxical element which brings about the (reciprocal, complete and progressive) determination of their elements and singularities in relation to a third series of, for example, objective states of affairs. Such a paradoxical element would be, for example, of the mana type, following the work of Claude Lvi-Strauss: a supplementary or floating signifier which brings together series of meaningful words and series of things known in syntheses of knowledge, precisely because it is an indeterminate value of signification, in itself devoid of meaning and thus susceptible of receiving any meaning at all.29 In this case, a series of phonemes must be held to be signified in relation to this process of the constitution of semantemes in relation to states of affairs and paradoxical elements of the mana type, and to intervene only as a particular dimension of the actualization of these semantemes, that is, with regard to the rules of their phonic articulation. On the other hand, of course, at precisely the same time, series of objective things or states of affairs will be determined as signified in relation to this series of semantemes and its floating signifiers, and will bear, in their own way, on the differenciation or actualization of these semantemes (in terms of the pertinence of various concepts, for example, or the creation of other, more adequate concepts from the languages virtual semantic reserve). As Deleuze writes, it is
Claude Lvi-Strauss, Introduction to the Work of Marcel Mauss, trans. Felicity Baker (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987), 55. Lvi-Strauss compares mana type words to Jakobsons zero phoneme at n.18, p.72. Deleuze analyses Lvi-Strausss work on structure, and the role of mana type words therein, at LS, 48-50. See also HRS, 186.
always the case that one series has the role of the signifier, and the other the role of the signified, even if these roles are interchanged as we change points of view (LS, 38). In short, then, the perpetual displacement of the paradoxical element refers to the way in which, in determining the terms and singularities of the structure, we are referred from the functioning of one such element in a particular series to another element in another series, and the relations of signification and actualization they bring about for each series or order of the structure in relation to all the others. Distributing the differences through the entire structure, making the differential relations vary with its displacements, the object = x constitutes the differenciating element of difference itself (HRS, 186). It is in this way, then, that Deleuze affirms a type of structural causality between different structures or, what ultimately amounts to the same thing, between different orders of the same structure. As he writes: All structures are infrastructures. The structural orders linguistic, familial, economic, sexual, etc. are characterized by the form of their symbolic elements, the variety of their differential relations, the species of their singularities, finally and, above all, by the nature of the object = x that presides over their functioning Between structures, causality can only be a type of structural causality The orders of the structure do not communicate in a common site, but they all communicate through their empty place or respective object = x (HRS, 188). So we have seen that it is in relation to a paradoxical element or object = x, and not an agent, that the determination of the elements of the structure is carried out. However, in an apparent contradiction, the final criterion of a structure From the Subject to Practice concerns quite precisely the role of an agent in relation to structure. Deleuze writes that, while the empty square or object = x must not be filled by a term, it is nevertheless accompanied [accompagne] by an eminently symbolic instance which follows all of its displacements, accompanied without being occupied or filled The subject is precisely the agency [instance] which follows the empty place (HRS, 190). How, then, are these two criteria to be reconciled? The subject, it appears, is a necessary though not sufficient condition for the creation or determination of structures. On the one hand, it has been seen, the choice of symbolic terms, as well as the constitution of series in relation to which these terms are differentially determined, refer to a creativity or a power of decision which implies a subject. But on the other hand, it has been seen that this subject cannot be 164
foundational, and that it is rather a paradoxical element which causes the series of the structure to communicate and its terms to be determined. The resolution of this apparent contradiction would thus be to say that the subject is a necessary moment of structure, but that it is itself always derived or produced by structure (be they biological, psychological, social, etc.). The agent, in this sense, is thus, following Lacans term, less subject than subjected [assujetti] subjected to the empty square (HRS, 190). Or again, as Deleuze writes, the empty place must be rid of the symbolic events that eclipse it or fill it, but at the same time, it must be given over to the subject which must accompany it on new paths, without occupying or deserting it (HRS, 191). Contrary to impressions, therefore, structuralism is not at all a form of thought that suppresses the subject, but one that breaks it up and distributes it systematically, that contests the identity of the subject, that dissipates it and makes it shift from place to place, an always nomad subject, made of individuations, but impersonal ones, or of singularities, but preindividual ones (HRS, 190). It is clear from this, of course, that the structuralist subject is akin to the Stoic sage who identifies with the paradoxical element or aleatory point which traces the line of Aion. Or again, it is the neo-Leibnizian personne, an operator which is both derived from and brings about disjunctive syntheses of singularities-events. Or finally, it is the divided subject, questioner or thrower of the dice who, dissolved in diverse processes of intensive individuation, experiences the problematic Idea as an imperative question which can only be answered by a dice throw or a distribution of singularities which is only ever a re-distribution of singularities. Indeed, Deleuze directly confirms for us this last comparison when he writes that the structuralist hero has a power to cause relations to vary and to redistribute singularities, always casting another throw of the dice (HRS, 191 emphasis added). And we cannot mistake how this idea of the structural hero is echoed in The Logic of Sense, when Deleuze affirms both that the singularities belonging to problems and structures are not imprisoned within individuals and persons considered as foundational; and that the dissolved self, the cracked I, the lost identity liberate the singularities of the surface (LS, 140-141 emphasis added). To bring this section to a close, it has been seen that the concept of structure, such as this is found in the How do We Recognize Structuralism? essay, is to all 165
intents and purposes identical to the one found in The Logic of Sense (and, indeed, in Difference and Repetition). It has also been shown that the concept of structure is identical to the concept of the problem found in both The Logic of Sense and Difference and Repetition. Indeed, both are comprised of series of purely differential elements which are reciprocally, completely and progressively determined by the adjunction and transformation of singularities corresponding to the values of these elements. What is more, these processes of determination are brought about by the circulation of paradoxical element that is itself accompanied by a divided subject which, while being thoroughly dissolved in the structure or problem, nevertheless brings the series of the structure or problem into communication.
4.2 Structure and the Proposition We must now return to the following question: what is the relation between structure or the problem and language? In answering this question, we shall draw together many of the threads developed throughout the preceding chapters. In the first place, it will be seen how Deleuze uses the notion of structure to organize into a productive system the various dualities that have thus far been employed: corporeal things and incorporeal events, things and propositions, substantives and verbs, and denotations and expressions. Secondly, we shall examine how Deleuze uses the notion of structure to serialize the infinite regress of the expression of sense, examined in Chapter 1, and make it productive.30 Finally, it will be seen how the disjunctive synthesis, or the affirmation of difference more generally, must be thought of in structuralist terms. We shall then be in a position to attempt an answer to the question: what are the conditions of the event if everything, up to and including the language wherein events are determined, is to be an event? To turn to the first point, it can be recalled from Chapter 1 that Deleuzes reading of the Stoics involved a number of dualities. As Deleuze writes, the first important duality was that of causes and effects, of corporeal things and incorporeal events (LS, 23). This duality, remember, corresponds to the Stoic ontological duality, affirmed by Deleuze, between bodies which alone exist, and their incorporeal effects which do not exist but which are nevertheless something. It was also seen, however,
See Chapter 1, 26, n.36 and n.40.
that these incorporeals were at once the effect of causal relations between bodies and the sayables of propositions. Thus, insofar as event-effects do not exist outside of the propositions which express them, Deleuze argues that the first duality between causes and effects is prolonged in the duality of things and propositions, of bodies and language (LS, 23). It must also be noted, however, that each term of this second duality itself involves a duality. On the side of bodies, as has been seen, there are, on the one hand, physical qualities and real relations which constitute the state of affairs; and on the other hand, there are incorporeal events. On the side of the proposition or language, there are, on the one hand, proper names, substantives and general adjectives names of stasis which denote the state of affairs; and on the other hand there are verbs which express events or pure becomings, such as to grow in the proposition Alice grows (LS, 24). As has also been seen, however, every name expresses a sense which must be denoted by another name. This was what Deleuze called the infinite regress of sense or Freges paradox. It thus follows that the duality on the side of the proposition between different types of name (substantive/verb) must be prolonged in the duality between denotation and the expression of sense. As Deleuze writes, this is the final displacement of the duality: it has now moved inside the proposition (LS, 25). It was then argued that, cutting across these dualities, the event occurring in and for states of affairs must be determined in relation to ideal sense-events or the purely expressed. Or, more prosaically: the event occurring in and for fixed states of affairs must be determined in relation to the ongoing expression of sense in propositions. So the question arises: what is the precise relation between these different dimensions things, events, propositions, and propositions about propositions which would allow for such a determination? In analyzing Deleuzes reading of the Stoics, we examined an elaborate complex of relations between the various parts of Stoic philosophy which permitted the systematic determination of things in relation to a comprehensive representation: physics, logic, epistemology and ethics. As was seen, however, in order to make these different aspects of their philosophy correspond, the Stoics ultimately posited a substantial thing on either side of the ontological divide: the body and the name of Zeus. We then turned to Deleuzes reading of Leibniz in order to approach an alternative solution to this problem. It was seen that the static ontological and logical geneses brought about the simultaneous determination of individuals, persons and 167
general concepts through disjunctive syntheses of events or processes of triangulation. In order to arrive at this point, however, Deleuze was obliged to extend Leibnizs work, which was limited to convergent series of events from the point of view of a substantial thing, God, which brings about the existence of the best of all possible worlds. Deleuzes neo-Leibnizianism was then examined through an analysis of his concept of the problem, which is designed to account for the internal genesis of both the sense and truth of propositions in relation to their corresponding objects, along with the object which realizes this truth, up to and including propositions with regard to the objective nature of the problem. It was then argued that the problem or problematic Idea must be composed of merely determinable elements which are reciprocally, completely and progressively determined by the adjunction and transformation of singularities corresponding to the values of these elements. This fully differential problem was then said to be actualized by diverse processes of intensive individuation insofar as a divided subject, in the absence of some original subtending substance, must think the relational unity of such processes with reference to a pre-individual field having the same form as the problematic Idea. What was lacking from this account, however, was a fully differential account of language and the proposition. How, then, does Deleuzes account of structure respond to this lack and thereby create a systematic relation between things and the expression of sense, culminating in the evental-determination of things all the way down? In short, it is by serializing the different dualities examined above in such a way that things, events, propositions and the elements of language form a differential system which is reciprocally, completely and progressively determined in relation to a paradoxical element (which, as will be seen, is sense itself or the Unique Event). As Deleuze writes in the Sixth Series on Serialization, the two heterogeneous series of a structure can be determined in various ways. We can consider a series of events and a series of things in which these events are or are not realized; or we can consider a series of denoting propositions and a series of denoted things; or a series of verbs and a series of adjectives and substantives; or a series of expressions and senses and a series of denotation and denotata. These variations are unimportant, since they represent solely degrees of freedom in the organization of heterogeneous series. The same duality, we have seen, occurs outside, between events and states of affairs; at the surface, between propositions and denoted objects; and inside the proposition between expressions and denotations (LS, 37). 168
What must be understood here is that, by serializing the terms of each side of the dualities examined above, Deleuze essentially treats them as differences which must be determined with respect to one another. How, then, is this differential determination to be carried out? By precisely the same types of processes of reciprocal, complete and progressive determination we have examined throughout Chapters 3 and 4. Each series of terms, then, must firstly be held in a differential relation through which they reciprocally determine one another. In particular, the terms of the two basic series of bodies and language are respectively held together, on the one hand, by causal relations, and on the other hand by relations of denotation, manifestation and signification, along with phonemic, morphological and syntactic relations. In Chapter 1, we discussed causal relations between bodies while examining Deleuzes concept of Chronos. We also discussed in this chapter the propositional relations of denotation, manifestation and signification. Furthermore, it was seen in Chapter 2 that Deleuze affirms an expressive causality or law-like relation between the events which characterize the individuals constitutive of a particular world. Finally, in this chapter, we have discussed the phonemic, morphological and syntactic relations constitutive of language systems. Now, to the values of the causal relations between different types of bodies correspond series of singularities or, more precisely, as they have been called, singularities-events. As was argued, a body, characterized by various events, is the cause for another body of a singularity-event or sayable being true of this latter, and so on, indefinitely. In other words, singularities-events are at once the effect of causal relations between bodies, whatever their evental-nature turns out to be, and are picked out by verbs in denoting propositions. Yet this is only another way of saying that the reciprocal determination between bodies through their causal relations is prolonged in a complete determination of their events-effects in relation to series of propositions, having their own constitutive relations of denotation, manifestation and signification. It has also been seen that language necessarily involves certain sense-events. In other words, propositions, taken in their different relations or dimensions, express senses which must themselves be determined, and so on, indefinitely. The reciprocal and complete determination of bodies must therefore also be progressively determined with respect to series of propositions bearing on propositions. It is in this way, therefore, that Deleuze argues that expressed sense engenders both propositions, with their various dimensions, and the objective correlates of these dimensions: denoted states of affairs,
manifested states of the subject, and signified concepts, properties and classes (LS, 120). Now, these relations of determination between various series bodies, propositions, propositions about propositions, and so on are expressed by Deleuze in terms, examined above, of the structural relations of signification which hold between them. As he writes, The law governing two simultaneous series is that they are never equal. One represents the signifier, the other the signified We call signifier any sign which presents in itself an aspect of sense; we call signified, on the contrary, that which serves as the correlative to this aspect of sense, that is, that which is defined in a duality relative to this aspect. What is signified therefore is never sense itself Thus, the signifier is primarily the event as the ideal logical attribute of a state of affairs, and the signified is the state of affairs together with its qualities and real relations. The signifier is also the entire proposition, insofar as it includes dimensions of denotation, manifestation, and signification in the strict sense. And the signified is the independent term which corresponds to these dimensions, that is, the concept, and also the denoted thing or manifested subject. Finally, the signifier is the sole dimension of expression, which in fact has the privilege of not being relative to an independent term, since sense as expressed does not exist outside of the expression; and the signified, in this case, is the denotation, the manifestation, or even the signification in the strict sense. In other words, the signified is the proposition insofar as sense, or that which is expressed, is distinguished from it (LS, 3738). What must be understood, therefore, following our analyses above, is that, on the one hand, the signifying series represents an aspect of the virtual or differential condition of the signified series, which itself ultimately corresponds to something which is never signified: sense. On the other hand, the signified series represents a dimension of the actualization or differenciation of this virtual condition. But now, what can be said of the paradoxical element which brings about the communication of series, and the determination of these signifying and signified relations? The paradoxical element here is clearly the event itself, insofar as it is displaced from series to series, causing each series to communicate and all of their terms to be determined. The event is thus, first of all, an incorporeal effect resulting from relations between bodies but also attributed to them. It corresponds, secondly, to the verb of the proposition which expresses a process. Finally, it is the sense-event, static genesis, or ongoing expression of sense in the proposition. This last aspect of the event, then, corresponds precisely to what has been called the evental-determination of 170
the event, that is, the Unique Event or Aion. In fact, it is precisely in this way that can affirm that Deleuzes ontology concerns events all the way down. So, we have seen in the present chapter that Deleuzes concept of the problem is essentially identical to that of his concept of structure. It has also been seen that structure is capable of accounting for processes of reciprocal, complete and progressive determination bearing on series of things, propositions, and propositions about propositions. Let us then return to some of the issues raised at the conclusion of Chapter 3, in particular with respect to the relation between the problem and language. First of all, it was argued in Chapter 3 that the concept of the problem was constructed in order to establish the conditions under which the relation between the sense of a proposition and what it designates can be internally established within sense itself. Every designating proposition will have sense, but this sense will be located in a sub-representative problem in relation to which such propositions function as elements of response or cases of solution. Indeed, even philosophical propositions with regard to the objective nature of the problem must fall under these conditions. The problem was then defined as the reciprocal, complete and progressive determination of purely differential elements by the adjunction and transformation of singularities. The sense of these philosophical propositions with regard to the nature of the problem was then held to be determined, or make sense, in a mutually determining relation to the propositions constitutive of a theory of intensive individuation, that is, insofar as this latter theory presupposes the existence of a pre-individual field having the same form as the problem. However, the question still remained: how are these considerations supposed to apply to the particular, non-philosophical propositions constitutive of the diverse domains in which intensive individuation occurs (physics, biology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, etc.) and bearing on states of affairs which are supposed to be constituted by events all the way down? In other words, how do propositions in general constitutive of knowledge and bearing on known things make sense within the problematic Idea? In fact, it has just been seen that Deleuzes concept of the problem is equivalent to that of structure, and that structure is fully compatible with an account of the differential determination of a relation between series of things, series of propositions, and series of propositions about propositions (the ongoing determination of sense) in relation to the Event understood as a paradoxical element. What is more, within the signified/signifying relations which hold between these different series in their relation 171
to the Event, sense is that which never exists outside of the propositions which express it, but also that which itself is never signified since it must always be distinguished from the proposition. It is in this way, then, that propositions can be said to find their sense and truth value, in relation to evental states of affairs, within sense itself.31 Sense or the Event, in other words, such as this is structurally understood in The Logic of Sense, is precisely the sub-representative problematic Idea of Difference and Repetition. Indeed, Deleuze confirms this alignment of these concepts when he writes that sense is expressed as the problem to which propositions correspond insofar as they indicate particular responses, signify instances of a general solution, and manifest subjective acts of resolution (LS, 121 emphasis added).
One very important question, however, still remains for us to answer: if everything is an event, what brings about the event of language? Indeed, we have thus far presupposed the existence of language or, more precisely, the separation of series of things and series of propositions at the surface (see, on this, LS, 186). What is more, this presupposition appears to be entirely necessary. The question of the event of language is thus extremely subtle. For, if we are to remain consistent with the above structural
Deleuzes apparent idealism here will appear shocking to some. Perhaps this is only because they are associating idealism with Berkeleys immaterialism, and not with the various brands of idealism characteristic of Kantian and post-Kantian philosophy which were so influential for Deleuze (see, for example, Deleuzes very positive comments on Mamons relation to Kantian transcendental idealism at DR, 173-174 and 192-193). In fact, according to Paul Redddings recently published work, all of these German idealisms found their common ancestor in Leibniz, whose influence on Deleuze was the subject of Chapter 2. As Redding has argued, German idealism in its various guises shares a number of general features which can all be traced back to certain developments in Leibnizs thought. These features of idealism include, among others: a revival of a number of Platonic and Aristotelian themes, particularly with regard to the ideality of spatio-temporal and conceptual form; a conception of the perspectival nature of perceptual knowledge; and an appeal to elements from the Platonist and Neo-Platonist tradition such as a prioritizing of concepts and inferences over sense experience, and a holistic and organicist view of knowledge and the cosmos. See Paul Redding, Continental Idealism Leibniz to Nietzsche (London: Routledge, 2009), 3-5. Indeed, much of our work in previous chapters effectively shows how these features of idealism are present in Deleuzes philosophy. Thus, in Chapter 3, we saw how Deleuze understands spatio-temporal and conceptual form in terms of the actualization of fully differential problematic Ideas. In Chapter 2, we saw how Deleuze extended the Leibnizian notion of the point of view with reference to Nietzschean perspectivism, in order to argue that the genesis of the known and knowledge are a matter of points of view on points of view. It has also been seen throughout this present work how Deleuze prioritizes the workings of sense over any direct or nave perceptual realism. And finally, we saw in Chapter 3 how Deleuze essentially follows Simondon in arguing for a holistic view of knowledge and the cosmos, that is, insofar as we must think, in the absence of any given substance, the unity of the intensive processes which constitute us and our world within the problematic Idea.
analysis of the Event in which all singularities-events are determined, up to and including the event of language, we must ask: how can the event of language be said to result from bodies, yet also be determined in relation to sense, if sense does not exist outside of the propositions and hence the language which express it? In order to account for the event of language, we must turn to Deleuzes relation to psychoanalysis and, in particular, his account of sexuality and the phantasm. An examination of Deleuzes relation to psychoanalysis will also allow us to address two further points. The first of these is the question of how we are to understand the divided subject in The Logic of Senses structural characterization of the event and language. Indeed, while we noted above that it is the Event which is the paradoxical element in the structural account of sense, we lost sight of the role of the agent which is both subjected to the paradoxical element (the Event) and necessarily accompanies its perpetual circulation. We will thus argue that Deleuzes account of the phantasm effectively reintroduces the subject in both its passive and active or creative roles in relation to the structural synthesis of events. The final issue to be addressed concerns the static nature of the above structural account of the ontological priority of the Event. Indeed, despite the important role of progressive determination in structuralism in general, the structure of sense or the Event, such as we have examined it, ultimately appears to be a timeless or a priori, albeit virtual, condition. After all, the evental-determination of words and things is only ever a differenciation of the pre-existing differential problem or structure of sense. However, this appearance of stasis is in fact only a result of the presupposition of the separation of things and propositions at the surface, and of the lack of an account of the creative role of the divided subject. Once it is seen how language and the subject both emerge as events, even as they condition syntheses of events, we will be in a position to see the dynamism inherent in Deleuzes evental ontology. In sum, it is these three notions the event of language, the divided subject and the dynamism of the event , and the relations between them, which will be the focus of Chapter 5.
Chapter 5: Deleuze and Psychoanalysis
______________________________________________________________________ Deleuzes relation to psychoanalysis in The Logic of Sense is ultimately governed by the following problem: how can what we have called the metaphysical surface (the problem or structure constitutive of sense) be understood as an event which is itself determined on the metaphysical surface? In other words, how can the surface be understood as an event which is immanent only to itself? As will be shown in this chapter, Deleuze turns to psychoanalysis because it is capable, through its concepts of infantile sexuality, the phallus, castration and the phantasm, of thinking the genesis of structure in a structural way. Or to put it in properly psychoanalytic terms, the genesis of structure is thought by means of a structural account of the entry of the real, biological child into what Lacan calls the symbolic order, that is, the order which embraces all of the linguistic and cultural structures governing human existence. It is clear from this, then, that the Lacanian symbolic is for Deleuze simply another name for his own metaphysical surface, problem or structure of sense, such as these have been analyzed throughout the preceding chapters in their linguistic and intersubjective aspects. What is at stake in this immanence of the metaphysical surface to itself, as noted at the end of Chapter 4, is the dynamic genesis of sense or the event, which goes directly from real actions and passions (here, the actions and passions of the biological child) to events on the metaphysical surface, that is, from depth to the production of surfaces (LS, 186 emphasis in original). It is this genesis which involves the event of language understood as the effective separation of the two series of words endowed with sense and sonorous things at the surface and, simultaneously, the event of the divided subject (personne, questioner, etc.) which accompanies the paradoxical element circulating between these two series of words and things and bringing them into communication. As Deleuze writes, from the point of view of the other [static] genesis, we posit eating and speaking by right as two series already separated at the surface (LS, 186). The task of the dynamic genesis, on the contrary, is to show how speaking is effectively disengaged from eating, how the surface itself is produced, or how the incorporeal event results from bodily states, beginning with the body of the divided subject (LS, 186-187). In short, Deleuze turns to psychoanalysis in order to give an account of how these two events characterizing the dynamic genesis the event of 174
language and the event of the divided subject both produce the metaphysical surface, and are determined on the metaphysical surface. Now, it should be noted here that, insofar as Deleuze turns to psychoanalytic theory for his account of the dynamic genesis, he is not so much interested in psychoanalysis as a clinical practice as he is in its function, within his own philosophy of events, as the science of events (LS, 211).1 What is more, not only does Deleuze not treat psychoanalysis as a clinical practice (indeed, he is more interested in metapsychology),2 he does not limit himself to employing the principles and concepts of a single psychoanalytic school. Rather, he develops a reading of psychoanalysis which cuts across the different strains of psychoanalytic thought, such as these existed at the time of the writing of The Logic of Sense. For example, even though Deleuze puts many Lacanian concepts to work, his 1969 account of the phantasm bears little resemblance to the Logic of the phantasm outlined in Lacans as yet unpublished 1966-67 Seminar.3 Deleuze also criticizes Lacans definition of psychotic language as the endless and panic-stricken sliding of the signifying series over the signified series (see LS, 90-91 translation modified). What is more, his use of Melanie Klein is also in direct conflict with Lacans reading of her work. Thus, while Lacan criticizes Klein for speaking about pre-Oedipal experience without reference to the dimension of the symbolic, which alone could make sense of such experience (albeit retroactively), for Deleuze, Kleins work supplies the early elements of the Oedipus complex with reference to a completely original and irreducible dimension: the depths (LS, 200).4
For a clear introduction to some of the clinical aspects of psychoanalysis, particularly in its Lacanian variety, see Bruce Fink, A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis Theory and Technique (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1997). 2 Metapsychology is a term invented by Freud to refer to the psychology of which he was the founder when it is viewed in its most theoretical dimension. Metapsychology constructs an ensemble of conceptual models which are more or less far-removed from empirical reality. Examples are the function of a psychical apparatus divided up into agencies, the theory of the drives, the hypothetical process of repression, and so on. See Laplanche and Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-Analysis, 249. 3 Indeed, in the thirtieth series of The Logic of Sense, Deleuze appears to follow, at least to a certain extent, Laplanches and Pontalis reading of Freuds concept of phantasy, which sees phantasy as the mise en scne of unconscious desire and emphasizes the desubjectivized place of the subject in the phantasized scene. See Jean Laplanche and Jean-Bertrand Pontalis, Fantasy and the Origins of Sexuality, in Formations of Fantasy, ed. Victor Burgin, James Donald and Cora Kaplan (London and New York: Methuen, 1986). Lacan, on the other hand, emphasizes the defensive or protective function of phantasy with respect to the trauma of castration. On this difference between Freuds and Lacans concepts of phantasy, see Dylan Evans, An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), 59-61. On Lacans concept of phantasy and its defensive aspect, see also Lorenzo Chiesa, Subjectivity and Otherness A Philosophical Reading of Lacan (Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 2007), 149-150. 4 On this Lacanian criticism of Klein, see, for example, Jacques Lacan, Guiding Remarks for a Convention of Female Sexuality, in crits, 613: I am referring to Melanie Kleins lack of concern
By the same token, however, we disagree with Serge Cottets argument that, in 1968, psychoanalysis for Deleuze essentially was Melanie Klein.5 Indeed, Deleuze is explicitly critical of her concept of the introjected good object (LS, 188), as well of her neglect of the theme of the body without organs (LS, n.3, 351-352). Finally, while the Freudian approach to infantile sexuality is enormously important for Deleuze, he is nevertheless critical of Freuds pronominal model of the place of the ego in the phantasm (LS, 213). In short, it would appear that Deleuze feels at liberty to pick and choose his figures and concepts from the psychoanalytic corpus in order to qualify psychoanalysis as a science of events, and without regard for the internal, theoretical divisions recognized by practicing French psychoanalysts in and around 1969.6 Indeed, as will be seen, Deleuze often runs together concepts from different schools. His account and criticisms of these figures and concepts, however, are not, for all that, confused. In fact, Deleuze presents an entirely coherent reading of psychoanalytic theory, that is to say, insofar as it is consistent with his philosophical theory of sense and the event. Thus, for example, Deleuze understands the phantasm the nature of which is disputed among Freudians, Kleinians and Lacanians with reference to his own notion of the dynamic genesis of sense and the event. As he writes, we must determine the phantasms point of birth and, through this, its real relation to language. This question is nominal or terminological to the extent that it is about the use of the word phantasm. But it engages other things as well, since it fixes this use [of the word phantasm] in relation to a particular moment, allegedly making it necessary in the course of the dynamic genesis The phantasm is a surface phenomenon and, moreover, a phenomenon which is formed at a certain moment in the development of surfaces (LS, 215-216). We shall return to the concept of the phantasm. It has only been mentioned here to emphasize the fact that Deleuzes approach to psychoanalysis must be understood as
for the fact that the earliest Oedipal fantasies, which she includes in the maternal body, actually derive from the reality presupposed by the Name-of-the-Father. 5 See Serge Cottet, Les machines psychanalytiques de Gilles Deleuze, La cause freudienne Revue de psychanalyse, 32 (1996): 16. Cottet appears to project the subsequent importance of Artaud for Deleuze, in texts such as Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus, onto his use of Klein in The Logic of Sense, since, to a certain extent, Klein is critically read through Artaud in The Logic of Sense (see, for example, LS, n.3, 351-352). Our alternative reading is that Deleuzes use of Klein, affirmative or otherwise, as much as his use of Freud or Lacan and the relations established between various elements of their theories, is dictated by their role in the argument of The Logic of Sense as a whole. 6 For a detailed account of the complex history of psychoanalysis in France, see Elisabeth Roudinesco, Jacques Lacan & Co. A History of Psychoanalysis in France, 1925-1985, trans. Jeffrey Mehlman (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990).
following from the philosophical system he is constructing in The Logic of Sense, and not from his adherence to this or that school of psychoanalytic thought.7 Indeed, it is in this manner that we interpret Deleuzes statement that, in The Logic of Sense, I thought Id discovered things about events, that contradicted psychoanalysis but could be reconciled with it.8 It is also in this way that we understand Deleuzes later excuse for his complacency toward psychoanalysis: that he rendered it inoffensive by presenting it as an art of surfaces.9 In sum, then, Deleuze couches his formulations with respect to the dynamic genesis of sense in terms of a system of metapsychological concepts which are the subject of ongoing dispute between various schools of psychoanalytic thought. This can make not only the various aspects of the dynamic genesis, but also the conceptual connections between the static and dynamic geneses, particularly difficult to understand. It is thus the task of this chapter to first of all carefully explicate the four steps of the dynamic genesis such as Deleuze formulates them with reference to various psychoanalytic figures and concepts; and secondly, to examine the way in which Deleuze connects the dynamic to the previously examined static genesis in order to affirm the immanence of the metaphysical surface to itself, which is to say the ontological priority of events all the way down. Now, it should also be remarked that Deleuzes engagement with psychoanalysis is not only extremely complex, both in terms of his unusual approach to its different schools of thought and the connections he makes between the psychoanalytic dynamic genesis and the earlier static genesis; it also represents nearly a quarter of the actual text of The Logic of Sense, appendices excluded. There is thus a significant number of issues which must be covered in this chapter. We shall break matters down in the following way. First of all, we shall examine how Deleuze takes up certain Kleinian concepts (while criticizing others from a Lacanian point of view) in order to argue that the childs initially disorganized, bodily experiences and object relations come to be organized in
It is following a similar argument that I have criticized Christian Kerslakes argument for the Jungian origins of Deleuze conception of the problematic unconscious in Chapter 2 of Difference and Repetition. Our alternative reading is that Deleuzes positive remark about Jung in a footnote should be seen as anticipating Deleuzes substantial account of necessarily unconscious problematic Ideas (DR, 192) in Chapter 4 of Difference and Repetition. In this later chapter, Jung, let alone psychoanalytic discourse more generally, plays little or no role. See Christian Kerslake, Deleuze and the Unconscious (London and New York: Continuum, 2007), 91-92, 96, 100. See my review of this work in Deleuze Studies (Supplement): Deleuze and Gender, 2 (2008): 148-153. 8 See Gilles Deleuze, On Philosophy, in Negotiations, 144. 9 See Gilles Deleuze, Note for the Italian Edition of The Logic of Sense, in Two Regimes of Madness, ed. David Lapoujade, trans. Ames Hodges and Mike Taormina (New York : Semiotexte, 2006).
the form of an imago or good object. This good object is in turn signified by a Voice which, while not yet a language (having its determined structure of phonemes, morphemes and semantemes, and its determined dimensions of denotation, manifestation, signification and sense), will be made sense of retrospectively, once the child enters the all-embracing symbolic order. Deleuze calls this first step of the dynamic genesis from noise to the voice (LS, ix), in order to emphasize that there appears at this early stage a first differentiation between noisy corporeal things in depth and the familial hum which will come to be endowed with sense. We shall then turn to the second step of the dynamic genesis, which is essentially an account of Freuds theory of infantile sexuality, coupled with certain Lacanian considerations with respect to the nature of the phallus and the Kleinian concept of reparation. This step of the genesis is designed to show how, in relation to the Voice, the child, who was initially enveloped in full corporeal depth, comes to form out of his or her component sexual drives a total physical surface for his or her body. Our examination of the third step of the dynamic genesis, which has as its focus the Oedipus complex and its resolution, will then show how this dynamic process of the formation and coordination of a total physical surface is an essential step towards the childs entry into the symbolic order, that is, towards what can be called the childs passage to the metaphysical surface. This is because, following certain Lacanian formulations, the resolution of the Oedipus complex comes about when the child is castrated of the phallus, which was an essential element in the formation of the total physical surface of his or her body. What occurs in castration is that the child ceases the attempt to be what he or she imagines is the total and wholly satisfying object of his or her mothers desire (the imaginary phallus), and comes to identify in various ways with the father who symbolically has the phallus insofar as he is a representative of the social law of the mothers desire. In this identification with the father, then, the child effectively situates his or herself in relation to a rule-governed way of organizing the social world, that is, in relation to other persons within the structural-symbolic dimension of language and culture. This passage to the metaphysical surface thus effectively represents the event of the divided subject (personne, questioner, thrower of the dice, etc.), that is to say, the subject that is at once dissolved in intensive, corporeal processes, and a form produced on the metaphysical surface.
The fourth and final stage of the dynamic genesis concerns the event of language. We shall examine the way in which Deleuze takes up and extends the psychoanalytic concept of the phantasm in order to account for this event. As will be seen, the phantasm has several characteristics which are essential for Deleuzes account of the dynamic genesis. In the first place, the phantasm is a mental representation corresponding to the satisfaction of the sexual drives. Secondly, the phantasm, like sense, is both inseparable from and irreducible to the propositions in which it is expressed, and thus something which essentially results from the operations of the entire, intersubjective, metaphysical surface. Thirdly, the phantasm finds its origin in castration (and thus the real actions and passions which make castration possible) to the extent that the child denies its original sexual aims and objects (i.e., being the phallus for the mother) at the level of the metaphysical surface. In other words, with castration, the child denegates his or her original sexual aims and objects at precisely the same time that he or she identifies with the law of desire such as this comes to be articulated in the symbolic order of language and culture. This reinvestment and articulation of desire at the metaphysical surface is precisely the process of the phantasm. Furthermore, insofar as this process of the phantasm depends on the operations of the entire metaphysical surface, it must be considered to be a product of the static genesis which therefore determines the denoted individuals, the beliefs and desires of the manifested persons, and the signified concepts belonging to the phantasm. What, then, does this have to do with the event of language? As has been said, the event of language is the process which separates words endowed with sense from the sounds of bodies in general. The first step of the dynamic genesis showed how the childs early corporeal experiences were organized in the form of a good object signified by a Voice which is not yet a language from the childs point of view (that is, having a determined structure of phonemes, morphemes and semantemes, and having its four determined dimensions of denotation, manifestation, signification and, underpinning these, sense). Around the time of the Oedipus complex, the child undergoes a linguistic apprenticeship: he or she extracts phonemic differences from the Voice and begins to speak. Nevertheless, this speech cannot at this stage be equal to language, for the child has not yet acceded to the organizing principle of language, which can only be found at the level of the metaphysical surface (sense or the static genesis: the fourth dimension of the proposition). Now, with castration, the passage to the metaphysical surface and the process of the phantasm, the child is able to gradually 179
connect its speech with the propositions constitutive of the phantasm, that is, with language per se. The event of language, therefore, which itself depends on castration and everything that entails, involves these three moments: from noise to the Voice, from the Voice to speech and from speech to language in the phantasm. It is in this way, then, that psychoanalysis is able to account for the events of the divided subject and of language, that is, for the event of the metaphysical surface for each and every subject. But it is also clear that, insofar as these events of language and of the divided subject are inseparable from the process of the phantasm, which is itself coextensive with the products of the metaphysical surface (static genesis), they must also be considered to be determined on the metaphysical surface (or, more precisely, these events must be considered to be inseparable from their ongoing determination on the metaphysical surface). The metaphysical surface can thus, in this way, be considered to be an event which is immanent only to itself. So let us now turn to the detail of these arguments, beginning with the first step of the dynamic genesis and Deleuzes use of Melanie Klein in conjunction with the Lacanian concept of the imago.
5.1 First Step of the Dynamic Genesis: From Noise to the Voice (Klein and the PreOedipal) What is Kleins role in the overall argument of The Logic of Sense? As argued above, Deleuze appropriates certain aspects of Kleinian theory in order to establish the first stage of this dynamic genesis of sense. That is, Deleuze uses Klein in order to establish how the undifferentiated noise characterizing bodies in depth is organized in the form of a good object which is in turn signified by a Voice belonging to a dimension other than that of bodies, even though it is not yet a language having its determined dimensions (denotation, manifestation, signification and sense) and structure (phonemes, morphemes, semantemes). In order to examine Deleuzes treatment of Klein in this regard, it is appropriate to first of all present the broad outlines of her thought. Melanie Klein always perceived her own work as being based on and consistent with Freuds methods and findings, despite Freuds critical dismissal of her work.10 She
See, for example, her Preface to the First Edition, in The Psycho-Analysis of Children The Writings of Melanie Klein, Volume I, trans. Alix Stratchey and H.A. Thorner (London: The Hogarth Press, 1986),
did, however, and in a strikingly original way, extend Freuds work by psychoanalyzing very young children.11 Her work led her to expand a number of Freudian concepts, related in particular to early mechanisms of defence against anxiety, and to conclude, in short, that both the Oedipus complex and the super-ego are well in evidence at a much earlier age than had been assumed.12 Indeed, Deleuzes primary interest in Klein lies in the manner in which she characterizes this early development of the Oedipus complex (see LS, 200), even if he views it from a perspective slightly different from Kleins. The long paragraph on pages 187 to 188 of The Logic of Senses TwentySeventh Series of Orality is a dense statement of some of the basic tenets of Kleinian theory, and even duplicates the kind of alimentary and excremental vocabulary which Klein uses to express her ideas. To say it all in a paragraph, Kleins work focuses on the way in which the infant, from birth, deals with the anxiety produced both by external factors and by the internal conflict between the life and death drives, whose existence was postulated by Freud in Beyond the Pleasure Principle. In particular, Klein focused on the relation between various mechanisms of defence against anxiety (such as introjection, projection, splitting and identification) and the development of both internal and external, as well as part and whole, object relations which are expressed, symbolized and worked out in the pre-linguistic phantasies characterizing the infants psychic life. In this relation, the particular and evolving natures of phantasies can be said to be both the result of the mechanisms of defence as well as a stimulus for the continued use of these mechanisms. What is more, Klein sees this mutual relation between the defences and phantasy as evolving in relation to an ongoing tension between two positions the paranoid-schizoid position and the depressive position each describing a kind of constellation of anxieties, mechanisms and object relations. It is this structured evolution which prepares the way for the development of the super-ego and Oedipus
x. On Freuds view of Klein, see Robert Caper, Immaterial Facts Freuds Discovery of Psychic Reality and Kleins Development of his Work (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), 76-77. 11 Freuds characterization of the mental features of childrens lives was rather derived from what could be reconstructed from his work with adults, or as in the case of Little Hans, from the testimony of adults. See on this, Juliet Mitchell, Introduction to Melanie Klein, in Reading Melanie Klein, ed. Lyndsey Stonebridge and John Phillips (London and New York: Routledge, 1998), 19. 12 Hanna Segal, Introduction to the Work of Melanie Klein (London: Karnac Books, 1988), viii. See also Melanie Klein, Early Stages of the Oedipus Complex (1928), and The Oedipus Complex in Light of Early Anxieties (1945), in Love, Guilt and Reparation and Other Works 1921-1945 (London: The Hogarth Press, 1975), 186-198 and 370-419.
complex, precisely because the object relations which are necessary for these latter developments, particularly with respect to the maternal and paternal figures, are herein elaborated. Let us now unpack these notions further, since this will allow us to appreciate precisely what is going on in Deleuze in his use and critique of Kleinian psychoanalysis. For Klein, during the first three or four months of life the infant is described as being in the paranoid-schizoid position, so called because it is characterized, on the one hand, by persecutory anxiety, and on the other hand, as shall be seen, by processes of splitting.13 Even at this early stage, for Klein, sufficient ego exists to experience anxiety, to employ defence mechanisms against this anxiety and to form primitive phantastical object relations.14 Anxiety here derives from both internal and external sources and is experienced as persecution. It originates in the polarity of the internal life and death drives, as well as from the conflict between external frustrations and gratifications. The external frustrations arise particularly with respect to feeding, so it follows that the first, albeit tumultuous, object-relation is to the mother or, more precisely, to the breast. Phantastical defence mechanisms, such as splitting, introjection and projection, then come into play, in a way which shall be examined below, in order to cope with this anxiety from without as well as from within.15 With respect to phantasy, it should be noted that for Klein, the infant forms unconscious phantasies which, while initially experienced more as somatic sensations than as abstract images, make the physical satisfactions, frustrations and other feelings connected with their erogenous zones psychologically meaningful for the infant. Essentially, infantile phantasies convert raw sensation into an experience endowed with a certain quality: good or bad.16 It can thus be said that, in phantasy, the mechanism of splitting discriminates between good and bad objects (initially, the good and bad breast), while the mechanisms of introjection and projection generate the psychological sense of the
We are here reconstructing the broad outlines Melanie Kleins, Some Theoretical Conclusions Regarding the Emotional Life of the Infant, and Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms, in Developments in Psycho-Analysis, ed. Joan Riviere (London: The Hogarth Press, 1952), 198-236 and 292-320. 14 See on this, Klein, The Emotional Life of the Infant, 210. See also Hanna Segal, Introduction to the Work of Melanie Klein, 24. 15 For Klein, the mechanisms of splitting, projection and introjection are all staged in phantasy. In other words, what the psychoanalyst or outside observer can describe as a mechanism is experienced and described by the person himself as a detailed phantasy. See Hanna Segal, Introduction to the Work of Melanie Klein, 17. 16 Caper, Immaterial Facts, 95-96. See also Paula Heimann, Certain Functions of Introjection and Projection in Early Infancy, in Developments in Psycho-Analysis, ed. Joan Riviere (London: The Hogarth Press, 1952), 155.
infants relation to these objects which, at the physical level, is primarily bound up with activity in the oral zone (e.g., swallowing or spitting out), and later with activity in the anal, urethral, genital and other zones identified by Freud. Finally, it should be recognized that, in this complex relation between phantasy and bodily sensation, there is at first no sharp distinction for the infant between its own body and what is outside it. This is because the outside and the inside are here psychically constituted for the infant by its own activity of projection and introjection (corresponding, for example, to physical spitting out and swallowing). In short, while the adult conceives of objects as existing independently, both of him or herself and of each other, the infants object relations at first always refer in some way to him or herself.17 Or again, as Deleuze puts it, the nursing infant is stage, actor and drama at once. Orality, mouth and breast are initially bottomless depths The entire system of introjection and projection is a communication of bodies in, and through, depth (LS, 187). For Klein, then, the relation to the breast should initially be thought of as a relation to a part-object, not only because it is not seen as an integral part of a larger whole (the mother), but also because, in order to deal with anxiety, the infant phantastically splits the breast into a good and bad object (LS, 187).18 In other words, even before perceiving the breast (or indeed the mother) as a whole, the infant, under threat from both inside and outside, must forcibly distinguish between the good and the bad breast, since, precisely, the danger would come from a confusion of the two.19 Splitting therefore leads to an imaginary differentiation and dispersal of the threatening elements which were formerly mixed up with what is experienced as good.20 Concomitant with this splitting process, then, on the one hand, the infant projects its internal life impulses and attributes them to the breast which has been experienced as gratifying and good; and he or she also projects his or her destructive impulses and attributes them to the breast which has been experienced as frustrating and bad, persecuting and attacking.21 It thereby follows that, in this process, the infant also splits his own ego into a libidinal and a destructive part, a good and bad self.22 On the other hand, the infant is also said to introject or internalize the good as well as the bad
See also on this, Heimann, Certain Functions of Introjection and Projection, 142-143. See Hanna Segal, Klein (London: Karnac, 1989), 123-124. Because such part-objects are not integrated within a larger whole and are endowed with a moral value, Deleuze calls them simulacra, after the bad ungrounded images of the Platonic Ideas (LS, 187). 19 Julia Segal, Melanie Klein 2nd Edition (London: Sage, 2004), 33. 20 Klein, Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms, 297. 21 Klein, The Emotional Life of the Infant, 200. 22 Ibid., 204-205.
breast, that is, the infant phantasizes that it ingests the breast and that it now resides inside it as an internal (part-) object. For Klein, such internal part-objects will later form the basis of the super-ego. As Hanna Segal puts it: In the oral-sadistic phase, the child attacks his mothers breast and incorporates it as both destroyed and destructive a bad persecuting internal breast. This in Melanie Kleins view is the earliest root of the persecuting and sadistic aspect of the super-ego. Parallel with this introjection, in situations of love and gratification the infant introjects an ideal loved and loving breast which becomes the root of the ego-ideal aspect of the super-ego.23 We shall return to examine this point, as well as Deleuzes take on it. Now, because the mechanisms of splitting, projection and introjection are intimately bound up with both phantasy and oral (anal, etc.) activity, they are often expressed in the literature using those phantastical and vivid terms, so characteristic of Kleins work, which Deleuze describes as painting the unforgettable picture of a theatre of terror (LS, 187). Take, for example, the following account of a typical phantasy of attack, that is, of the aggressive splitting, projection and corresponding introjection of the bad breast from Kleins A Contribution to the Psychogenesis of Manic-Depressive States: In the very first months of the babys existence it has sadistic impulses directed, not only against its mothers breast, but also against the inside of her body: scooping it out, devouring the contents, destroying it by every means which sadism can suggest. The development of the infant is governed by the mechanisms of introjection and projection. From the beginning the ego introjects objects good and bad, for both of which the mothers breast is the prototype for good objects when the child obtains it, for bad ones when it fails him. But it is because the baby projects its own aggression on to these objects that it feels them to be bad and not only in that they frustrate its desires: the child conceives of them as actually dangerous persecutors who it fears will devour it, scoop out the inside of its body, cut it to pieces, poison it in short, compassing its destruction by all the means which sadism can devise. These imagos, which are a phantastically distorted picture of the real objects upon which they are based, become installed not only in the outside world but, by the process of incorporation, also within the ego.24
Hanna Segal, Introduction to the Work of Melanie Klein, 4. Melanie Klein, A Contribution to the Psychogenesis of Manic-Depressive States (1935), in Love, Guilt and Reparation, 262. See also The Emotional Life of the Infant, 200-201: If we consider the picture which exists in the infants mind as we can see it retrospectively in the analyses of children and adults we find that the hated breast has acquired the oral-destructive qualities of the infants own impulses when he is in states of frustration and hatred. In his destructive phantasies he bites and tears up the breast, devours it, annihilates it; and he feels that the breast will attack him in the same way. As
This gives us an idea of the kind of vocabulary used by Klein and repeated by Deleuze for the expression of infantile phantasies, as well as of the phantastical, anxiety-ridden relation that the infant at this stage maintains to the bad breast. This is, however, only one part of the story. For at the same time, as has been said, the infant splits off and develops a relation to a good breast. In opposition to the bad breast, the infant loves the good breast and has phantasies of a pleasant kind in relation to it.25 Indeed, in these phantasies, the good breast tends to turn into the ideal breast which should fulfil the greedy desire for unlimited, immediate and everlasting gratification. Thus feelings arise about a perfect and inexhaustible breast, always available, always gratifying.26 This ability to isolate a good object will have important consequences for the developing child. But for the moment, it is clear that depending on the emotional state of the infant that is, on its level of anxiety and on the way in which the actions of the mother confirm or falsify the infants phantasies both the good and the bad breast will tend to be re-split, re-projected and re-introjected.27 However, as Klein goes on to explain, even though this activity leads to the ongoing fragmentation of the ego and its objects, and can have a detrimental effect on the childs grasp of reality,28 the interactions between the processes of introjection and projection re-introjection and re-projection are essential for the whole development of the ego, for they again and again relieve the young infants anxieties and allow the formation of a good object.29 So, now, what is the importance of this good object or breast? In short, being synonymous with the survival of the ego, filled with the infants accumulated good experiences, the infant tries to preserve and identify itself (by projective identification)
urethral- and anal-sadistic impulses gain in strength, the infant in his mind attacks the breast with poisonous urine and explosive faeces, and therefore expects it to be poisonous and explosive towards him. The details of his sadistic phantasies determine the content of his fear of internal and external persecutors, primarily of the retaliating (bad) breast. 25 Melanie Klein, Love, Guilt and Reparation (1937), in Love, Guilt and Reparation, 308. 26 Klein, The Emotional Life of the Infant, 202. 27 Deleuze, in line with Kleinian theory, describes this ongoing process of re-projection and reintrojection in the following way, emphasizing the role of the bad breast: Not only are the breast and the entire body of the mother split apart into a good and a bad object, but they are aggressively emptied, slashed to pieces, broken into crumbs and alimentary morsels. The introjection of these partial objects into the body of the infant is accompanied by a projection of aggressiveness onto these internal objects, and by a re-projection of these objects into the maternal body. Thus, introjected morsels are like poisonous, persecuting, explosive, and toxic substances threatening the childs body from within and being endlessly reconstituted inside the mothers body. The necessity of a perpetual re-introjection is the result of this (LS, 187). 28 Klein, Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms, 298 and 304. 29 Klein, The Emotional Life of the Infant, 209.
with the good breast and, insofar as it does so, the good breast relieves anxiety.30 It also follows that, when anxiety is diminished in this way, so too are processes of splitting and dispersal, which in turn allow the ego to begin to integrate itself, its objects and its feelings towards them.31 This situation then leads to what Klein calls the depressive position, characterized, as will be seen, by guilt and sorrow. As Deleuze writes, the paranoid-schizoid position is succeeded by a depressive position which characterizes a dual progress, since the child strives to reconstitute a complete good object and to identify himself with the object. The child strives thus to achieve a corresponding identity, even if in this new drama he has to share the threats, sufferings, and all the passions undergone by the good object (LS, 187-188). During the second quarter of the first year of life, a number of important changes take place for the infant. Physiologically, the central nervous system matures and perceptions become better organized, which in turn allows for memory and a better relation the external world.32 Sexually as well, in the Freudian sense of this term, urethral, anal and genital trends increase in strength, though oral impulses and desires still predominate.33 Finally, psychologically, because of the lessening of anxiety due to the relation to the good breast, the ego tends to integrate itself and its objects. These various aspects of development, of course, all impact on one another. They are not, however, reducible to one another since, as examined above, ego and object integration can be seen to result from the phantastical defence mechanisms employed in the first few months of life. This new stage of life is nevertheless fraught with its own specific anxieties. For, insofar as the infant begins to integrate its objects, it comes to realize that the good and bad breasts or mothers are in fact one and the same. In other words, the infant begins to have an ambivalent relation with one and the same breast, which is seen as the source both of its gratifications and frustrations, which is to say that one and the same breast is both loved and hated. This leads the infant to experience the sorrow of what Klein calls the loss of the loved object, that is, the destruction and ruin of the good and ideal
Klein, Psychogenesis of Manic-Depressive States, 264. See also Hanna Segal, Introduction to the Work of Melanie Klein, 67-68. 31 See generally on this Klein, The Emotional Life of the Infant, 203-204. 32 Hanna Segal, Introduction to the Work of Melanie Klein, 69. 33 Klein, The Emotional Life of the Infant, 211.
breast.34 What is more, the infant comes to believe that it is itself responsible for this loss, since it realizes that it has been attacking and has even destroyed this loved and life-giving object (which is confirmed, for example, in situations where the breast is taken away from it), and this gives rise to feelings, not only of loss but also of guilt and sorrow: in short, depressive anxiety.35 This position, then, has two major and related consequences. First of all, faced with this new, depressive anxiety, the infant defends itself by embarking upon a process of what Klein calls reparation whereby, in phantasy, the mothers body or breast, both inside and outside the infant, is somehow put back together and repaired.36 This process of reparation, aided by the increasing integration of the ego and its objects, leads in turn to the infants testing of his phantasies against reality, particularly with regard to the breast. For, in its concern for the object, the infant must closely observe the impact of its impulses and phantastical actions on the breast or mother, whose different behaviours can no longer be simply split off from one another.37 The second major consequence of depressive anxiety or the loss of the object is that the infant begins to turn to other objects, notably the father, as a means both of securing another life giving object38 and of enlisting its help in the phantastical reparation of the mother.39 Indeed, this turn to other objects can also be seen as being aided by the infants testing of its phantasy against reality, since, as part of that reality testing, the infant is obliged to take an interest in the objects like the father which surround the mother.40 In fact, following Klein, the child already had a relation to the father in the paranoid-schizoid position, or more precisely to the penis understood as a part-object.41
Klein, A Contribution to the Psychogenesis of Manic-Depressive States, 264 and 266-267. See Klein, The Emotional Life of the Infant, 211-212; Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms, 307308; A Contribution to the Psychogenesis of Manic-Depressive States (1935), 285-287. 36 See Klein, The Emotional Life of the Infant, 214; Love, Guilt and Reparation (1937), 308. Deleuze will speak of reparation as a process which belongs to the constitution of a surface (see LS, 201). We shall return to this point. 37 See Klein, The Emotional Life of the Infant, 215. See also Hanna Segal, Introduction to the Work of Melanie Klein, 73. 38 See Klein, The Emotional Life of the Infant, 220. See also Melanie Klein, On Observing the Behavior of Young Infants, in Developments in Psycho-Analysis, ed. Joan Riviere (London: The Hogarth Press, 1952), 256-257. 39 See Melanie Klein, The Oedipus Complex in Light of Early Anxieties (1945), in Love, Guilt and Reparation, 401 and 410. 40 See Klein, The Emotional Life of the Infant, 224. 41 With regards to the problematic status of this penis, as Paula Heimann writes, while the case of the infants relation to the breast may be relatively clear, since this is involved in feeding, [h]ow the infant arrives at any notion of the fathers penis may still be regarded as an open question. See her Certain Functions of Introjection and Projection in Early Infancy, 164-165. Melanie Klein assumes, however,
At this very early stage, when it is frustrated due to the absence of the breast, and in correspondence with its libidinal movements, the infant phantasizes that, using the equation breast = penis, the father or mother enjoys the desired object of which he is deprived mothers breast, fathers penis and enjoys it constantly, leading the infant to hate both this bad breast and this bad penis.42 What is more, according to these early sexual theories, the fathers penis becomes incorporated in the mother during the [sexual] act, from which it follows that, in feeding, both the breast and the penis partobjects will be subject to phantasies of attack and internalization in relation to oral projection and introjection, and will thus be established as both the internal and external, destroyed and destroying, bad breast and penis.43 Klein also argues that these sexual theories are the foundation for combined parent figures such as: the mother containing the fathers penis or the whole father; the father containing the mothers breast or the whole mother; the parents fused inseparably in sexual intercourse ... [O]wing to internalization, the infant establishes such combined parent figures within himself.44 This picture of the bad penis becomes even more complicated when clinical material reveals that the infant, in his hatred of the breast, will sadistically phantasize that the penis damages and destroys the mother.45 On the other hand, and still in the paranoid-schizoid position, when the child is gratified and turns his or her attention to the good breast and its idealization, the penis may be seen as a kind of guardian of the maternal space,46 and thus as a good external and internal object. To the introjection of the good breast, therefore, corresponds also the introjection of the good penis.47 These two part-objects, the breast and penis, in both their good and helpful and bad and persecuting aspects, are for Klein the earliest seeds
that there is an inherent unconscious knowledge of the existence of the penis and of the vagina. See her The Oedipus Complex in Light of Early Anxieties (1945), in Love, Guilt and Reparation, 409. R.D. Hinshelwood, it seems to us, clarifies the situation by making the point that, at this stage, the penis as part object is not so much understood as belonging to a real father, as simply that which occupies the mother, corresponding to the way in which the infant phantasizes the situation in relation to its own oral, anal and genital desires. See the entry Father, in A Dictionary Of Kleinian Thought (London: Free Association Books, 1991), 308-309. 42 Klein, The Emotional Life of the Infant, 219. On the equation breast = penis, see Melanie Klein, The Oedipus Complex in Light of Early Anxieties (1945), 409. 43 Melanie Klein, The Importance of Symbol-Formation in the Development of the Ego (1930), in Love, Guilt and Reparation, 219. 44 Klein, The Emotional Life of the Infant, 219-220. 45 See Klein, The Oedipus Complex, 410. 46 Hinshelwood, A Dictionary Of Kleinian Thought, 308. 47 Klein, The Oedipus Complex, 409 and 417.
of the super-ego and Oedipus complex.48 Now, working through the depressive position, the relation to the father-penis changes to the extent that, due to the infants increasing powers of integration, as well as its activity of reparation and its turn to the objects beyond the mother, the father comes to be seen as a whole person who helps and supports the mother, who is herself becoming more integrated. The earliest seeds of the super-ego can thus be thought of here as having burgeoned, insofar as the child continues to introject these more and more wholesome objects along with their standards, admonitions and prohibitions: mother and father.49 Nevertheless, it is important to note that regressions to the paranoid-schizoid position may still occur and that processes of splitting, for example, may be brought to bear on both the mother and the father as a defence against depressive anxiety. In particular (and we shall see below how Deleuze expands upon this idea), the infant may split the complete object into an uninjured live object and an injured and endangered one (perhaps dying or dead).50 The continuing tension between these two positions notwithstanding, everything is, as Deleuze explains, now prepared for the access to a sexual position marked by Oedipus (LS, 188). How does this occur for Klein? In short, in line with Freuds theories, the childs sexual development is, at this stage, progressing rapidly (if oscillating wildly). Although oral activity still dominates, the infant has already begun to experience anal, urethral and, most importantly here, genital desires. And coupled to this development is, as has just been seen, the growing awareness of an external world and in particular of the mother and father and their relation. It is thus inevitable that, even from the first year of life, sexual desires come to be directed at the mother and father figures, and in a way which coincides with the manner in which these figures have been and continue to be built up by the childs own psychological development as its moves through the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions. However, does this progression to the Oedipus complex properly speaking occur in the same way for Deleuze? In fact, to further continue an examination of the Kleinian reading of the Oedipus complex would be misleading, for, at this point, Deleuze
Ibid., 409: The imagos of his mothers breast and of his fathers penis are established within his ego and form the nucleus of his super-ego. To the introjection of the good and bad breast and mother corresponds the introjection of the good and bad penis and father. They become the first representatives on the one hand of protective and helpful internal figures, on the other of retaliating and persecuting internal figures, and are the first identifications which the ego develops. 49 See Klein, The Emotional Life of the Infant, 229. 50 Ibid., 213.
radically modifies Kleins position. The first criticism which Deleuze brings to Klein in this regard concerns the status of the good object. As he writes, it seems to us that the good object is not introjected as such, because it belongs from the very start to another dimension It belongs to the heights, it holds itself above The superego does not begin with the first introjected objects, as Melanie Klein says, but rather with this good object which holds itself aloft (LS, 189). So why does Deleuze hold that the good object is not introjected? It is because the good object, on the one hand, is supposed to be a whole and complete object. As Klein puts it, the gratifying breast, taken in under the dominance of the sucking libido, is felt to be complete.51 On the other hand, if this good object is introjected, and if anxiety is ongoing in the child, this object would have to be re-split, re-projected and reintrojected. This is, of course, incompatible with the good object being whole and complete. As Klein writes, the infants feeling of having inside a good and complete breast may, however, be shaken by frustration and anxiety. As a result, the divorce between the good and bad breast may be difficult to maintain, and the infant may feel that the good breast too is in pieces.52 Or again, as Deleuze expresses it: Klein herself showed that the splitting of the object into good and bad in the case of introjection is duplicated through a fragmentation which the good object is unable to resist [I]ntrojection, to be precise, does not allow what is wholesome to subsist (LS, 188). To overcome this contradiction, then, Deleuze affirms that the good, complete object is not introjected as such, and that a revision is therefore required of the equilibrium proper to the schizoid position and its relation to the subsequent depressive position (LS, 188). Following Deleuze, what the schizoid position initially opposes to bad partial objects is not a good object, but an organism without parts, a body without organs, with neither mouth nor anus, having given up all introjection or projection, and being complete, at this price (LS, 188). What is more, it is in the opposition between the part objects and the body without organs that the tension between id and ego is formed (LS, 188). This notion of a body without organs is taken from the work of Antonin Artaud. Deleuze understands it to represent the schizophrenics active response to the collapse of meaning into the depth of bodies, that is to say, to the collapse of the frontier between words and things. In this collapse, not only does the word cease being caught
Klein, Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms, 297. Ibid., 297-298.
up in the production of sense and become equivalent to a sound of a body, the ideal surfaces of bodies, which are produced on the metaphysical surface in relation to propositions, themselves collapse. On the one hand, the entire body is experienced as no longer anything but depth (LS, 87), and is characterized only by actions and passions (LS, 91, 192). On the other hand, every word is physical, and immediately affects the body, invading it by constantly forming a mixture and a new state of affairs with it in depth, instead of being caught up in the infinitely divisible ideal sense-event at the surface (LS, 87-88). In this situation, as Deleuze writes, for the schizophrenic it is less a question of recovering meaning than of destroying the word, of conjuring up the affect, and of transforming the painful passion of the body into a triumphant action, obedience into command, always in this depth beneath the fissured surface (LS, 88). Artauds breath-words (mots-souffles) and howl-words (mots-cris) are examples of such actions insofar as they weld together the wounding phonetic elements of language into units which are incapable of being decomposed, that is, incapable of forming new mixtures with the body (LS, 88, 90). It can thus be argued that, to the values of such indecomposable cries, a glorious body corresponds , an organism without parts (the superior body or body without organs of Antonin Artaud) (LS, 88).53 It is a body of this type which, following Deleuze, the infant in the schizoid position opposes to the bad partial objects. But how does he make this correlation between the infant and the schizophrenic? In the first place, Deleuze claims to find in one of Kleins case studies dealing with schizoid phenomena a misrecognition of the theme of the body without organs (LS, n.3, 351-352).54 Secondly, Deleuze makes a distinction between the infants anal
For the full account of the issues involved here, as well as for Deleuzes analyses of such schizophrenic procedures, see the Thirteenth Series of the Schizophrenic and the Little Girl (LS, 8293). It is clear from this that Deleuzes understanding of the schizophrenics relation to language is very different from both Freud and Lacan. For Freud, in schizophrenia, words are not treated from the point of view of their physical or sonorous nature. Rather, the schizophrenic treats concrete things as abstract and then reconstructs his or her relation to the external world by means of words and figures of speech which have been subjected to unconscious processes of condensation and displacement. See Sigmund Freud, The Unconscious, in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Work of Sigmund Freud [henceforth SE], volume XIV, trans. James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press, 1957), Ch. VII. For Lacan, schizophrenic language is defined as the endless and panic-stricken sliding of the signifying series over the signified series, while for Deleuze, in schizophrenia, there are no longer any series at all (LS, 91 translation modified). 54 Deleuze is referring to the following passage in Kleins Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms, 311: [The patient] reported the following dream: there was a blind man who was very worried about being blind; but he seemed to comfort himself by touching the patients dress and finding out how it was fastened. The dress in the dream reminded her of one her frocks which was buttoned high up to the throat. The patient gave two further associations to this dream. She said, with some resistance, that the blind man was herself; and when referring to the dress fastened up to the throat, she remarked that she had again
and urethral sadism, such that excrements correspond to hard and solid fragments which change, and urine to a liquid principle capable of binding all of the morsels together, and of surmounting such a breaking apart in the full depth of a body (finally) without organs (LS, 189). He is then in a position to make the link between the infant and the schizophrenic by arguing that, if we assume that the schizophrenic, with all the language he has acquired, regresses to this schizoid position [of the child], we should not be surprised to find again in schizophrenic language the duality and complementarity of words-passions, splintered excremental bits, and of words-actions, blocks fused together by a principle of water or fire (LS, 189). While these two related arguments may themselves seem far too tenuous to bring about a substantial revision of the Kleinian notion of the schizoid position, it must be remembered that Deleuzes concern here is primarily to resolve, with reference to certain elements of Kleins thought, the contradictory nature of the Kleinian good object in the pre-Oedipal stage of the psychic life of the infant. However, it can also be noted that Deleuze does have a positive account of the good object, which is derived, as will be seen, from Lacan. As Deleuze writes, the good object is not introjected as such, because it belongs from the very start to another dimension It belongs to the heights, it holds itself above The superego does not begin with the first introjected objects, as Melanie Klein says, but rather with this good object which holds itself aloft (LS, 189). Although Deleuze does not name it as such, his concept of the good object here corresponds to that of the imago of the maternal breast such as this was analyzed by Lacan in Les complexes familiaux (The Family Complexes) and The Mirror Stage.55 An imago, for Lacan, is a subjective determination of an image, imbued with feeling, which influences the way the subject relates to other people, who are perceived through the lens of these various images.56 Or, put another way, an
gone into her hide. I suggested to the patient that she unconsciously expressed in the dream that she was blind to her own difficulties, and that her decisions with regard to the analysis as well as to various circumstances in her life were not in accordance with her unconscious knowledge Actually, the interpretation of this dream did not produce any effect and did not alter the patients decision to bring the analysis to an end in that particular hour. 55 See Jacques Lacan, Les complexes familiaux dans la formation de lindividu Essai danalyse dune fonction en psychologie, in Autres crits (Paris: Seuil, 2001); The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I Function as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience, in crits. 56 Evans, Dictionary, 85.
imago is an unconscious representation: whose content is given by subjective sensations; whose form is revealed retrospectively by later psychic activity;57 and whose power is derived from a complex or structure of interpersonal relationships.58 The relationship between mother and newborn examined above in Kleinian terms is thus a type of complex, and the good object or breast with which the infant identifies is the imago corresponding to this complex. Indeed, Lacan has analyzed this relationship and this imago as the weaning complex and the maternal breast respectively.59 The imago of the maternal breast, as will be seen, is both a product of the activities characteristic of the weaning complex and the infants means of access to this complex insofar as it fixes the feeding relationship to an image in the psyche of the newborn.60 So the question becomes: what, for Deleuze, are the characteristics of the good object, and how are these reflected in Lacans analyses of the imago of the maternal breast? The first characteristic of the good object, following Deleuze, is that in opposition to partial introjected objects the good object as such is a complete object (LS, 189). Lacan, for his part, argues that the imago of the breast for the infant is an unconscious representation of intrauterine life, that is, of a state of perfect unity or coexistence with the mother which was cut off by birth, and which the difficult postnatal feeding relationship tends to re-establish, thereby reinforcing and fixing the imago.61 It is in this sense that the infant identifies with the good object rather than introjecting or projecting it, as is the case in Kleins work (LS, 190 emphasis added. See also LS, 192). In other words, the infant assumes the imago of the maternal breast and thereby recognizes itself in that image, that is, in the feeding relationship.62 The second characteristic of the good object, for Deleuze, is that it takes upon itself the two schizoid poles that of partial objects from which it extracts its force and that of the body without organs from which it extracts its form, that is, its completeness and integrity (LS, 190). In relation to the first pole, Lacan similarly argues that the
See Lacan, Les complexes familiaux, 31-32. Chiesa, Subjectivity and Otherness, 27. 59 See Lacan, Les complexes familiaux, 30-36. 60 Ibid., 30. 61 Ibid., 31: it is the refusal of weaning that founds the positivity of the complex, that is to say, the imago of the feeding relationship which [the complex] tends to reestablish (my translation). See also Chiesa, Subjectivity and Otherness, n.63, 198. 62 On identification as the assumption of an image and corresponding formation of the subject, see Evans, Dictionary, 82; Chiesa, Subjectivity and Otherness, 28; and Lacan, The Mirror Stage, 76. As Lacan puts it elsewhere, the imago is the form, which is definable in the imaginary spatiotemporal complex, whose function is to bring about the identification that resolves a psychical phase in other words, a metamorphosis in the individuals relationships with his semblables. See Jacques Lacan, Presentation of Psychical Causality, in crits, 153-154.
content of the imago of the breast is given by the initially disorganized sensations and emotions which are typical of the first months of life: e.g., in the vague awareness of a presence which fulfils the maternal function; in the infants oral fusion with the breast (where it absorbs as much as it is completely absorbed in the feeding relation); and in the satisfaction of being rocked as contrasted with the feelings of distress, suffocation and coldness which dominate at birth.63 It is in this way, therefore, that we can understand Deleuzes assertion that the good object is not the successor of the schizoid position [as it is in Klein], but rather forms itself in the course of this position, with borrowings, blockages, and pressures which attest to a constant communication between the two (LS, 190 translation modified). Deleuze and Lacan appear to differ, however, as to the origin of the form of the imago. In the above citation, Deleuze appears to understand it to be extracted from the body without organs. Lacan, on the other hand, argues that the form could only be revealed in the structures of subsequent psychic activity, since the infant at this stage has no awareness of object-form.64 As will be seen, however, Deleuze later clarifies his position and brings it closer to Lacans by arguing that, being necessarily gathered into a voice, the good object must be signified and thus retroactively made sense of (LS, 193, n.5, 352). We shall return to this point. Following Deleuze, the good objects third characteristic is that it is by nature a lost object It only shows itself and appears from the start as already lost, as having been lost (LS, 191). Now, it is certain that, for Lacan, insofar as the imago of the maternal breast comes about during the weaning complex and refers to intrauterine life, it refers to something already lost. What is more, it is clear that the loss of this primordial unity is itself a condition of the genesis of the imago, since the content of this latter is given by postnatal sensations and emotions. It is in this sense that, as Deleuze says, the good object is found for the first time as found again.65 Coming
Lacan, Les complexes familiaux, 32-33. Ibid., 31-32. 65 This notion of the object which is found only as lost also echoes Freuds argument in the Three Essays on Sexuality, with respect to the long process of finding an appropriate sexual or love-object. As he writes, at a time at which the first beginnings of sexual satisfaction are still linked with the taking of nourishment, the sexual drive has a sexual object outside the infants own body in the shape of his mothers breast. It is only later that the drive loses that object There are thus good reasons why a child suckling at his mothers breast has become the prototype of every relation of love. The finding of an object is in fact a refinding of it. See Sigmund Freud, Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, in SE VII, trans. James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press, 1953), 222. It is clear, however, that for Freud the refinding of the lost object occurs only after the resolution of the Oedipus complex. For Lacan, on the contrary, even though such objects-images will be made sense of retrospectively as they are for Freud,
about in the course of the schizoid position, the good object posits itself as having always preexisted in this other dimension which now interferes with depth (LS, 191). Following this point, Deleuze argues that the good object, as an essentially wholesome but lost object, both frustrates the child and takes on those aspects of the superego which Klein understood as resulting from the introjection of both good and bad partial objects. For Deleuze, the good object frustrates the child precisely because of its ambivalent nature, that is, in as much as it can only be found (or formed) as a result of its already being lost. Nevertheless, as lost, the object confers its love (or reassuring unity) on the one who is able to find it for the first time as found again. Yet, by exactly the same token, it confers its hate on the one who identifies with the partial objects which form its content, for it is precisely these sensations and emotions which signal the loss of the object (LS, 191). As Deleuze puts it: Frustration, in view of which the first time can only be a second time, is the common origin of love and hatred. The good object is cruel (the cruelty of the superego) to the extent that it ties together all these moments of love and hate conferred from on high with an instance which turns its face away and offers its gifts (dons) only as gifts offered once before (redonns) (LS, 191). The fourth and final characteristic of the good object, for Deleuze, is that while it can never be recovered as such, it can nevertheless be signified (LS, n.5, 352).66 Or to put it another way, following Deleuze, if we take into consideration the characteristics of the good object (of being found only as lost, of appearing for the first time as already there, etc.) it appears that they are necessarily united in a voice which speaks and comes from on high (LS, 193 translation modified). What, however, does this mean? In the first place, it means that from the moment of birth, the child bathes in a familial hum: he or she hears other people speaking and, moreover, speaking about him or her. In other words, because the persons implicated in the weaning complex, accessed by the infant through the imago of the maternal breast, are speakers of a language, the
the imago of the maternal breast will nevertheless be made sense of as a pre-Oedipal refinding of an intrauterine life which had been lost. It can thus be said that, while Deleuze cites neither Freud nor Lacan in this matter, because he is here focusing on the pre-Oedipal, Deleuze is almost certainly referring to the Lacanian imago of the breast when he speaks of the lost object. 66 Deleuze is here following the Lacanian Robert Pujol. See his Approche thorique du fantasme, La Psychanalyse 8 (1964): 15.
characteristics of this imago or good object will be said to have been united in or signified by this voice.67 As Deleuze puts it, for the child, the first approach to language consists in grasping it as the model of that which preexists, as referring to the entire domain of what is already there, and as the familial voice which conveys tradition, it affects the child as a bearer of a name and demands his insertion even before the child begins to understand. In a certain way, this voice has at its disposal all the dimensions of an organized language: it denotes the good object as such or, on the contrary, the introjected objects; it signifies something, namely, all the concepts and classes which structure the domain of preexistence; and it manifests the emotional variations of the whole person (the voice that loves or reassures, attacks and scolds, that itself complains about being wounded, or withdraws and keeps quiet) (LS, 193-194). The problem, of course, concerns how the child at this pre-linguistic stage comes to see in the Voice the characteristics of the good object. Now, it is clear that, for Deleuze as much as for Lacan, the elements of language along with language speakers are ultimately determined as such within a structure of symbolic relations of the type examined throughout the preceding chapters (the structure constitutive of sense which engenders propositions, the dimensions of these propositions, and the objective correlates of these dimension). But it is equally clear that, for the newborn caught up in its imaginary identification with imagos, these symbolic relations are at first utterly enigmatic. As Deleuze says, the voice presents the dimensions of an organized language, but without yet being able to render explicit the organizing principle according to which the voice would itself be a language it has the dimensions of a language without having its condition; it awaits the event that will make it a language (LS, 194 translation modified). In other words, while the Voice appears to possess the dimensions of denotation, manifestation and signification, the child at this stage is unable to grasp the fourth dimension of sense or the event which engenders these dimensions, the relations between them, and their objective correlates. The question of how the good object comes to be signified will thus depend on the childs full entry into the structural and intersubjective dimension of language. Is this not, however, Lacans argument that the form of the imago of the breast could only be revealed in the structures of subsequent psychic activity (even though it will always have been informed by the sensations and emotions characteristic of the first few months of life),
Indeed, for Lacan, the imaginary [dimension] is always already structured by the symbolic order. See Evans, Dictionary, 84.
that is, in the structural or symbolic dimension of linguistic and intersubjective relations? Indeed, as will be seen, this is precisely Lacans and, following him, Deleuzes argument: the imagos, good objects or proto-symbolizations characteristic of the first months of life will be retroactively made sense of after the resolution of the Oedipus complex, that is, after the infants entry into the dimension of the symbolic.68 We can thus see in what way Deleuze understands the passage from the noise of the depths to the Voice of the heights as the first stage of the dynamic genesis of the metaphysical surface (LS, 193). Let us recall that the dynamic genesis or event of the metaphysical surface requires that this surface of sense emerge from the depths of bodies, even as it comes to determine these bodies, and be coextensive with the event of language and the speaking subject. It has just been seen, however, how the newborn organizes its early bodily experiences and object relations into an imago or good object which, to the extent that it is signified by the Voice, will be retroactively made sense of after the childs acquisition of language and corresponding entry into the symbolic after the resolution of the Oedipus complex. It has yet to be seen, however, precisely how this entry into the structural and intersubjective dimension of language is to be made. And so we must turn to the second step of the dynamic genesis.
5.2 Second Step: Formation and Coordination of Surfaces (Freud and Infantile Sexuality) The second step of the dynamic genesis, which is the focus of the TwentyEighth Series of Sexuality, involves the formation of [corporeal] surfaces and their coordination (LS, ix). It is described by Deleuze in terms primarily derived from Freuds theory of infantile sexuality, but also from Lacans Mirror Stage and his concept of the phallus, as well as from the Kleinian notion of reparation. The basic idea here is that infantile sexuality is a physical surface phenomenon which is distinct from both the undifferentiated depths of bodies and the heights of the Voice, although also, as will be seen, derived from their relation. What is more, this sexual physics of surfaces establishes the conditions which are necessary for the Oedipus complex and, hence, for the infants eventual entry into the symbolic dimension of language and culture, that is to say, his or her passage to the metaphysical surface to which the sexual
See also on this point, Chiesa, Subjectivity and Otherness, 61-62.
physics of surfaces will be said to correspond. The Twenty-Eighth Series of Sexuality is thus a continuation of Deleuzes appropriation of psychoanalytic theory in order to show how the metaphysical surface is an event which results from bodies even as it determines these bodies, and is coextensive with the events of language (the differentiation of words and things) and the divided subject. Following Freud, infantile sexuality and the way with which it is dealt are fundamental causes of the phenomena with which psychoanalysis deals: not only the psychoneuroses and psychoses, but also perversion. However, in order to grasp infantile, normal and perverse sexual life as a single whole, it was necessary for Freud to enlarge the concept of what was sexual.69 He thus argued that the sexual drive is made up of various component drives whose sources are the organs of the body and in particular certain specially marked erotogenic zones the oral, the anal and the genital, for example which procure a certain amount of pleasure for the infant.70 Initially, these individual component drives strive for satisfaction in their own way (depending on the nature of their sources) and independently of one another; but they then tend to converge, as the infant passes through several stages or phases of sexual organization, under the primacy of one or other of the zones. Thus, as is well known, the infant moves through an oral stage, followed by an anal and finally a phallic stage.71 As Deleuze states, a stage is characterized by a type of activity which assimilates other activities and realizes in a certain mode a mixture of drives Zones, on the contrary, represent the isolation of a territory, activities which invest this territory, and drives which now find in it a distinct source. The organization of zones and the organization of stages occur, of course, almost simultaneously, since all positions are elaborated during the first year of life, each one encroaching on the preceding position and intervening in its course (LS, 196-197).
Sigmund Freud, Two Encyclopedia Articles (A) Psychoanalysis, in SE XVIII, trans. James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press, 1955), 244. 70 Freud, Two Encylopedia Articles (A) Psychoanalysis, 244-245. The eye and the skin can also function as erotogenic zones. Most generally, it is a part of the skin or mucous membrane in which stimuli of a certain sort evoke a feeling of pleasure possessing a particular quality. See Freud, Three Essays on Sexuality, 169 and 183. It should also be noted that the Standard Edition of Freuds works in English translate both Instinkt (instinct) and Trieb (drive) as instinct. However, whereas an instinct is genetically transmitted and independent of individual experience, a drive is closely related to the subjects individual history and is inseparable from how it is represented in his or her psychic life. We have thus chosen to modify the Standard Edition translation to reflect this conceptual distinction and to remain consistent with Deleuzes original French text of The Logic of Sense, where the German Trieb is always translated by the French pulsion (drive). 71 See on this, Freud, Three Essays on Sexuality, 197-199. On the phallic stage, see also Sigmund Freud, The Infantile Genital Organization (an Interpolation into the Theory of Sexuality), in SE XIX, trans. James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press, 1961), 142.
Now, for Freud, the drives are motor forces which originate in the body and, considered from this point of view, are in themselves without quality.72 On the other hand, however, they are experienced in mental life by means of representatives whose nature we shall come to examine. He writes that a drive appears to us as a concept on the frontier between the mental and the somatic, as the psychical representative of the stimuli originating from within the organism and reaching the mind, as a measure of the demand made upon the mind for work in consequence of its connection with the body.73 More specifically, following Freud, a drive is characterized by its pressure, its aim, its object and its source.74 The pressure of a drive is its motor factor, the amount of force or the measure of the demand for work it represents. The drives ultimate aim is always satisfaction, which can only be obtained by removing the state of stimulation at the source of the drive. The object of a drive is the thing in regard to which or through which the drive is able to achieve its aim. And the drives source is a somatic process which occurs in an organ or part of the body. It should also be remarked that the object of a drive is variable and contingent on the subjects history: it is not originally connected with the drive; it may be an external object or a part of the subjects own body; it may be changed over time; and it may satisfy several drives simultaneously. Likewise, there may be many different paths leading to the ultimate aim of the satisfaction of a drive, from which it follows that a drive may have various nearer or intermediate aims which can be combined or interchanged with one another, particularly depending on the current state of their organization under the primacy of this or that zone.75 Let us now examine how Deleuze takes up these various characteristics of the sexual drives and translates them into his own idiosyncratic vocabulary. He argues first of all that each erogenous zone in which a drive finds a source is formed around a singularity constituted by a mucous membrane (LS, 197). Deleuze here refers to Simondons argument, examined in Chapter 3, that the orifices of the body function as
On this last point, see Freud, Three Essays on Sexuality, 168. Sigmund Freud, Instincts and Their Vicissitudes, in SE XIV, trans. James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press, 1957), 121-122. 74 For what follows, see Ibid., 122-123. 75 Freud shows that the object is variable, contingent and only chosen in its definitive form in consequence of the vicissitudes of the subjects history. He shows too how aims are many and fragmented , and closely dependent on somatic sources which are themselves manifold. See Laplanche and Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-Analysis, 215.
singularities which bring internal corporeal spaces and the external environment into relation in intensive processes of individuation.76 He writes that, as Simondon said of membranes, the entire content of internal space is topologically in contact with the content of external space on the limits of the living (LS, 197). He is thus signalling with this reference to Simondon that there is an intensive physics of surfaces, of the type examined in Chapter 3, at work in infantile sexuality. Indeed, Deleuze also connects the object and the aim (satisfaction) of the sexual drive to this physics of surfaces which, as has been seen, is characterized by differential series and singularities. As he writes, each zone is the dynamic formation of a surface space around a singularity constituted by the orifice. It is able to be prolonged in all directions up to the vicinity of another zone depending on another singularity. Each erogenous zone is inseparable from one or several singular points, from a serial development articulated around the singularity and from a drive investing this territory. It is inseparable from a partial object projected onto the territory as an object of satisfaction (image), from an observer or an ego bound to the territory and experiencing satisfaction, and from a mode of joining up with other zones. The entire surface is the product of this connection [S]exuality in its first (pregenital) aspect must be defined as a veritable production of partial surfaces. The auto-eroticism which corresponds to it must be characterized by the object of satisfaction projected onto the surface and by the little narcissistic ego which contemplates it and indulges in it (LS, 197 emphasis added). So let us first of all examine some of the details of the Freudian theory of infantile sexuality and then see how these are reflected in Deleuzes sexual physics of surfaces. Three notions to which we must pay particular attention are: what Freud calls the pleasure principle (also called the pleasure-unpleasure series),77 the object of satisfaction, and the role of the phallus in the coordination of the infants component sexual drives. Following Freud, to begin with, sexual activity attaches itself to functions serving the purpose of self-preservation and, in particular, the need for nourishment.78
See Chapter 3, 123, 136. See Freud, Instincts and Their Vicissitudes, 120. 78 Freud, Three Essays on Sexuality, 182. Freud uses the term anaclisis to designate the early relationship of the sexual drives to the self-preservative ones: the sexual drives, which become autonomous only secondarily, depend at first on those vital functions which furnish them with an organic source, an orientation and an object. See Laplanche and Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-Analysis, 29. As Deleuze puts in The Logic of Sense, the sexual drives are fashioned very much after the drives of
As he puts it, it was the childs first and most vital activity, his sucking at his mothers breast that must have familiarized him with pleasure The satisfaction of the erotogenic zone is associated, in the first instance, with the satisfaction of the need for nourishment.79 This initial experience of nutritive satisfaction leaves behind in the infant a need for its repetition which, following Freud, reveals itself in two ways: by a peculiar feeling of tension, possessing, rather, the character of unpleasure, and by a sensation of itching or stimulation which is centrally conditioned and projected on to the peripheral erotogenic zone.80 Pleasure, then, will be experienced as the reduction of unpleasure or of the quantity of excitation or pressure. Correspondingly, the sexual aim will be formulated at this early oral stage in the following way: it consists in replacing the projected sensation of stimulation in the erotogenic zone by an external stimulus which removes that sensation by producing a feeling of satisfaction.81 There is thus, in short, a pleasure principle governing the infants relation to the breast, that is, an economic principle working through a correlation between alternating experiences of pleasure and unpleasure, or a pleasure-unpleasure series.82 Now, what is crucial here is that, once experienced, the pleasurable activity implicated in the reduction of tension may be pursued for its own sake, independently of the satisfaction associated with the vital function of feeding. This new search for pleasure is what is manifested in auto-erotic phenomena such as thumb sucking, that is to say, phenomena where the sexual drive is not directed towards other people, but obtains satisfaction from the subjects own body.83 Freud goes on to argue that, having understood the nature of the sexual drive such as this arises at the oral zone, we are in a position to understand the sexual activity of children in relation to the other zones (anal, genital and so on), for each such source will be similarly characterized by: a general pressure or tension, the aim of satisfaction or the removal of unpleasure, and auto-erotic behaviour (retaining the stool, infantile masturbation, etc.). The distinction between one zone and another, then, primarily concerns the nature of the contrivance necessary for satisfying the drive; in the case of the labial zone it consisted of sucking, and this has to
conservation, being born together with them and substituting introjected and projected partial objects for objects that are out of reach (LS, 198). 79 Freud, Three Essays on Sexuality, 181. 80 Ibid., 184. 81 Ibid., 184. 82 See also on this, Laplanche and Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-Analysis, 322: Inasmuch as unpleasure is related to the increase of quantities of excitation, and pleasure to their reduction, the principle in question [i.e., the pleasure principle] may be said to be an economic one. 83 Freud, Three Essays on Sexuality, 181.
be replaced by other muscular actions according to the position and nature of the other zones.84 Laplanche and Pontalis make the important point that, in auto-erotism, when the sexual drives become detached from the self-preservative drives and find their objects in the infants own body, not only is the natural mode of apprehending the object of satisfaction effectively split, the object is itself shown to be variable.85 Deleuze echoes this point when he writes that what occurs in the sexual position is the separation of two states of the sexual drives [and] two sorts of objects of these drives (LS, n.3, 353). In other words, the libidinal drives are separated from the life and death drives with which they were originally connected in depth, and the pellicular objects of sexuality are separated from the part-objects of the depths (see LS, 198-199). Indeed, and we shall see the importance of the fact, it is because of this liberation of the sexual drives from the drives of conservation and this variability of the object of satisfaction that the sexual drives will be able to be delivered over to phantasy.86 Now, it was noted that Deleuze calls the object of satisfaction in auto-erotism an image projected onto the surface or territory surrounding the zone. What Deleuze here calls an image thus corresponds to what Freud calls a mnemic image or memory-trace, from which the ideational representations of the drives in mental life, mentioned above, will be derived.87 The basic idea here is that, when the infant experiences real satisfaction, it retains a number of memory-traces of it. These Mnems, as Freud also calls them, correspond to a perceptual image of the object which brought about the satisfaction, as well as to a motor image of the muscular movement which permitted the discharge of unpleasurable tension. Following Freud, when this state of tension recurs, there is a wishful activation (or recathexis) of the mnemic image of the object which produces a hallucination that is indistinguishable from perception. Of course, if the remembered muscular action is also reactivated and introduced, the infant will experience disappointment, requiring him or her to learn to discriminate between its
Ibid., 185. See on this, Laplanche and Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-Analysis, 45-46. 86 As Laplanche and Pontalis write, the origin of phantasy cannot be isolated from the origin of the drive (Trieb) itself. The authors [i.e., Laplanche and Pontalis], reinterpreting the Freudian concept of the experience of satisfaction, locate this origin in auto-erotism, which they define not as a stage of evolution but as a moment of a repeated disjunction of sexual desire and non-sexual functions: sexuality is detached from any natural object, and is handed over to phantasy, and, by this very fact, starts existing as sexuality. Laplanche and Pontalis, Fantasy and the Origins of Sexuality, 27-28 (translation modified). 87 For what follows, see Sigmund Freud, Project for a Scientific Psychology, in SE I, trans. James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press, 1966), 318-319; and Sigmund Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams (Second Part), in SE V, trans. James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press, 1958), 536-540.
imaginary ideas and reality. This learning process, however, is a slow one, and in the meantime the mnemic images come to be connected with auto-erotic activity.88 Or again, as Deleuze puts it, at this early phase of the infants existence, a series of images is projected over the [erogenous] zone, that is, a series of objects capable of assuring for the zone an auto-erotic satisfaction (LS, 225). A sucked-on finger, for example, is understood to be a projection of the breast (LS, n.3, 352).89 Strictly speaking, however, for Freud, the objects-images belonging to the various component drives are only pre-genital part-objects, albeit of a different nature from the fragmented part-objects of the depths.90 For, not only have the component drives yet to converge in a single normal sexual drive, the objects of these drives have yet to be integrated into a whole love-object which would satisfy the aim of a unified sexual drive, that is, the union of the genitals in the act known as copulation.91 Crucially, however, preparations have been made from earliest childhood for this process of finding an object.92 In other words, adult object-choice will be modelled on the infants early experiences of satisfaction and their corresponding memory-traces, particularly with respect to his or her primary caregivers.93 As Freud writes, The characteristics of infantile sexual life which we have hitherto emphasized are the facts that it is essentially autoerotic (i.e. that it finds its object in the infants own body) and that its individual component drives are upon the whole disconnected and independent of one another in their search for pleasure. The final outcome of sexual development lies in what is known as the normal
See Sigmund Freud, Some General Remarks on Hysterical Attacks (1909), in SE IX, trans. James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press, 1959), 233. See also Sigmund Freud, Two Principles of Mental Functioning, in SE XII, trans. James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press, 1958), 223: The continuance of auto-erotism is what makes it possible to retain for so long the easier momentary and imaginary satisfaction in relation to the sexual object in place of real satisfaction. 89 Freud writes that it is clear that the behaviour of a child who indulges in thumb-sucking is determined by a search for some pleasure which has already been experienced and is now remembered It is also easy to guess the occasions on which the child had his first experiences of the pleasure which he is now string to renew, his sucking on his mothers breast. See Freud, Three Essays on Sexuality, 181. 90 On this last point, see LS, 199: it is important to distinguish between the introjected and projected internal partial object (simulacrum) and the object of the surface, projected over a zone in accordance with an entirely different mechanism (image). 91 Freud, Three Essays on Sexuality, 149. 92 Ibid., 222. 93 Ibid., 223: There are good reasons why a child sucking at his mothers breast has become the prototype of every relation of love A childs intercourse with anyone responsible for his care affords him an unending source of sexual excitation and satisfaction from his erotogenic zones. This is especially so since the person in charge of him, who after all, is as a rule his mother, herself regards him with feelings that are derived from her own sexual life: she strokes him, kisses him, rocks him and quite clearly treats him as a substitute for a complete sexual object. See also Laplanche and Pontalis, Language of Psycho-Analysis, 156: The image of the satisfying object may be recathected in the absence of the real object (hallucinatory satisfaction of the wish). And it will always guide the later search for the satisfying object.
sexual life of the adult, in which the pursuit of pleasure comes under the sway of the reproductive function and in which the component drives, under the primacy of a single erotogenic zone [i.e., the genital zone], form a firm organization directed towards a sexual aim attached to some extraneous sexual object In order to complete our picture of infantile sexual life, we must also suppose that the choice of an object has already frequently or habitually been effected during the years of childhood: that is to say, the whole of the sexual currents have become directed towards a single person in relation to whom they seek to achieve their aims.94 Now, for Freud, in the adult sexual organization, the component sexual drives will be subsumed under the dominance of the genital zone insofar as the stimulation of the various other erotogenic zones come to be seen as making possible, through the medium of fore-pleasure which can be derived from them (as it was during infantile life), the production of the greater pleasure of [genital] satisfaction.95 In other words, the pleasurable-unpleasurable tension generated by the stimulation of the non-genital erotogenic zones leads to a further increase in tension which in its turn is responsible for producing the necessary motor energy for the conclusion of the sexual act [which is] of the highest intensity and pleasure.96 Of course, the infant must wait for the changes which come about at puberty to experience this type of satisfaction in its full intensity. Nevertheless, following Freud, even if a proper combination of the component drives under the primacy of the genitals has not been entirely effected in infancy, at the height of the course of development of infantile sexuality, interest in the genitals and in their activity acquires a dominating significance which falls little short of that reached in maturity.97
Freud, Three Essays on Sexuality, 197 and 199. Laplanche and Pontalis, however, caution against a too simplistic reading of the integration of part objects into a whole object. See their Language of PsychoAnalysis, 276: Taking the genetic view of psychosexual development, one might be tempted to infer from this dichotomy between the part-object (the object of the drive and, essentially, the pregenital object) and the total object (the love-object and, essentially, the genital object) that the subject passes from the former to the latter thanks to a gradual integration of his component drives within the genital organization Despite the undeniable import of the distinction between the part-object and the loveobject, however, it does not necessarily justify a reading of this kind. For one thing, the part-object may be held to be an irreducible or insuperable pole of the sexual drive. Moreover, analytic investigation shows that the whole object, far from representing a definitive form, is never free of narcissistic undertones; it owes its existence less to a happy synthesis of the part-objects than to a sort of precipitation of them into a form modelled on the ego. Deleuze, however, is aware of this problem, since he argues that the sexual body and its objects, as well as the narcissistic ego, are all determined on the surface (LS, 203). 95 Freud, Three Essays on Sexuality, 211. 96 Ibid., 210. 97 Sigmund Freud, The Infantile Genital Organization (an Interpolation into the Theory of Sexuality), 142.
It is crucial to note, however, that there is a major difference between the adult and the infantile genital organization of the drives. It is that, for both sexes, only one genital, namely the male one, comes into account.98 In other words, for Freud, the little girl is ignorant of the existence of the vagina, and rather believes that her penis has been castrated. It is a question, therefore, not of a primacy of the genitals, but a primacy of the phallus,99 which is thought of as present though castratable for the little boy, and absent or castrated for the little girl.100 For Freud, it is this early understanding of the genital zone which sets up the castration and Oedipus complexes, insofar as it determines the infants relation to both the mother and father as particular objects involved in the search for the satisfaction of his or her unified sexual drive. So how exactly does Deleuze read a physics of surfaces into these various aspects of the Freudian theory of infantile sexuality? He writes that: The pre-genital erogenous zones or surfaces cannot be separated from the problem of their coordination. It is certain, though, that this coordination is enacted in several ways: by contiguity, to the degree that the series which is developed over one zone is extended in another series; at a distance, to the degree that a zone can be turned inward or projected onto another, furnishing the image by which the other is satisfied; and above all, indirectly, as in Lacans mirror stage. It is nevertheless true that the direct and global function of integration, or of general coordination, is normally vested in the genital zone. It is this zone which must bind all the other partial zones, thanks to the phallus. And the phallus, in this respect, does not play the role of an organ, but rather that of a particular image projected, in the case of the little girl as well as the little boy, onto this privileged (genital) zone [A]s a wholesome and good organ, it confers love and punishment, while at the same time withdrawing in order to form the whole person or the organ corresponding to the voice, that is, the combined idol of both parents (LS, 200). It is clear from this citation that Deleuze sees the coordination of the partial surfaces of the component drives as a consequence of the development, both of the pleasure-unpleasure series, and of the objects-images of satisfaction corresponding to this series. On the one hand, a pleasure-unpleasure series which is developed in relation to a particular erogenous zone may be extended in the pleasure-unpleasure series belonging to another zone. This is obviously the case for Freud in the post-pubescent mechanism of fore-pleasure, where the pleasurable-unpleasurable tension generated at
Ibid., 142. Ibid., 142. 100 See also on this, Sigmund Freud, Some Psychical Consequences of the Anatomical Distinction Between the Sexes, in SE XIX, trans. James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press, 1961), 248-258.
one erogenous zone is prolonged in the tension, and ultimate discharge of this tension, at the genital zone. It is also the case in the phallic stage of infantile sexuality, where the infants intense interest in the genital zone involves the subordination of other activities to that zone. As Freud writes, it is scarcely possible to avoid the conclusion that the foundations for the future primacy over sexual activity exercised by this erotogenic zone are established by early infantile masturbation, which scarcely a single individual escapes.101 On the other hand, Deleuze emphasizes the role of objects-images in the coordination of partial surfaces in a number of different ways. First of all, he argues that one zone may provide the image by which this latter is satisfied. This is obviously the case when the component drives are subsumed under the genital zone and the object of satisfaction of this zone primarily, the infants caregiver becomes the privileged object of all the zones. It is also the case that, for Freud, activity at the anal zone prefigures the object-image by which the genital zone will come to be satisfied. As he writes, the relationship between the penis and the passage lined with mucous membrane which it fills and excites already has its prototype in the pregenital, analsadistic phase. The faecal mass, or as one patient called it, the faecal stick, represents as it were the first penis, and the stimulated mucous membrane of the rectum represents that of the vagina.102 Deleuze also understands Lacans Mirror Stage as bringing about a convergence of partial surfaces. Indeed, in his work on the Mirror Stage, Lacan argues that between 6 and 18 months of age the infant comes to recognize his or her reflection in a mirror image and thereby unifies, in an image, a libidinal dynamism that has hitherto remained problematic.103 In other words, the infant assumes an image of the total form of his body and identifies with it in opposition to the turbulent movements with which the subject feels he animates it.104 For Lacan, this identification (and corresponding transformation of the fragmented image of the body) is at the root of all of the childs subsequent identifications. Finally, and above all, Deleuze emphasizes the role of the phallus as an image which is projected over the genital zone and which binds the other partial zones. The
Freud, Three Essays on Sexuality, 188. Sigmund Freud, On Transformations of Instinct as Exemplified in Anal Erotism, in SE XVII, trans. James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press, 1955), 131. 103 Lacan, The Mirror Stage, 76. 104 Ibid., 76.
concept of the phallus here, however, does not entirely coincide with the Freudian concept examined above. It is rather to be taken in its extended Lacanian sense as the imagined object of the mothers desire, which the child wants to be in order to satisfy her desire.105 What does this mean? Following Lacan, the (imaginary) phallus is a third term which intervenes in the initially dual, feeding relation which exists between the infant and the mother in what Lacan calls the dialectic of frustration.106 It must, however, be seen from two different points of view. On the one hand, the mother finds in her new-born an object of satisfaction which is a substitution albeit, an imperfect one for the phallus which, as examined above, she perceived herself at a very early age to lack.107 On the other hand, the child in the feeding relation attempts to make sense of what keeps the mother busy when she does not answer his or her cries (frustration). The child formulates for itself, in other words, the question of what the mother might desire beyond him or her: Ch vuoi?, What do you want?108 The answer the infant comes up with, following Lacan, is that what the mother desires is the phallus, and he or she will thus seek to identify with or be this imagined thing.109 As Lacan argues, the question What do you want? is effectively taken up in the following form: What do you want from me?110 In this attempt at imaginary identification, the child can thus be said to integrate its partial surfaces or component drives insofar as its various activities come to be dominated by the task of becoming the phallus, becoming, that is, a total and fully satisfying love-object for the mother. The question naturally arises, of course, as to when the infant comes to understand that he or she is only the imperfect substitute for the mothers missing
If the mothers desire is for the phallus, the child wants to be the phallus in order to satisfy her desire. Jacques Lacan, The Signification of the Phallus, in crits, 582. 106 Although it is not clear that Deleuze was familiar with this material at the time of writing The Logic of Sense (see our discussion of this at n.118 below) for what follows, see generally: Jacques Lacan, Le sminaire livre IV La relation dobjet, 1956-1957 (Paris: Seuil, 1994), 59-75. For a detailed examination of the dialectic of frustration and its relation to the Oedipus complex, see Chiesa, Subjectivity and Otherness, 65-75. 107 Lacan derives this point from Freud. See, for example, Sigmund Freud, The Dissolution of the Oedipus Complex, in SE XIX, 178-179: Renunciation of the penis is not tolerated by the girl without some attempt at compensation. She slips along the line of symbolic equation, one might say from the penis to a baby The two wishes to possess a penis and a child remain strongly cathected in the unconscious and help to prepare the female creature for her later sexual role. 108 Jacques Lacan, The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire in the Freudian Unconscious, in crits, 690. 109 The child, in its relationship with its mother a relationship that is constituted in analysis not by the childs biological dependence, but by its dependence on her love, that is, by its desire for her desire identifies with the imaginary object of her desire insofar as the mother herself symbolizes it in the phallus. Jacques Lacan, On a Question Prior to Any Possible Treatment of Psychosis, in crits, 46263. 110 Lacan, The Subversion of the Subject, 690.
phallus. In short, it is by realizing that the mother lacks the phallus or, what amounts to the same thing, that the phallus is the property of the father. Following Lacan, it is at this stage that the infant will start competing with the father in order to be the phallus which the father has (the object of the mothers desire), thereby fully entering into the Oedipus complex as such. We shall return to these points in detail in the following section. All of these characteristics of the imaginary phallus are effectively enumerated by Deleuze (see, for what follows, LS, 200). As he writes, first of all, it is a wholesome and good organ insofar as it would make sense of (that is, integrate into a whole) the comings and goings of the mother, as well as provide a single, satisfying outcome for the infants sexual aims to the extent that he or she is able to become the phallus. Secondly, insofar as the phallus confers both love and punishment, it frustrates the child. Thirdly, it withdraws in order to form the whole person or the organ corresponding to the voice, which is to say that the presences and absences of the mother are grouped as such by the phallus, thereby forming the beginnings of the type of symbolic order belonging to the voice.111 Finally, it is the combined idol of both parents, that is to say, both the imaginary object of desire for the mother and, as will be seen in the following section, the privileged symbolic term in relation to which, as Lacan puts it, the father is not without having it.112 So we are at last in a position to see how Deleuze reads the Freudian theory of infantile sexuality, along with several Lacanian supplements to this theory, in terms of his physics of surfaces. First of all, as has been seen, the sexual drives are intimately connected with the life and death drives in depth. Now, according to Deleuzes physics of surfaces which were examined in Chapter 3, this depth also acts in an original way, by means of its power to organize surfaces and to envelop itself within surfaces (LS, 124). And indeed, we have seen how the infants component sexual drives emerge from the depths at precisely the same time as they produce a physical surface for the body of the child. As analyzed above, this surface-production has as its conditions the fact that the drives: 1) are regulated by series of differences in intensity of unpleasurable and pleasurable feelings; 2) find originals sources in the erogenous zones functioning as singularities; and 3) have various objects capable of discharging the tension
See also on this Lacan, Le sminaire livre IV, 68. See on this Jaques Lacan, Le Dsir et son interprtation, Bulletin de Psychologie 13 (1959-1960): 329-335.
accumulated at that zone, thereby producing experiences of satisfaction, which are remembered, and whose repetition is sought. Understood in this way, each drive is capable of converging with the others and forming the entire surface of the infants body insofar as the singularities in which each drive finds a source can be connected to the others, either by the prolongation of their pleasure-unpleasure series, or in relation to appropriate objects-images capable of assuring the satisfaction of all of the drives (and in particular, the imaginary phallus). As Deleuze writes, the surface does not preexist [the erogenous zones]. In fact, each zone is the dynamic formation of a surface space around a singularity constituted by the orifice. It is able to be prolonged in all directions up to the vicinity of another zone depending on another singularity The entire surface is the product of this connection (LS, 197). Now, as has been examined, to this corporeal surface which is haunted by singularities and differences of intensity, a metaphysical surface corresponds. Let us recall Deleuzes words, examined in Chapter 3: Metaphysical surface (transcendental field) is the name that will be given to the frontier established, on one hand, between bodies taken together as a whole and inside the limits which envelop them, and on the other, propositions in general (LS, 125). We have yet to see, however, how psychoanalysis can account for the correspondence of such a metaphysical surface to the physical surface of the infants body. This will be the subject matter of the following sections, but it can already be intimated that this correspondence will depend upon the infants entry into the symbolic dimension of language and culture. In particular, we shall see how Deleuzes understanding of the concept of the phantasm is intimately connected with the relation between the physical and metaphysical surfaces, for the phantasm involves the reinvestment and re-articulation of the infants sexual aims and imaginary sexual objects at the level of the structural-symbolic. Before turning to examine these concepts, however, we should mention several other of Deleuzes remarks concerning how he understands the relations between Kleins work on the pre-Oedipal depths, the Freudian theory of infantile sexuality, and the several Lacanian concepts we have examined above. In the first place, following Deleuze, the sexual position is formed in the reaction of the depressive position to the schizoid position [The] height renders possible a constitution of partial surfaces (LS, 198). Deleuze does not, however, elaborate on this point in much detail. What appears to be at stake, though, is the substitution, in the depressive position, of introjected and projected partial objects for objects that are out of reach (LS, 198), that is, in the first 209
place, the imago of the breast or the withdrawn object of the heights corresponding to the Voice. This good object, let us recall, is the wholesome and complete object which the infant initially assumes to the extent that it recognizes itself in the intersubjective relationship which is the weaning complex. It is given its content by the initially disorganized sensations and emotions which are typical of the first months of life, and its form will be organized retrospectively by subsequent psychic activity, once the Voice to which this privileged image corresponds becomes a language. Characterized in this way, as Deleuze writes, the good object essentially imposes an alternative on the ego to model itself after the good object or to identify itself with bad objects (LS, 227), that is, with the disorganized sensations, emotions and bad, part-object relations which rather signal the loss of the good object. Identification with the good object will thus provide the possibility for a liberation of the sexual drives from the life and death drives with which they were originally connected in depth. The sexual drives will then be able, first of all, to find new sources in the erogenous zones and new objects in the images projected onto these zones, and secondly to get involved in the productive labour of [the coordination of] surfaces and in new relations with these new pellicular objects (LS, 199). It is in this way, therefore, that Deleuze argues that the origin of the pregenital images of partial zones is in the idol, or in the good object lost and withdrawn in the heights (LS, 227). Now, concomitant with this liberation of the sexual drives in the depressive position, following Deleuzes reading of Klein, is a process of reparation whereby the breast which was aggressively attacked in the schizoid position is somehow put back together or repaired. And, as was seen above, essential to this Kleinian process of reparation is the enlisting of the father or good penis.113 Deleuze, however, now understands Kleins good penis to share some of the characteristics of Lacans imaginary phallus, particularly with respect to its role in coordinating the partial surfaces of the infants body and in integrating the mothers mysterious comings and goings. In other words, when Deleuze writes that the phallus mends the mothers wounds or repairs her, he is no longer speaking of reparation in the strict Kleinian sense of the term, but rather of the way in which the phallus groups the mothers presences and absences. He writes:
See above, 191-192.
the transition from the bad penis to the good [phallus] is the indispensible condition for the arrival of the Oedipus complex in its strict sense, to genital organization and to the corresponding new problems The phallus, as the image projected on the genital zone, is not at all an aggressive instrument of penetration and eventration. On the contrary, it is an instrument of the surface, meant to mend the wounds that the destructive drives, bad internal objects, and the penis of the depths have inflicted on the maternal body, and to reassure the good object, to convince it not to turn its face away. (The processes of reparation on which Melanie Klein insists seem in this sense to belong to the constitution of a surface which is itself restorative.) The phallus should not penetrate, but rather it should trace a line at the surface. This line, emanating from the genital zone, is the line which ties together all the erogenous zones, bringing all the partial surfaces together into one and the same surface on the body of the child. Moreover, it is supposed to reestablish a surface on the body of the mother (LS, 200-201). Finally, in a last twist on this merging of different strains of psychoanalytic thought, Deleuze writes that, in this phallic stage, the child splits the good object of the heights according to the two disjunctions subsumed under it (unharmed-wounded and present-absent), using them to qualify a mother image and a father image, the mother taking on the aspect of an injured body to be mended, and the father taking on the aspect of a good object to be made to return (LS, 201). What does this mean? As noted in the previous section, for Klein, both parental figures were initially combined: the maternal body of the depths comprised a multiplicity of penises as partial internal objects; and especially, the good object of the heights was, as a complete organ, both penis and breast mother provided with a penis, father provided with a breast (LS, 204).114 In Deleuzian-Lacanian terms, however, we would rather say that the imago of the maternal breast, mother or good object was originally conceived of as omnipotent, lacking nothing.115 In other words, the mother was initially conceived of as a phallic mother.116 Now, for Klein, the splitting of such an imaginary combined parent figure is to be thought of as the result of a regression to the paranoid-schizoid position, or as a
See above, 191 and n.44 for the reference to Kleins analyses of the combined parent figures: the mother containing the fathers penis or the whole father; the father containing the mothers breast or the whole mother; the parents fused inseparably in sexual intercourse ... [O]wing to internalization, the infant establishes such combined parent figures within himself. 115 Lacan, Le sminaire livre IV, 69, 187. As Chiesa notes, the mother is [initially] experienced as a desiring Other (the Desire-of-the-Mother), but this desiring Other is not thought to lack anything (the imaginary phallus). This distinction is central: at first, the Desire-of-the-Mother is not associated with lack. How else could we justify the fact that Lacan continuously maintains that the child considers his mother to be omnipotent? See his Subjectivity and Otherness, 70. 116 Lacan, The Signification of the Phallus, 576. Of course, this belief that the mother is phallic is a supposition which can only be formed retroactively, once the infant perceives the mother to lack and thus to desire the phallus. On this point, see Chiesa, Subjectivity and Otherness, 70.
defence against depressive anxiety.117 For Deleuze, however, following Lacan, this splitting is rather a consequence of the childs realization that the mother lacks the (imaginary) phallus. This phallus, which the infant then strives to be, would totalize or make sense of the disconnected aspects of the mothers behaviour (the mothers wounds, as we explained above: her inexplicable presences and absences). On the other hand, it signifies something currently out of reach and mysterious, even though it will eventually be found in the possession of the father who is not without having the phallus. It is in this manner, therefore, that Deleuze argues that the good object is split into a mother image and a father image. A full examination of this point, however, requires us to turn to the third step of the dynamic genesis.
5.3 Third Step: From the Physical Surface to the Metaphysical Surface (Lacan, Oedipus and Castration) Deleuzes third step of the dynamic genesis, which is the subject of the Twenty-Ninth Series Good Intentions are Inevitably Punished, essentially concerns the infants passage from the physical surface to the metaphysical surface which corresponds to it. It is primarily couched in terms of Lacans reading of the Oedipus complex and its dissolution, that is, in terms of the infants castration which marks his or her passage to the symbolic dimension of language and culture.118 Although Freud never gave a fully systematic account of the Oedipus complex in all its various aspects, it can be understood, in very general terms, to be an organized
See above, 192. The Lacanian reading of the Oedipus complex which, to all evidence, Deleuze is here following was delivered at Lacans Sminaire between the years 1956 and 1958. It remains a question, however, as to whether Deleuze in 1969 could have been aware of this material. Indeed, he never cites any of Lacans seminars, and the official edited transcripts for these years were only published in 1994 (Le sminaire, livre IV La relation dobjet, 1956-1957) and 1998 (Le sminaire, livre V Les formations de linconscient, 1957-1958). It can be noted, however, that summaries of these seminars, approved by Lacan, appeared in the Bulletin de psychologie between 1956 and 1959. As Roudinesco relates: In 1953, [Lacan] hired a stenographer to transcribe his seminar. The transcriptions were deposited with Granoff and were generally available to all member of the SFP. Three years later, and until 1959, J.-B. Pontalis, working with Lacans approval, produced excellent summaries of the seminars on Object Relations, Formations of the Unconscious, and Desire and Its Interpretation, all of which were published in the Bulletin de psychologie. See Roudinesco, Jacques Lacan & Co, 566. The relevant references are: Jacques Lacan, La relation dobjet et les structures freudiennes, Bulletin de Psychologie 10, no. 7 (1956-7): 426-30; 10, no. 10 (1956-7): 602-605; 10, no. 12 (1956-7): 742-743; 10, no. 14 (1956-7): 85154; 11, no. 1 (1956-7): 31-35. And Jacques Lacan, Les formations de linconscient, Bulletin de Psychologie 11, no. 4-5 (1957-8): 293-6; 12, no. 2-3 (1958-9): 182-92; 12, no. 4 (1958-9): 250-6.
body of loving and hostile wishes which the child experiences towards its parents. In its so-called positive form, the complex appears as a desire for the death of the rival the parent of the same sex and a sexual desire for the parent of the opposite sex. In its negative [or inverted] form, we find the reverse picture: love for the parent of the same sex, and jealous hatred for the parent of the opposite sex. In fact, the two versions are to be found in varying degrees in what is known as the complete form of the complex.119 For Lacan, however, whom Deleuze here follows, the subject always desires the mother, and the father is always the rival, irrespective of whether the subject is male or female.120 As has been examined in the above section, the infant gains access to this complex insofar as its component sexual drives converge and take the mother as the privileged object of sexual satisfaction. Or again, in Lacanian terms, the child enters the Oedipus complex insofar as he or she creates a surface for its entire body by becoming the phallus, that is, the total and fully satisfying object of the desire of the mother such as this is imagined by the infant. The rivalry with the father, then, as has already been intimated, will commence once the child realizes that it is the father who has the phallus or object of the mothers desire. So how exactly does this occur for Lacan and thus for Deleuze? Lacan in fact divides the Oedipus complex into three stages, characterized by the infants relation to three types of lack: frustration, privation and castration.121 Frustration, first of all, is defined as an imaginary lack of a real object (the breast) whose agent is symbolic (the mother), but this must be considered as occurring over several related moments.122 The dialectic of frustration, then, is considered as a set of impressions, lived by the subject during a period of development where its relation to the real object is usually centred on the so-called primordial imago of the maternal breast, that is, as has been seen, on the image of a lost unity through which the infant recognizes itself in the difficult feeding relationship (weaning complex).123 That the lack involved in frustration is imaginary, means that it is understood through the lens of this imago of a harmonious but lost totality.124 That the mother is a symbolic agent of
Laplanche and Pontalis, Language of Psycho-Analysis, 282. Evans, Dictionary, 130. Indeed, although Deleuze does not cite Lacan at all in this Twenty-Ninth Series, it is clear from the fact that he does not mention any differences between the Oedipus complex for the little boy and for the little girl that he is following the Lacanian and not the Freudian account of Oedipus. 121 See the table in Lacan, Le sminaire livre IV, 269. 122 Ibid., 66-68. 123 Ibid., 62. See also above, 195-196. 124 See on this Chiesa, Subjectivity and Otherness, 67.
frustration, on the other hand, means that she corresponds to the couple presenceabsence or plus-minus, that is, the symbolic terms through which the infant develops its relation to the breast which comes and goes, through its own vocal system of cries. As Lacan puts it, the maternal object is exclusively called [appel] when it is absent and when it is present, rejected, in the same register as the appeal [lappel].125 What happens, however, when the mother does not answer the infants cries? First of all, following Lacan, the mother comes to be seen as a real, omnipotent power, a law unto herself, who responds to the childs cries as she pleases. Correspondingly, the object comes to be seen, not only as providing the real satisfaction of a need, but also as a symbolic gift which may be withheld or, if given, symbolize a favourable power.126 Finally, insofar as the object becomes a symbolic gift, the childs cries must be seen not so much as relating to biological needs as they are to a demand for the mothers favour or love, to which the infant feels it has a rightful claim.127 Frustration, properly speaking, occurs against this symbolic background. For Lacan, the object of frustration is less the object [of need] than the gift.128 What is crucial here, however, is that the reason behind the mothers giving or withholding of the gift that is to say, behind the desire of the mother (the phallus) remains unperceived by the child, this being why the mother is at this stage considered as the phallic mother, lacking nothing and sufficient unto herself.129 The child nevertheless tries to identify with the imagined objects of the mothers essentially unquenchable desire. Or again, more precisely, since the mother lacks nothing, the child attempts to deceive the phallic mother, the giver of gifts, into loving him.130 At what point, however, does the infant realize that there is a third term involved the phallus which the mother desires insofar as she lacks it? Or again (and as has been seen, this amounts to the same question), at what point does the infant realize that he or she is only the imperfect substitute for the mothers missing phallus? As Lacan argues, the child experiences a fundamental disappointment once it realizes that he or she is not
Lacan, Le sminaire livre IV, 67 (my translation). Ibid., 68-69. 127 Ibid., 101. 128 Ibid., 101 (my translation). 129 See above, 214. At this stage, the question of the phallus is already posed somewhere in the mother, where the infant must locate it. See: Jacques Lacan, Le sminaire livre V Les formations de linconscient, 1957-1958 (Paris: Seuil, 1998), 194 (my translation). 130 Lacan, Le sminaire livre IV, 101, 194, 224.
the mothers only object of desire, that the mother desires the phallus, and that she is herself lacking this object.131 But how exactly does this occur? Lacan calls the second stage of the Oedipus complex privation. Temporally speaking, it corresponds to Freuds phallic stage, and is defined as the mothers real lack of a symbolic object (the phallus) whose agent is imaginary (the imaginary father).132 Four interrelated things occur at this stage. First of all, the infant, who had previously been desired by the mother in his or her entirety as a substitute for the phallus, presents his real organ to the mother and comes, painfully, to measure all of the difference there is between what he is loved for [the mothers substitute phallus] and what he can give, that is, his or her real organ.133 Secondly, the imaginary father appears as the one who both deprives the mother of the phallus and indicates to the infant that he or she is not the only object of the mothers desire. Thirdly, the infant begins to grasp the phallic difference between the sexes. Finally, the child begins to compete with the imaginary father to be the phallus, that is, the object of the mothers desire. Let us more fully examine these points. The imaginary father of which Lacan here speaks has no necessary relation to the real father. He is rather an integral part of the infants imaginary relation (imago) which is the psychological support of his or her relations with his or her fellows and, more particularly, is behind the childs libidinal capture.134 Indeed, he is the one who, as will be seen, makes the Oedipus complex possible insofar as he introduces a third term the imaginary phallus into the relation between the infant and the mother, this latter having previously been understood as lacking nothing.135 As one commentator has put it, the imaginary phallus is what the child assumes someone must have in order for them to be the object of the mothers desire.136 This someone is the imaginary father. The basic idea here is that something is articulated bit by bit in the childs experience, which indicates to him that, in the mothers presence to him, he is not alone in being desired by the mother.137 But how does this come about? Key here is the fact that the infant has now progressed to the phallic phase of its development, is displaying an intense interest in his or her genital zone, and is engaged
Ibid., 81-82. Ibid., 269. 133 Ibid., 243. 134 Ibid., 220. 135 Ibid., 208. 136 Sean Homer, Jacques Lacan (London: Routledge, 2004), 55. 137 Lacan, Le sminaire livre IV, 224.
in infantile masturbation. From the childs point of view, the excited organ of this zone becomes an element in his or her games of seduction with the mother. From the mothers point of view, however, nothing essentially changes, for it is the infant in his or her totality who is loved by the mother as a substitute phallus.138 As Lacan argues, what then plays the decisive role is that what the child has to present appears to him as something pitiful. The child is thus placed before this opening to be the captive, the victim, the passive element of a game in which he becomes the prey of the Others significations.139 Or again, in other words, because the mother appears to be indifferent to the organ, she effectively signifies to the child his or her insufficiency or, what amounts to the same thing from the childs point of view, prohibits the child from using his organ as he or she would like.140 Furthermore, in this gap between what the mother loves the child for in its totality (substitute phallus) and what the child presents (its real organ), the child comes to imagine the one who would be desired by the mother as a total love-object, phallus included. This is the imaginary father. As Chiesa puts it, unlike the childs own body image, the body image of the imaginary father is supplied with something supplementary that obtrudes: the phallic Gestalt.141 Several consequences follow from this. First of all, the father who imaginarily embodies the desired phallus contradicts the childs belief that he or she is the only object of the mothers desire. Indeed, at this stage, the imaginary father in some sense is the imaginary phallus.142 Secondly, the child begins to compete with this rival which is the imaginary father in order to be the phallus, that is to say, he or she attempts to identify with the imagined, complete object of the mothers desire.143 Thirdly, insofar as the mother (who was originally conceived of as phallic: a real power, not lacking anything) is thought to desire the paternal phallus, she must herself be understood to be really deprived of this object (hence, privation). Finally, in this process, the child arrives at an initial understanding of the symbolic law of sexual difference, in the sense
As Lacan puts it elsewhere, somewhat more elliptically, what [the infant] has is no better than what he does not have, from the point of view of his demands for love, which would like him to be the phallus. See Lacan, The Signification of the Phallus, in crits, 582. 139 Lacan, Le sminaire livre IV, 227. 140 For Lacan, it is not the imaginary father but the mother who initially pronounces the incest taboo. As he writes, the mother is herself fully capable of showing the child that what he or she offers her is insufficient and also of pronouncing the prohibition against using the new instrument. Or again, it is in fact the mother who posits [the father] as the one who makes her law. See Lacan, Le sminaire livre V, 187 and 194 (my translations). 141 Chiesa, Subjectivity and Otherness, 69. 142 See Lacan, Le sminaire livre V, 193. 143 Ibid., 185. See also Jacques Lacan, Les Formations de linconscient, Bulletin de Psychologie 12, no. 2-3 (1958-9): 185.
that the phallus is here promoted to the rank of a symbolic object which one either has or does not have; and clearly, the mother does not have it.144 It is precisely in this manner, therefore that Lacan understands this stage to be characterized by privation, that is, by the mothers real lack of a symbolic object whose agent is imaginary (the imaginary father). As Lacan summarizes it, what is essential in privation is that the mother founds the [imaginary] father as the mediator of what is beyond her law and her whims, that is, purely and simply, the [symbolic] law as such At the imaginary level, the father well and truly intervenes to deprive the mother, which means that the demand addressed to the Other [i.e., love me!], if it is properly passed on, is referred to a superior court It is at this level that what comes back to the child is purely and simply the law of the father, such as this is imaginarily conceived by the subject as depriving the mother. It is the first appearance of the law in the form of this fact: that the mother is dependent on an object which is no longer simply the object of her desire, but an object that the Other either has or does not have.145 The third and final stage of the Oedipus complex is understood by Lacan to be characterized by castration: the childs symbolic lack of an imaginary object (the imaginary phallus) whose agent is real (the real father).146 As we have just seen, during the second stage of the complex, the child is competing with the imaginary father to be the mothers exclusive object of desire, to be the imaginary phallus. To say, then, with Lacan, that the child is castrated of an imaginary object is to say that he or she is obliged to recognize that he or she is not the mothers imaginary phallus.147 How does this occur? What is required, following Lacan, is the intervention of the real father, who is revealed as the one who in fact has the phallus. Lacan writes: the third stage [of the Oedipus complex] is as follows the father can give the mother what she desires, and can give it because he has it.148 From this decisive moment onwards, the phallus is thus no longer the imaginary object with which the subject can deceive [the mother], but the object which is always in an Others power to show that the subject doesnt have it [in the case of the little girl], or has it in an insufficient way [in the case of the little
Lacan, Le sminaire livre IV, 153, 218-219. As seen above, for Freud, the couple having-not having the phallus is a symbolic distinction, as opposed to the couple having a penis-having a vagina which is a real distinction. 145 Lacan, Le sminaire livre V, 191-192 (my translation). 146 Lacan, Le sminaire livre IV, 269. 147 Jacques Lacan, Les Formations de linconscient, Bulletin de Psychologie 12, no. 4 (1958-9): 256. 148 Lacan, Le sminaire livre V, 194 (my translation).
boy].149 The Oedipus complex, then, will be said to be resolved insofar as the child comes to symbolically identify with the father as the one who has the phallus, that is, for the little boy, to identify with the father as the possessor of the penis and, for the little girl, to recognize the man insofar as he possesses it.150 As a consequence of this identification with the bearer of the symbolic phallus, the boy comes to realize that he has all the prerequisites in order to himself one day accede to this problematic and paradoxical position of being a father.151 The girl, for her part, comes to know that she will one day be able to find the one who, in fulfilling the role of the father, will be able to give her a child.152 There are three further, crucial issues to consider here. First of all, it should be remarked that what the real father as the bearer of the phallus represents is not so much a means of differentiating between the sexes, although he most certainly fulfils this function. More generally, what the real father embodies, to a greater or lesser extent, is the law of the mothers desire, that is, the entire set of social conventions respected by the mother.153 Previously, as has been seen, the infant apprehended the mothers love through the lens of the symbolic couple presence-absence which, to the extent that the infant could not make them correspond to his or her own system of cries, was experienced as frustrating. Consequently, the child attempted to trick the mother into loving him by identifying with the imagined objects of her desire, or by attempting to be the imaginary phallus. What the appearance of the real father now brings about, however, is a law-like grouping of the oppositional sequence presence-absence.154 In other words, the real father comes to be seen as the one who was effectively occupying the mother during her absence. The father thus makes sense of the mysterious comings and goings of the mother or, what amounts to the same thing, embodies the law of the mothers desire. Of course, what has been occupying the mother involves an entire network of intersubjective relations and obligations (familial, economic, and so on). But for the child, the father is the first representative of this social structure of the mothers desire. Symbolic identification with the real father as the one who has the phallus is thus, at bottom, always identification with a rule-governed way of organizing the
Lacan, Le sminaire livre IV, 209 (my translation). Insofar as the little girl at this stage realizes that she does not have the phallus, she must be considered to be both castrated and deprived of the phallus. 150 Lacan, Le sminaire livre V, 194, 196. 151 Lacan, Le sminaire livre IV, 204 (my translation). 152 Ibid., 203. 153 Matthew Sharpe and Joanne Faulkner, Understanding Psychoanalysis (Stocksfield: Acumen, 2008), 111. 154 Chiesa, Subjectivity and Otherness, 81.
social world,155 that is, with a preformed symbolic apparatus that institutes the law in sexuality.156 A second, crucial point is that no real father could ever fully occupy the paternal position or embody the symbolic law, that is to say, be the symbolic father as such.157 Rather, following Lacan, the symbolic father is akin to the mythical dead father of Freuds Totem and Taboo, whose law, which initially depended only on him, all the real fathers of history took upon themselves to uphold.158 Or again, more precisely, because no real father could embody the entire set of social conventions respected by the mother (because, in other words, the law of the mothers desire is never entirely reducible to the real father), Freud was obliged to think the symbolic father the original father by means of such a myth.159 Finally, since this is crucial to Deleuzes use of psychoanalysis in The Logic of Sense, it is important to examine in more detail how Lacan views the relation between castration and the intersubjective, structural or symbolic dimension of language. Lacan in fact equates castration with what he calls a paternal metaphor, whereby the symbolic father or Name-of-the-Father is understood to be a signifier which is substituted for the first signifier introduced in symbolization, the maternal signifier [that is,] the mother who comes and goes.160 Now, since the signified of these comings and goings is the phallus, it can be said that the symbolic father, by means of this metaphoric substitution, comes to signify for the child the meaning of the phallus, which is to say, the law which governs the object of the mothers desire.161 Is not this process of substitution, however, precisely what we have called in previous chapters the serial regress of sense, that is, where the sense of a given signifier must be denoted by another signifier of a higher type? And what is more, have we not also seen that this serial production of sense is always accompanied by a divided subject or, rather, by a series of such subjects (the divided subject here, of course, being the real father insofar as he partially represents the symbolic law)? It is thus due to this type of serial and intersubjective production of sense that, for Lacan, castration entails the childs entry
Sharpe and Faulkner, Understanding Psychoanalysis, 112. Jacques Lacan, The Seminar, Book III The Psychoses, 1955-1956, trans. Russell Grigg (New York: W.W. Norton, 1993), 170. 157 Lacan, Le sminaire livre IV, 205. 158 See on this, Sigmund Freud, Totem and Taboo, in SE XIII, trans. James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press, 1955), 143. 159 Lacan, Le sminaire livre IV, 210-211. 160 Lacan, Le sminaire livre V, 175 (my translation). 161 Ibid., 175-176 (my translation).
into the symbolic dimension of language and culture, that is, his or her passage to what Deleuze calls the metaphysical surface. Indeed, for Lacan, the paternal metaphor allows the child actually to relate to a signifying Other for the first time.162 For Lacan, therefore, all subsequent determinations of sense must be said to be derived from this first one, for this latter marks the childs very entry into the structure of sense. So how do the above considerations play out in the text of The Logic of Sense? As noted at the end of the previous section, for Deleuze, the child in the phallic phase splits the good object of the heights into a mother image and a father image. It was argued, following certain Lacanian formulations, that this splitting coincides with the infants realization: 1) that the phallic mother is not complete (she is wounded, frustratingly present-absent); 2) that she has an object of desire beyond the child (the phallus); and 3) that this object can be found in the possession of the withdrawn, imaginary father retired into its height (LS, 204). As has been seen in this section, the child now begins to compete with this father, by identifying with what he imaginarily embodies, in order to be the complete object of the mothers desire: a totally satisfying love-object which would effectively control her desire, that is, her presences and absences. But now, is this not precisely the situation which Deleuze describes in his hybrid psychoanalytic vocabulary, derived from both Klein and Lac