tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1703983863002652001.post434363320933762201..comments2024-03-21T08:50:20.533-07:00Comments on Pirates & Revolutionaries: Somers-Hall, (1.7), Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition, ‘1.7 The Eternal Return (40–2/50–2)’, summaryCorry Shoreshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10021754334885248079noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1703983863002652001.post-57342797806928514742015-04-20T14:02:54.344-07:002015-04-20T14:02:54.344-07:00*[What SH says at this point I do not entirely gra...*[What SH says at this point I do not entirely grasp, but that is probably because he is giving a preview of the elaboration to come. Somehow what returns is “the intensive, nomadic distribution”. This has something to do with the ground for modes being a “a pre-judicative field of becoming” (43). Whatever does return is something prior to identity. But how it is that the distribution returns is not entirely clear to me, especially since we cannot understand the distribution itself as an identifiable thing (as it is in the sentence) that returns.]<br /><br />Yes, the intensive is dealt with in more detail later in DR. The main point here is that thinking the eternal return for Deleuze involves thinking the field of intensity that gives rise to actual states of affairs. As we’ll see, this involves understanding the world in terms of what Deleuze calls ‘ideas’ – these are transcendental structures that can be actualized in different states of affairs. Since the same idea can be actualized in different states of affairs, thinking the eternal return involves understanding the world in terms of this (un)ground regardless of the different states of affairs it gives rise to.<br /><br />*[I do not understand clearly what this has to do with the ‘what we can do’ idea, but perhaps the idea is if we can see that nothing about our lives is ever lacking, since each moment and its conditions are an expression of power in its fullness. And I suppose if we see each moment as perfectly full and lacking in no way, that we would want to affirm it and desire to re-experience it for eternity.]<br /><br />The idea, really, is that it is only when we think of ourselves as subjects with properties/agents with actions that we can conceive of being ourselves, but lacking a particular property/having not committed a particular act (i.e., as our actions as being separable from who we are). I.e., it’s only when we conceive of ourselves in terms of sedentary distributions that we can understand the notion of regret as having had the possibility of doing something differently in the past. For the bird of prey, there is no separation of action from doer, and so there is no way of affirming who we are without also affirming all of our actions, and everything that happens to us. The question of affirmation therefore opens the way to the question of what kind of distribution we use as the basis for understanding the world.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03915873209145833701noreply@blogger.com