Monthly Archive for April, 2009

The word is flat

This is part 2 of 4 in the Logic of Sense series

In the “Second Series of Paradoxes of Surface Effects” in Logic of Sense, Deleuze turns the play between causes and effects to the surface (so to speak). The two are transformed into bodies and events that manifest on the surface. In Alice in Wonderland, the animals (which are deep) are usurped as “nobility” by thickless card figures (p. 9). Deleuze suspects that Alice isn’t about the adventures of Alice (as the original title suggested) but about the single adventure of Alice: “her climb to the surface, her avowal of false depth, and her discovery that everything happens at the border” (9). It is on the surface where bodies produce events and have effects and Lewis Carroll saw this clearly.  In Sylvie and Bruno, the character “[learns] his lessons in all manners, inside-out, outside-in, above and below, but never ‘in depth’” (10).

Manifestation is part of the hermeneutical cycle for Deleuze.  Unlike Heidegger’s hermeneutical circle, Deleuze suggests it is a Möbius strip.  This strip highlights the logical paradox of signification that “‘Z is true if A, B, and C are true…,’ and so on to infinity” (16). The truth of a proposition is much like the Snark in Alice. It is by unfolding and untwisting the Möbius strip that the dimension of sense appears as it animates the (truth of) the proposition (20). The image of the Möbius strip represents the hermeneutical cycle not as a circle but as “the coexistence of two sides without thickness, such that we pass from one to the other by following their length” (22). Sense is not an effect or a result but the extra-Being which inheres or subsists; it is an “event” but “on the condition that the event is not confused with its spatio-temporal realization in a state of affairs” (22). Language itself is the flat world of the sense-event.

On suicide

As I lie awake late one night recently, I was thinking about some scenes in the finale of Battlestar Galactica.  If you haven’t seen it yet and don’t want to know what happens (Darth Vader is Luke’s father), then don’t read this (yet).

A quick summary of the series: humans are nearly eradicated by Cylons (robots created by those humans a while back) and are chased by them for most of ther series.  Some Cylons rebel against the rest and join forces with the humans.  Oh and many of the Cylons are indistunguishable from humans.  Come to find out some Cylons from a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away as well) came in and stopped the “first war” between them and, in exchange, helped the Cylons perfect their human look-a-like models.  Now, fast forward to the end of the series during the final confrontation between the human side and Cylon side. The Final Five Cylons that came into the fray and crafted the armistice are siding with the humans (and, in fact, did not know they were Cylons until late in the game).  The humans have destroyed the central system that allows the Cylons to live forever (basically, the persona data gets downloaded into a new body of the same model when the old one dies/is killed).  The Final Five offer a new armistice: give the Cylons the information needed to recreate what was destroyed and both sides go their separate ways believing/hoping in faith that the other is trying to hunt them down (again).  The humans agree to this as well as the Cylon “leader”, Number 1 (this being his model number).  For the Final Five to get the information, they need to interface together in order to piece together the data that each has.  Of course, when this happens, the dark past of one of them enrages another and results in one of the Final Five being killed immediately and the information lost forever.  Throughout the confrontation, the Cylons have the military advantage (the battle being on their home turf with plenty more operational weaponry and numbers than the humans.  However, at this point in the finale, #1, who is fully aware of this situation, commits suicide; he moves the handgun in his hand to his mouth and pulls the trigger.

What is it that made #1 do this when the Cylons could have easily destroyed these humans (as well as the last bit of worthwhile weaponry the humans had)?  Sure, because of the numbers in that specific situation, #1’s chances of surviving the fight was minimal, but suicide?  I think the issue came down to that of hope.  Throughout the series, #1 claimed to be an atheist (whereas the rest of the Cylons were monotheists), however I think his suicide contradicts these claims. He wasn’t placed in a difficult position, nor was he forced into the compromise. He willingly accepted it because it offered him a hope of a life after death, in effect a religious hope. He quickly grabbed hold of this hope for purely selfish reasons: so that he could live another day. The very moment that hope was postponed (after all, the Cylons would have eventually recreated the missing pieces), he panics–something out of character. Instead of reasoning this as a poor choice from the writers, I will assume it was intentional and not as a way of quickly ending the series.

This panic, then, reveals #1’s true nature as a believer. He had always wanted to believe, but was afraid of what that might entail. In this sense, #1’s suicide isn’t a random act, but one of total desperation for the very belief he truly cherished.  The hope he briefly saw was the removal of his mask of unbelief. When that faltered, suicide was the only option he saw that would remove the mask because he would rather have died a believer than to live either as a believer of lies or as a false non-believer. It is within this irony that #1 reveals that his guise as a preacher was the best guise of all as it was the real him masking an illusion of an atheist.

Anniversary

Yesterday (Tuesday the 28th) marked 5 years of me ranting and raving online. This is where it all began. Since then, my grandfather died, I got married, I graduated twice (once for my undergrad, another for my MA), I’ve lived in three cities (New Orleans, Denver, and Glasgow). It’s interesting to see how things have changed.

(0)

Down the rabbit hole

This is part 1 of 4 in the Logic of Sense series

It has been a few years since I read Deleuze’s Logic of Sense.  Since that first reading, I have wanted to read it closely, as I believe it is undervalued (or even unknown!) in hermeneutics. After much reading elsewhere, I feel comfortable enough to provide a close reading of Logic of Sense. I will not stop at every “chapter”, that is series (Deleuze has a mastery of breaking traditional authorship manners), but will instead concentrate on Deleuze’s framing of sense in hermeneutical terms, one of the larger points I believe he makes in the text. In the short preface, Deleuze provides some insight into what his focus is:

We present here a series of paradoxes which form the theory of sense. It is easy to explain why this theory is inseparable from paradoxes: sense is a nonexisting entity, and, in fact, maintains very special relations with nonsense. (Logic of Sense, xiii)

This resonates very well with Nietzsche’s concept of truth as “an army of metaphors:

What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms — in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins. (from The Portable Nietzsche, 46-7).

Deleuze’s tactic, however, differs from Nietzsche’s.  While Nietzsche focused on genealogical analyses, Deleuze is instead insterested in seeing it relationally where “certain points of one figure in a series refer to the points of another figure” (xiv) but without depth. Deleuze’s concept of sense aims to be one of purely surface structures without any kind of hidden meaning or depth underneath it all.

Authorship

I believe I am becoming more and more opinionated against writing a book for publication.  Nearly anyone can get published now.  This isn’t to say that good books aren’t getting published but that they are few and far between the mass of spam masquerading as books.  Even ignoring anthologies of websites such as PHD: Piled High and Deep and PostSecrets, it seems that nearly every “famous blogger” across the internet is sharing their 2 cents in published books. Every blogger, whether a has-been actor from some randomly popular TV series over 15 years old or a web-designer-turned-blogger-turned-armchair-theologian, seems to have a book, telling their (relatively uninteresting) life story or giving advice on nearly any topic.  I’m a big fan of the “Linux ideology” (OSI, FSF, and Open Access publishing) that strives to keep information available, but I’m still wary of being just another author among many. In some ways, I’d rather stay “just a blogger” and leave publications to the people who either do have something worth reading and those who think they do.