ears burning; step from the cold

There are two really interesting points that he brings up in the introductory lecture. First, is the ontological aspect of Deleuze’s work and second (also related) is the return to Aesthetics.

Central to Deleuze’s works, is the question of ‘How Might One Live?’ and it is the process of living I think, that ‘being’ is formed. It’s quite refreshing to think about it like that – compare with Heidegger’s daesin, the one essential truth or really ‘truth made’. Deleuze is more like: ‘making truth is truth’? or even; ‘being is becoming’.  How this ties to Aesthetics that Deleuze re-finds(?refine?) it to the 17th century proposal by Hume: that Aesthetics as a separate discourse from philosophy and science; a mode of thinking that is *outside* rationality (I guess, at that time, Enlightenment? positivist history?).

This is pretty cool stuff, if only because after that, aesthetics got regulated as part of conventional philosophy (remember Kant? l’horreur) as opposed to a mode on its own right. Anyway he proposes:

[Modes] – Science – Philosophy – Art/Aesthetics
==> where they are seperate domains, with an interior alliance; of thinking, of construction
=>all domains are essentially creative; or:
———–>Science creates inventions; {modes of utility?}
———————>Philosophy creates concepts {modes of thinking}
———————————-> Art creates sensations {modes of sensing}

re: Concepts are inventive, because new modes of thinking are *active interventions* in the mind – consider example of Nietszche; the proposal of ‘God Is Dead’ or the *new* mode of thinking after him can stand alone even after many years. Art is not representation (re-presenting) because it is a configuration or a ‘becoming’ on an object, a sense, an affect.

Therefore, he argues: Creation is an Event -> an autononmous object, a movement.

Here, I think – he reason why he argues so strongly is because at stake is not just ‘how to live’ or ‘art’ but they are interrelated. My understanding is this: that creativity is necessary and integral component to living – where the process of living *is* the process of creativity (being, is becoming.) and therefore important to the central ontological question that he asks: ‘How Might One Live?’ The way it is phrased, is not about being able to live or even the present-ness of living but rather a perpetual movement; not necessarily to seek the ‘Truth’ (which according to Nietzsche, is a congealed metaphor); this perpetual movement instead is a process towards a future form, where we are beoming


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s