Outline_of_the_image_of_thought_chapter.pdf

1

Difference and Repetition

Gilles Deleuze outline by Philip Turetzky – [email protected]

Chapter III: The Image of Thought First Postulate: The Principle of the Cogitatio natura universalis pp. 129-132 The problem of presupposition in philosophy The Cogitatio natura universalis Second Postulate: The Ideal of Common Sense pp. 132-134 Thought and doxa Third Postulate: The Model of Recognition pp. 134-137 Ambiguity and the Kantian Critique Fourth Postulate: The Element of Representation pp. 137-148 Differential Theory of the Faculties The Discordant Functioning of the Faculties: the violence and limits of each Ambiguity of Platonism Thinking: its Genesis in Thought Fifth Postulate: The ‘negative’ of Error pp. 148-153 Problem of Stupidity Sixth Postulate: The Privilege of Designation pp. 153-158 Sense and Proposition The Paradoxes of Sense Sense and Problem Seventh Postulate: The Modality of Solutions pp. 158-164 The Illusion of Solutions in the Doctrine of Truth Ontological and Epistemological Importance of the Category of Problems Eighth Postulate: The Result of Knowledge pp. 164-167 What does it mean ‘to learn”? Recapitulation of the Postulates as Obstacles to a Philosophy of Difference and Repetition p. 167

2 The problem of presupposition in philosophy Beginning = eliminating all presuppositions: Science eliminates objective presuppositions by axiomatic rigor (objective presupposition = concepts explicitly presupposed by a given concept) Philosophy includes subjective (implicit) presuppositions contained in doxa independent of concepts – everyone knows what is meant by self, thinking, & being (instead of rational animal which presupposes concepts of rationality & animality). Beginning (Descartes, Hegel, Heidegger) tend to eliminate objective presuppositions by assuming subjective presuppositions (self, sensible being, pre-ontological understanding of being) Therefore, there is no true beginning in philosophy (except difference which is already repetition). It is always too simple to recover explicitly what was already there implicitly (philosophy as Circle – Hegel [text]). An implicit (subjective) presupposition has the form “Everybody knows…” (prephilosophically/pre-conceptually) what it means to think, to be… “Everybody knows…” is the form/discourse of representation. Philosophy has held nothing back here except this form of discourse. This presupposition applies to both the ordinary man with his natural capacity for thought (good will) Eudoxus & the man overfull with knowledge, perverted by the generalities of his time Epistemon. Isolated & passionate cries protest not managing to know what “Everybody knows…” (not aristocratic prejudice) Only someone with ill will, refusing representation, not thinking naturally or conceptually, w/o objective/subjective presuppositions, untimely (neither temporal nor eternal) can begin & repeat First Postulate: The Principle of the Cogitatio natura universalis pp. 129-132 While many have an interest in saying what “Everybody knows…” representing others, The Philosopher only proposes the form of representation/recognition in general (what is meant by self, thinking, being) that thought is the natural exercise of a faculty with an affinity for the truth, With common sense = good will on the part of the thinker, & an upright nature on the part of thought = Cogitatio natura universalis. The importance of the presupposition lies especially w/philosophers who leave it hidden as implicit themes understood pre-philosophically. This is the Image of Thought borrowed from pre-philosophical common sense – a dogmatic image of thought that remains even when a philosopher reacts against it conceptually. Hence this is THE Image of thought. It is Morality which persuades us that thought has a good will that grounds the supposed affinity with the True (formally possesses & materially wants the true). Hence, a philosophy that could truly begin must radically critique the Image of thought, discovering thought w/o an Image: proceeding w/ only paradox as an ally, renouncing the form of representation & the element of common sense. Second Postulate: The Ideal of Common Sense pp. 132-134 We think only rarely & in response to a shock rather than a taste for thinking. But, natural common sense & good sense are taken by, e.g., Descartes as an image of thought in principle (not in fact). Sense can find itself universal & communicable in principle.

3 Hence, in order to apply thinking, one must have a explicit method. We must, then, oppose the Image in principle. The Image presupposes a transcendental model (a distribution between the transcendental & the empirical – fact & principle). The transcendental model is that of recognition = the harmonious exercise of all the faculties on the supposedly same object, while each faculty has its own style recognition locates the form of identity in the object. Recognition relies on a common sense = concordia facultatum & so the form of identity in objects relies on the unity of the thinking subject (Cogito as a beginning = common sense become philosophical – Descartes & Kant) Obj: we only confront this object specified by determinate contributions of the faculties. Reply: Common sense = norm of identity (in principle) from the POV of pure Self giving form of the Same to the unspecified object – Good sense = norm of distribution from POV of empirical selves assigning contributions of the faculties to qualified (kinds of) objects. We are supposed to know what it means to think because common sense is not a faculty but their unity providing the form of the Same in the model of recognition. Thought and doxa Philosophy cannot break w/orthodoxy (its project) since naturally upright thought, in principle natural common sense, & transcendental model of recognition = an ideal orthodoxy. Even though philosophy breaks with particular doxa it retains the form of doxa, the element of common sense, & the model of recognition. The image of thought = doxa universalized (raised to rational), but it only abstracts from empirical content but retains the operation of the faculties & so thought remains imprisoned & conforming. Third Postulate: The Model of Recognition pp. 134-137 Philosophy needs common sense, but common sense doesn’t need philosophy. But, in acts of recognition we don’t really think. The critique of the image of thought is that it derives its supposed principle from by extrapolation of some insignificant facts e.g. Recognition = everyday banality in person. Kant, e.g., traces transcendental structures from the empirical acts of a psychological consciousness etc. (Kant tried to hide this psychologism in B). Recognition not merely a speculative model but serves values attached to objects (functions in good sense’s distribution) – only established values get recognized. Recognition “rediscovers” State & Church & all current values in the pure form of the unspecified object. (Nietzsche’s new values (always beginning anew = difference w/bad nature & ill will) differ formally & in kind from established values (always already established) – not historical w/new becoming old – not struggles for recognition [Hegel] which assume common sense & current values (honor etc.)) Ambiguity and the Kantian Critique Kant substituted illusion internal error for external error, substituted for the substantial self the self fractured by time leading God & self to a speculative death. But Kant retained the Image of thought over the 3 Critiques multiplying common senses (one for each interest of reason), making one faculty subject others to it (understanding legislates cognition, Reason legislates practice, aesthetic common sense yielding free accord of the faculties – all faculties collaborate in recognition, but differ in way of collaborating re: object of recognition. Phenomenology adds a 4th common sense, passive synthesis as Ur-doxa).

4 This multiplies common senses but still applies the model of recognition. Hence, illusion is explained by the confusion of interests, & critique acts as tribunal. So, even the speculative death of God & self receive a practical resurrection. Fourth Postulate: The Element of Representation pp. 137-148 Representation =df identity re: concepts, opposition re: the determination of concepts, analogy re: judgement, resemblance re: objects. Identity of the unspecified concept constitutes the form of the Same re: recognition. (relies on faculty of conception). (recognition) Determination of concepts implies comparison between opposing predicates (double series: remembrance/imagination aiming at rediscovery or re-creation). (relies on faculty of remembrance/imagination). (distribution) Analogy between determinate concepts or re: the highest determinable concept by using the power of distribution in judgement. (relies on faculty of judgement). (reproduction) The object of the concept relies on resemblance for perceptual continuity. (relies on faculty of perception). (resemblance) Each also established across faculties within common sense. The “I think” = the most general principle of representation. These subject difference to the (conceived) identical (recognition), the (imagined) opposed (distribution), the (judged) analogous (reproduction), & the (perceived) similar (resemblance), making difference an object of representation subject to comparisons. Unable to conceive difference in itself, or repetition for itself. Differential Theory of the Faculties Objects of recognition only force us to think by employing all the faculties & in which thought recognizes itself (its image) the more it recognizes things (e.g. a finger), yielding only a local scepticism. Likewise doubt about specific things presupposes good will of the thinker & the good nature of thought. Likewise certainties (triangle & 3 sides). Concepts only designate possibilities not necessities or strangeness & the violence needed to provoke thought. There is only involuntary thought, trespass & violence beginning w/misosophy. 1st: Thought requires a contingent fundamental encounter w/something that can only be sensed (as opposed to recognition which bears on the senses in an object of the faculties in a common sense). The object that can only be sensed is not a quality but a sign, not a sensible being but the being of the sensible (that by which the given is given). It is imperceptible re: recognition (an object available to common sense). The sign is the limit of sensibility, sensibility raised to a transcendental exercise (to the nth power). The sign enters into discordant play. The Discordant Functioning of the Faculties: the violence and limits of each 2nd: That which can only be sensed poses a problem (sign = problem, perplexing) Plato: reminiscence = a transcendental memory where what can be recalled must be empirically impossible to recall. Empirical memory: recover what has been grasped before & what is forgotten cannot be grasped a 2nd time. Transcendental memory: grasps what can only be recalled even the 1st time, forgetting is the nth power of memory = memory at its limit, & forces thought to grasp what can only be thought. Empirical sensibility & contingent imperceptibility contrast w/ transcendental

5 sensibility & essential imperceptibility (in the sense that it can only be sensed not reached by common sense). The violence that forces thought develops from sign to cogitandum unhinging common sense & breaking with empirical doxa. Each faculty attaining the nth power & paradoxical element in a transcendental exercise. Each faculty concerned only with the presence of its own, a discord of the faculties, each receiving only violence from the others. Ambiguity of Platonism In The Republic the essentially encountered (unrecognized) = object of a “contradictory perception” – a finger calls for recognition, but the hard is also soft (large/small one/many) = (unlimited) becomings = sign = coexistence of contraries. Recognition measures & limits by relating quality to something (e.g. a qualitative opposition or contrariety). Obj: this confuses the being of the sensible with a sensible (qualitative) being. Re reminiscence: is supposed to bear on something enveloped in the sign neverseen & already recognized. This betrays: nature of the encounter difficult recognition rather than opposed to all possible recognition – what can only be recalled = form of similitude in reminiscence confusing being of the past w/a past being invoking a mythical present when no empirical past moment can be given. Reminiscence is better than innateness because it introduces time into thought establishing an opacity of thought (testifying to a bad nature & ill will). Plato only recognizes time as a physical cycle or a form saving thought’s supposed good nature. Plato then also traces the operation of a transcendental memory from an empirical exercise. For Plato, that which can only be thought becomes Largeness which is only large, Unity which is only one, etc. = essence as the form of a real Identity. This leads to the principle of an affinity of thought with the true. A good nature & will grounded in the form of analogy w/the Good. Plato 1st to erect dogmatic image of thought subordinating the transcendental exercise of the faculties to forms of opposition in the sensible, similitude in reminiscence, identity in the essence, and analogy in the Good. The transcendent form of a faculty grasps the world which concerns it exclusively, but cannot be grasped by common sense & so cannot be traced from an empirical exercise of the faculty (a superior empiricism). Each faculty bears a violence that forces its exercise, a violence by what it is forced to grasp, & a violence of its empirical ungraspability. (Here each faculty discovers its difference & eternal repetition). Each faculty will have its limit (its transcendent object) & what faculties there are is open ended. Thinking: its Genesis in Thought The Platonic determinations are unsatisfactory since they cannot carry the faculties to their respective limits – in sensibility to pure difference = intensity; in memory to the dissimilar in the pure form of time; in thought to the aleatory point – the I fractured by the pure form of time – always Other in nature enveloping essences as differentials of thought. Thinking always begins in sensibility – thought comes to us by means of intensity – because what forces sensation in an encounter = what can only be sensed, where re: the other faculties what forces X is distinct from what can only be Xed.

6 The violence that carries a faculty to its limit in the communication between disjointed faculties is always a free form of difference: difference in intensity, disparity in the phantasm, dissemblance in the form of time, the differential in thought. Identity, opposition, analogy, & resemblance are effects of these presentations of difference. The contingency (chance) on encounters guarantees the necessity of what it forces to be thought (not an affinity for the truth). Communication, a serial connection, is not enough to maintain a common sense because it does not imply the same object or a subjective unity – rather forced connections traverse dissolved selves & the form of the fractured I. This is a paradoxical operation w/discordant harmony (e.g. the sublime). There are Ideas (problems) which traverse the faculties but are the object of none in particular. Problems furnish the conditions for a superior exercise of the faculties. They are not clear & distinct (like the natural light – logic of recognition) nor innate (& do not save creationist theology – of common sense). The Idea is obscure insofar as it is distinct. Artaud & Riviere: Artaud destroys the Image of thought – his problem is not a factual difficulty (de facto state of affairs) but in principle (de jure structure of thought) concern the essence of what it is to think – to manage to think something – thought forced to think its own limit. Nothing is innate in thought; it must be engendered – to think is to create. Fifth Postulate: The ‘negative’ of Error pp. 148-153 The dogmatic image of thought recognizes error as the only way thought goes astray – error = the sole negative of thought = taking the false for the true. Error still presupposes good will & good nature of thought. Error assumes common sense since one faculty cannot be mistaken but two faculties in collaboration can (Descartes). Error = false recognition arising from a false distribution (evaluation) of the elements of representation. Error gives the form of the true to the false. As if error = a failure of good sense within the form of a common sense which remains intact. The proof of the dogmatic image by reductio from error fails because it operates in the same element as the postulates it attempts to prove. (The Theatetus ends aporetically on the problem of difference the Republic purports to solve). The dogmatic image does recognize madness, stupidity, & malevolence as misadventures of thought which are not reducible to error. It treats them as external forces (facts) capable of subverting thought’s honesty. But this external factuality makes error the effect of these forces on thought as if thought would function okay if not diverted from outside. But this diversion could not happen in principle were this outside not also in pure thought. But how in principle? Different errors seem to respond to simple questions w/independent propositions (Q/A quiz). This must be reversed. Error is a fact arbitrarily projected onto the transcendental. Philosophers have been aware of this & enriched error w/superstition, forgetting, stultification, illusion internal to reason, alienation, vulgarity. These don’t get developed on their own because they are seen only as complicating or inconveniencing the Image of thought. Problem of Stupidity Stupidity is not only depicted by animals, but can be depicted by vegetables too. “A tyrant institutionalizes stupidity, but he is the first servant of his own system & the first to installed within it. Slaves are always commanded by another slave.” p. 151. Error cannot account for the unity of

7 stupidity & cruelty, grotesque & terrifying. These are not mere facts of character, but structures of thought as such. Stupidity is a transcendental structure not merely traced from the empirical – transcendental Q: how is stupidity possible? (“the transcendental landscape comes to life”). Philosophers fail to see this because they adhere to the concept of error. Literature is haunted by the problem of stupidity. I & Self indicate species in that the species has reached an implicit state in man, so that I can serve as a universal principle for recognition & representation which determine species. While I is not species (since I contains the represented becoming of form) they have the same fate. Individuation has nothing to do w/the process of determining species, it renders the process possible. Individuation involves fields of intensities beneath all forms; it brings a pure ground to the surface w/neither form nor figure. The individual distinguishes itself from this ground, but it does not distinguish itself. The ground is the indeterminate which embraces determination. Stupidity is neither ground nor individual, but the relation in which individuation brings the ground to the surface w/o being able to give it form. Determinations become cruel when grasped only by contemplation separated from their living form & everything becomes violent [fascism]. (Madness sees itself in this free ground but cannot tolerate it.) This faculty becomes a philosophy of mind when it leads the other faculties to the transcendent exercise that make a violent reconciliation between individual, ground & thought possible – where intensities take themselves as objects of a transcendent sensibility, as the unthought, what can only be thought in thinking. Sixth Postulate: The Privilege of Designation pp. 153-158 Teachers know errors are rare in student work, instead one finds nonsense, banalities mistaken for profundities, remarks w/o interest or importance, badly posed problems (p. 153). Likewise w/ mathematicians. Sense and Proposition Sense =df the condition of the true. But, philosophers suppose it allows the possibility of error, since a false proposition has sense. Non-sense is what can be neither true nor false. The proposition expresses some content, & designates some object to which what is said in the proposition applies – expresses Sense, designates truly or falsely. But on this conception sense is indifferent to what it founds (truth). Then sense gets referred to a psychological trait or logical formalism, & a value of non-sense added to truth values (T & F) which are supposed to continue w/o change. Too much is said here because the search for a ground should be a critique & inspire new ways of thinking, not enough is said because this critique serves to justify traditional ways of thinking. Referring the true & the false back to designation is a 6th postulate: of designation or of the proposition (the logical form of recognition). The condition must be of real not merely possible experience – intrinsic genesis (production) not extrinsic conditioning (adequation). The grounded changes w/grounding (sufficient reason = metamorphose) relates ground to groundless. The relation between proposition & what it designates must be established in sense which by nature points to object which is also constituted in the unity of sense. Sense is the production of the true (which is the empirical result of sense). The Paradoxes of Sense

8 Sense = what is expressed in the proposition, but expressed not referent nor state of speaker. Significance re: concepts conditioned by representation. Sense is subrepresentative (like Idea). The 1st paradox of sense is of infinite proliferation. We can never say both a proposition & its sense (only nonsense words do this – “snark”). Sense in its empirical operation cannot be said (except in its transcendental operation). The Idea cannot be reduced to sense, but also includes non-sense. The Idea is constituted by elements which have no sense (structure), but produce it (genesis). While we cannot express the sense of what we say, we can designate it by another proposition, of which we cannot say the sense etc. (infinite regress of names & th senses). This corresponds to the n power of language & its transcendental repetition. Thought is therefore betrayed by the dogmatic Image of Thought & the postulate of designation. No proposition (Cogito) can serve as a beginning (unless Cogito is a name w/o a sense: I think that I think…). The 1st paradox of infinite proliferation can only be avoided by a 2nd paradox (sterile splitting) suspending the proposition by doubling it – extracting the ideal content which then appears distinct from the proposition, the speaker, & the object: it doesn’t exist outside the proposition so it doesn’t belong to subject or object, & it is a logical attribute the statable or expressible complex theme so it differs from the proposition itself. It is an ideal event (stated in infinitive or participle: being-blue of the sky) that subsists or insists a quasi-being common to real, possible & impossible. Problems: why don’t contradictory propositions have the same sense (affirmation & negation are only propositional modes)? Impossible objects will have sense? Objects will be transient, but their sense eternal? Proposition is true because its sense is but the sense is true because the proposition is? These problems arise because we’ve treated sense as a phantom limit of things & words, as a logical sterile incorporeal entity w/o generative power (a smile w/o a cat). Sense and Problem Exchanging the participial form for an interrogative form seems only to present the question as a neutralized double of the proposition (something already given or already distributed – good sense – among a community), but questions also open up new paths, not just a response as a particular solution, but relating cases to a problem as a problem. Sense is located in the problem. Sense = a complex theme = a set of problems & questions to which propositions serve as elements of response & cases of solution. But this only works if problems are not traced from propositions serving as responses as required by the image of thought. If problems were only such traces, then they would be ineffectual doubles. This fails to see problems as extra-propositional differing in kind from propositions, & misses the act of genesis of thought (the operation of the faculties). Seventh Postulate: The Modality of Solutions pp. 158-164 The 7th postulate of the Image of Thought – of responses & solutions (T&F only qualify solutions/responses) The Illusion of Solutions in the Doctrine of Truth It is a mistake to think that problems disappear in responses or solutions, that the activity of thinking & truth/falsity begin w/the search for & only concern solutions.

9 Infantile prejudice that master sets problems & solutions accredited by a powerful authority – that problems come from elsewhere is a social prejudice & interest in maintaining us in an infantile state “telling us we have won simply by being able to respond” (referenda, examinations, etc.) = be yourself = the self of others. Problems are the most important thing not as provisional & to be dissolved in the formation of knowledge, but as transcendental ideal = sense – T&F affect problems – solutions only have truth re: their sense – solutions follow from complete determination of problems. Problem = truth & genesis of derived truth – nonsense relates to problems: false problems/sense. Stupidity is the faculty for false problems, the inability to comprehend/determine a problem as such. Philosophy dreams of applying test of T&F to problems The error is to conceive that the truth of a problem lies in the possibility of its solution. This models form of problems on the form of the possibility of propositions. E.g. Aristotelian dialectics = art of problems & Qs – shows how to pose a question – invents the subjects of syllogisms. While analytics solves problems by means of syllogisms. But Aristotle then appeals to common sense, the opinions of all men or of the wise to judge a problem. This returns to the philosophical illusion of the 7th Postulate. Philosophers conceive the form of possibility differently but retain the essential – tracing problems from their solutions (from propositions). Mathematical method e.g. geometry relegates genetic to inferiority to accomplished theorems & proofs. Likewise re: algebra tracing problems from equations (operating on unknown quantities as if they were known) Other variations: empiricists invent a new form of possibility: probability = physical possibility. Kant defined Critique in terms of testing T&F of problems, but still appeals to transcendental form of possibility re: legitimate uses of a faculty guided by its appropriate form of common sense. 2 aspects of the illusion: (1) the natural illusion: tracing problems from supposedly pre-existent propositions (theorems, equations, hypotheses, judgments) (2) the philosophical illusion: evaluating problems re: their solvability, i.e., according to the extrinsic variable form of possibility of finding a solution – a vicious circle! This all misses the internal imperative element of problems which decides T&F & measures its genetic power = the differential. Problems as tests & selections – the production of truth. Problems are the differential elements of thought & genetic elements of truth. Solvability must be generated by the problem. (We must revert to a Riemannian differential geometry which tends to generate discontinuity of the basis of continuity.)

Ontological and Epistemological Importance of the Category of Problems Solutions only make sense within Ideas capable of comprehending imaginary situations & integrating an ideal continuity. Solving a problem is giving rise to discontinuities on the basic of an Idea functioning as a continuity. This gives propositions their universality – w/o the problem propositions fall back as particular designations & consciousness reconstitutes the problem as a neutralized double of particular propositions or the empty form of general ones. This loses the nature of the universal & singular in hypotheticals and categories. The universality of the problem is the distribution of singular points & distinctive points which determines the problem’s conditions. Problems get defined in

10 terms of the order of ideal events & affections. Problematic Ideas are multiplicities of relations & corresponding singularities. Problems persist & insist in their solutions even though they do not exist outside their solutions. Problems are at once Transcendent – consisting of a system of differential relations between genetic elements -- & Immanent in their solutions – incarnated in actual relations that don’t resemble the problems [Albert Lautman]. Problems are dialectical which becomes mere negative & oppositional when it forgets its relations to Ideas & traces problems from propositions. We must distinguish the problem as transcendental instance – the symbolic field in which problems express their conditions (movement) – the field of solvability in which the problem is incarnated & which defines the symbolic field. Eighth Postulate: The Result of Knowledge pp. 164-167 Signs cause problems & are developed in the symbolic field. The paradoxical functioning of faculties refers to Ideas which run through the faculties awakening them. Idea = paradoxical functioning of faculty. Transcendental exercise of a faculty = exploration of ideas. What does it mean ‘to learn”? Learning = Idea + exploration of Idea = subjective acts when confronted w/the objectivity of a problem. Knowledge = generality of concepts & possession of (rule enabling) solutions. Monkey e.g.: The discontinuity of solutions generated by the continuity of the an ideal apprenticeship (of the distribution of T&F re: a problem). The final truth emerges as if it were a limit of the problem as completely determined & understood as the outcome of a genetic series constituting sense. To learn = to enter into differential relations & singularities constituting an Idea, e.g. to learn to swim is to conjugate distinctive points of our body w/singular points of an objective Idea (differential variations of the movement of the waves) determining a threshold in which our real acts adjust to our perceptions of the real relations. Ideas are the ultimate elements of nature & subliminal objects of little perception. The apprentice raises each faculty to its transcendental exercise: education of the senses transmitted to the other faculties. We never know in advance how someone will learn – there is no method for learning (anymore than for finding treasures). Method is a means of knowledge regulated by common sense, good will, & premeditated decision of the thinker. Culture, instead, is an adventure – a movement linking the faculties by violence. There is a tendency to extol learning but only as subordinated to knowledge as its result Philosophers try to derive transcendental conditions of thought from knowledge, when they should derive them from learning (= a transcendental movement). Knowledge is only an empirical figure always falling back into experience. Learning is a transcendental structure uniting difference to difference w/o mediation truly introducing (the pure empty form of) time into thought (unlike Platonic reminiscence which still subjects time & thought to resemblance & identity). Knowledge is the 8th Postulate of the Image of thought recapitulating all the others in the supposedly simple result. Recapitulation of the Postulates as Obstacles to a Philosophy of Difference and Repetition

11