Deleuze on leibniz

1/5

>For some time now the idea of an infinite universe has been hypothesized, a universe that has lost all centre as well as any figure that could be attributed to it; but the essence of the Baroque is that it is given unity, through a projection that emanates from a summit as a point of view. For some lime the world has been understood on a theatrical basis, as a dream, an illusion - as Harlequin's costume, as Leibniz would say.

>But the essence of the Baroque entails neither falling into nor emerging from illusion but rather realizing something in illusion itself, or of tying it to a spiritual presence that endows its spaces and fragments with a collective unity. The prince of Hamburg, and all of Kleist's characters, are not so much Romantic as they are Baroque heroes. Prey to the giddiness of minute perceptions, they endlessly reach presence in illusion, in vanishment, in swooning, or by converting illusion into presence: Penthesilea-Theresa?

>The Baroque artists know well that hallucination does not feign presence, but that presence is hallucinatory.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JrBdYmStZJ4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>posts something random
>what did he mean by this?
>discuss
>Veeky Forums

2/5

>Even compressed, folded, and enveloped, elements are powers that enlarge and distend the world. It hardly suffices to speak of a succession of limits or of frames, for every frame marks a direction of space that coexists with the others, and each form is linked to unlimited space in all directions at once. It is a broad and floating world, at least on its base, a scene or an immense plateau. But this continuity of the arts, this collective unity in extension, goes out and beyond, toward an entirely different unity that is comprehensive and spiritual, punctual, is indeed conceptual: the world as a pyramid or a cone, that joins its broad material base, lost in vapors, to an apex, a luminous origin or a point of view.

>Leibniz's world is one that encounters no difficulty in reconciling full continuity in extension with the most comprehensive and tighlly knit individuality. Bernini's Saint Theresa does not find her spiritual unity in the satyr's little arrow, that merely spreads fire, but in the upper origin of the golden rays above.

3/5

>The resolution of dissonance is tantamount to displacing pain, to searching for the major accord with which it is consonant. Just as the martyr knows how to do it at the highest point and, in that way, not suppress pain itself, but suppress resonance or resentment, by avoiding passivity, by pursuing the effort to suppress causes, even if the martyr's force of opposition is not attained. All of Leibniz's theory of evil is a method to prepare for and to resolve dissonances in a "universal harmony.” A counterexample would be furnished by the damned. whose souls produce a dissonance on a unique note, a breath of vengeance or resentment, a hate of God that goes to infinity; but it is still a form of music, a chord - though diabolical- since the damned draw pleasure from their very pain. and especially make possible the infinite progression of perfect accords in the other souls.

>Such is the first aspect of harmony, which Leibniz calls spontaneity. The monad produces accords that are made and are undone, and yet that have neither beginning nor end, that are transformed each into the other or into themselves, and that tend toward a resolution or a modulation. For Leibniz even the diabolical accord can be transformed. It is because the monad is expression; it expresses the world from its own point of view (and musicians such as Rameau forever underscore the expressive character of the chord). Point of view signifies the selection that each monad exerts on the whole world that it is including, so as to extract accords from one part of the line of infinite inflection that makes up the world.

>Thus the monad draws its accords from its own depths.

4/5

>There exists a second aspect of harmony.

>Spontaneity is tantamount to the production of each monad's inner accords on its absolute surface. Concertation amounts to the correspondence according to which there can be no major and perfect accord in a monad unless there is a minor or dissonant accord in another, and inversely. All combinations are possible without there ever being same accord in two monads. Each monad spontaneously produces its accords, but in correspondence with those of the other. Spontaneity is the inner or sufficient reason applied to monads. And concertation is this same reason applied to spatiotemporal relations that follow from the monads. If space-time is not an empty area, but the order of coexistence and the succession of monads themselves, the order has to be marked out, oriented, vectored; in the instance of each monad movement has to go from the more-clear monad to the less-clear monad, or from the perfected accord to the less-perfected accord, for the clearest or the most perfected is reason itself. In the expression "preestablished hamony," "preestablished" is no less important than "harmony." Harmony is twice preestablished: by virtue of each expression, of each expressant that owes only to its own spontaneity or interiority, and by virtue of the common expression that establishes the concert of all these expressive spontaneities. It is as if Leibniz were delivering us an important message about communication: don't complain about not having enough communication, for there is always plenty of it. Communication seems to be of a constant and preestablished quantity in the world, akin to a sufficient reason.

I like reading deleuze sometimes but whenever I'm in a more analytic frame of mind I just can't stand this shit. he's not interested in educating people with his writing, he's showcasing a method of thinking. In my better moods I can play with him, but when I'm feeling more sober I think he's a posturing cunt, I'll read something like the passages OP posted for 5 min only to realize he's making a very simple point and he didn't have to be so fucking french about just saying it

5/5

>The question always entails living in the world, but Stockhausen's musical habitat or Dubuffet's plastic habitat do not allow the differences of inside and outside, of public and private. to survive. They identify variation and trajectory, and overtake monadology with a "nomadology." Music has stayed at home: what has changed now is the organization of the home and its nature. We are all still Leibnizian, although accords no longer convey our world or our text. We are discovering new ways of folding, akin to new envelopments, but we all remain Leibnizan because what always matters is folding, unfolding, refolding.

i have no idea why i decided to post this

>i have no idea why i decided to post this

God made you do it.

if that's the case then god is a cool motherfucker and i take back all the mean things i said about him

>The prince of Hamburg

embarrassment was felt that day

do you have an idea about what hes talking about?

i think so
>also check that subtle war-machine reference
>b/c subtlety is always improved when you make a big deal about it
>boy this is some next-level classy shit we've got going on now
>yessirree

here's what i like about this idea of the baroque (besides the fact that it helps to explain why i have been obsessing about the meaning of ff6 for years): it's univocity of being in action. that's what he's saying. this is what happens when you take all of the oedipal shit that lacan *will* manage to confine w/in an analytic scenario (or in a borromean knot) and, first, loose that into the world, and then, second, consider the world accordingly.

it's baroque. infinities of meaning within infinities, but ultimately still, last, only, ever, one big thing. folds create difference, but there is no meta-difference besides monadology itself or the spinozistic nature-God that is everywhere, all at once, alpha-to-omega, 24/7. sker-blooey.

it just makes sense to me. now, it makes sense to me after long long periods of being tortuously fucked up by these questions of language, sign and reference, how one things corresponds to another, what did he meme by this &c. deleuze is basically finding a way to make all of the Oh What The Fuck Come On of deconstruction and the trace of language into this unbelievable hallucination of difference and interconnectedness.

it's a hell of a good book. i'm going to read his one one on spinoza next but lord ha'mercy gilles deleuze says absolutely *nothing* i don't like. not a thing. not one.

i shit you not i have been dwelling on kefka palazzo for years. for years. it is my favorite game, no question. and i've wondering how the fuck to explain what was going on with this game, why it works, all of this. i thought i could figure it out through nietzsche, heidegger, whoever. maybe all of them, in a sense. but mos def deleuze gets it.

he's also so ridiculously Not Fucked Up With Capitalism that i am having a hard time getting my shit together.

of the guys i have read, nietzsche, heidegger, lacan and baudrillard are the biggest deals for me. they're the ones i go to the most. girard ofc because mimetic desire. well, this is fucking monadology as well, and the name for a monadologized culture is the *baroque.* it's all there with spinoza too ofc. and it's not like any of this flushes girard instantly. it's just all there in terms of explaining the attraction and difference between monads, together with a humungoin monadological universe.

gilles deleuze, sweet mother of mary this man could do some shit with words. no doubt this will make less than zero sense at all. but after all the fucking simulacrum stuff, all of this tortuous this/not this derridean stuff when deleuze turns up and says, hey guess plebtard what it's all fucking music that is something i am wholly ready to agree with.

the deal - for me, anyways - is subjectivity and *desire.* these have always been the things i've been wrestling with. desire comes first, last, always. but this will fuck you up greatly to think about. b/c good luck talking about it, writing about it, whatever.

i skipped hegel b/c i'm a retard. so nietzsche came first. there's wtp. then heidegger - ok, now it's about being. got it. then lacan narrows it down further: it's objet a. ok. sounds good. then girard: *your* objet a is also *my* objet a. we can't share. wat do.

>don't worry about it, says land. you only think you know what it is anyways. your objet a always belonged to capital anyhow
>much shitposting follows

well, says deleuze, how about this: how about i just pick the lock on that oppenheimer-style and become Life, The Destroyer of Meme-Worlds. howsabout that. how's about that. b/c if you try and look into that golden path ala dune you get your shit fully rocked off b/c it is just too darn big and too darn golden to look directly at
>unless you decide to roll allahu snackbar and become a war-machine prophet rolling across space and time
>that's an option too
>but probably not a good one

so how about instead of doing that we consider a baroque universe instead. b/c fuck postmodernity - but *pass* on acceleration also, which is only going to *reduce* complexity instead and will *fail* in so doing rather than letting that shit blast off in a billion different directions, infinity in all directions: the fold.

gilles deleuze > pretty much everyone
>but of course i have said this before, about others
>still tho
>feeling pretty hype today

>the deal - for me, anyways - is subjectivity and *desire.*
ok, and what are you trying to get at? What is it you desire? And should you care what others desire?

why will acceleration reduce complexity?

blast off in a billion different directions? is that kind of how the world is now, or you are saying it will keep continuing? different communities doing different things. different individuals doing different things?

What are you searching for?

sorry, forgot baudrillard in there.
>what if i am objet a?
>so i am my own simulacrum &c
>monologue/dialogue of the conscientious ultra-narcissist

but baudrillard couldn't let go of the real/simulacrum distinction. he ultimately hung on to a little chunk of marxist dialectic and took it with him into nietzschean wonderland. that's why he was who he was: a culture critic using metaphysics to make his points. but deleuze goes straight metaphysics. which is why he doesn't freak out over capital. there's no need. thought is cooler.

it's still a girardian world (love! strife!). but the rules of the mimetic games played therein seem deleuzian (leibniz-spinoza). failure to play by these rules, or attempting to cheat on these rules, advances lovecraft.net. maybe it advances anyways.

but maybe there are just more interesting things to think about besides capitalism. or at least more interesting ways to think about it. as in, difference and repetition.

(cont'd)

>of the guys i have read, nietzsche, heidegger, lacan and baudrillard are the biggest deals for me.

>no Debord
You live in the belly of the spectacle.

>ok, and what are you trying to get at?
relief from my own stupid & barbaric & brutal thoughts, by which i seem to continually be in a process of reconciling myself to The World by learning to accommodate its basest & worst attributes, in order to *make money from it* in order to *be left alone* because *i can't fucking understand it* and it *drives me nuts*

>What is it you desire?
escape

>And should you care what others desire?
i have to, i'm stuck in the goddamn matrix & i don't want to become agent smith
>even if baudrillard says there is no other way

youtube.com/watch?v=JrBdYmStZJ4

>why will acceleration reduce complexity?
good question
simply by the drive to efficiency & streamlining. politically this will *explode* meme complexity b/c people will get fucked by the machines and this is b/c they *want* to get fucked by the machines (passively, ofc) because this is the faustian bargain made by consumer society

>blast off in a billion different directions? is that kind of how the world is now,
only on the surface, only mimetically, v/postmodernism & simulation
underneath there is a terrifying & frightful similarity, b/c otherwise therapy would have no meaning
>and doesn't anyways for autists & schizophrenics or whoever
>but that's fine

>different communities doing different things. different individuals doing different things?
it depends on the individual & it depends on the community
there's too much information at present & people have hair-triggers & capitalism makes everything too atomized & restless to be able to form up unless you get a mega-meme like Trump or jihad to make things Real Fucking Simple

>or you are saying it will keep continuing?
the more people cultivate niche the more they wind up looking exactly the same. all this feeds capitalism & technics & mimetics
>pic rel
>also lol 'quotes about inspiration'

>What are you searching for?
an alternative to repeating myself over and over and over and over and over

i have read debord, tiqqun also. baudrillard's better

apologies for the rant

Rhizomatic dubs of truth right here. Deleuze is fascinating as an exemplar of prescient methodologies but strays far too easily into a hark-at-me mysticism. Not that this is always a problem with thinkers who do it (Heidegger, Lacan) but it is purposeless and frustrating.

>stockhausen's musical habitat ... [does] not allow the differences of inside and outside

See, this is pure masturbatory sophistry. Namedropping an avant-garde composer and making a general observation open to multiple interpretations, none of which are likely to contain a verifiable proposition. (It is not a coincidence that Deleuze, when asked about the endlessly variable contradictory ways in which writers deployed his terminological innovations, said that the fluidity of such definitions was a good thing.)

I'm enjoying your rant. Will be digesting it for a while. Sixth fantasy is best fantasy.

it's against my nature to say, flatly, that people are wrong, but
>this is pure masturbatory sophistry
gentle user i humbly submit that

a) you are mistaken, or
b) i've clearly been misinformed about the power of masturbation, and holy hannah am i ever going to start trying things differently

>verifiable proposition
plz god no not positivism

leibniz is fine. deleuze is just drawing the portrait of his world in the way that he does

badiou is a guy, he's legit also.
>i do not understand the math
>>and this surely explains a lot
>but i believe that it checks out
>believe, he says. in math or formal logic. about that
>yeah, well, you can't beat the price

there *are,* undoubtedly, arguments to be made about him. but deleuze-leibniz have a beautiful bromance going on

>It is not a coincidence that Deleuze, when asked about the endlessly variable contradictory ways in which writers deployed his terminological innovations, said that the fluidity of such definitions was a good thing
it is a good thing. ofc there's dark deleuze & 20m other ways he can be used as an apologist for that which is obviously dislikable today: pointless memery, capitalism, whatever. of course. but in terms of a vitalistic philosophy that doesn't suck ass? i'll take more of that

i'm enjoying it also but as always when the enjoyment is shared it's only for the good

do you write yourself?

>Music has stayed at home: what has changed now is the organization of the home and its nature. We are all still Leibnizian, although accords no longer convey our world or our text. We are discovering new ways of folding, akin to new envelopments, but we all remain Leibnizan because what always matters is folding, unfolding, refolding.

So, less symphonies, more free form jazz.

Adorno is gonna FLIP.

i am the world's most terminally blocked & useless failed writer. i had plans to write. once. a long time ago. still do. i fail. i read philosophy. i fail again. i read more. i drink. time passes. i resign myself to failure 4 life. i hide under stones. to pass the time i read more.

i encounter things that blast me into the air like a bolt of lightning straight up the ass. i shitpost about it.
>tfw currently looking like wile e coyote
>tfw wile e coyote did nothing wrong
>tfw everything i needed to learn about capitalism or objet a i learned from chuck jones cartoons

kek
poor adorno
>why won't anyone appreciate schoenberg

>tfw i actually don't like free form jazz
>tfw but really what the fuck do i know anyways i guess
>feels good man

>tfw about to turn back on based moldbuggian patrician absolutism & all the neo-enlightenment stuff i was going to shitpost about earlier and become instead filthy deranged unwashed bohemian mongoloid b/c one goddamn book from deleuze
>what_a_fucking_asshole.jpeg

Listen to Harry Pussy

leibnitz?

I'm the user that called you an attention whore the other day, and reading all of this I'm kinda sorry for that. It was interesting reading the piece you posted, It also sounds like you're in a really shitty place.

I think I kinda get what you're talking about, but I still stand by my earlier point about you sounding super annoying expressing it. What's the structure of your day look like?

>I'm the user that called you an attention whore the other day, and reading all of this I'm kinda sorry for that
well fuck you for not giving me a chance to say fuck you and mean it b/c clearly i can be excessive sometimes & there is 100% nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade

i'll admit i was mildly trigged but i mean come on, firstly, this is Veeky Forums and secondly, *silence is golden.*
>pic rel
so no hard feelings now or later my man. all good
>you motherfucker

>It was interesting reading the piece you posted
dude this was a thing for me. ff6 has been an obsession of mine for years & years & deleuze crushed it. not only because of that game but because of *now.* right now. fuck deconstruction, the *baroque* makes way more sense. a lot more

>it also sounds like you're in a really shitty place.
this is an incredibly insightful remark. in fact i am! i won't go into the details but i will acknowledge your perceptiveness

>I think I kinda get what you're talking about, but I still stand by my earlier point about you sounding super annoying expressing it.
fair enough. i will tell you a brief tale about this:

some years ago, in a rather unusual situation, i was told that i actually had in conversation a kind of a *fake accent* that i could not hear. i didn't believe it, or realize i was even doing it. more than one person told me this. the more they told me, the more i resisted it. ofc they were right: it was a kind of conversational twitch. deeply buried & hard to detect. once i realized that it was there, i really understood/discovered something important. opened my eyes to a lot of things.

was a true, genuine moment of zen, no shit. all my philosophy stuff happened after that moment.

so having learned this i am okay with the occasional chin-check re: the way i talk/write/meme. if you understand what i mean. often times others understand you better than you can understand yourself. i am very alert to this. sometimes too alert.

so. that much for silence & attention whoring. it's not deliberate. it's not, i think, uncontrolled. i just get excited about ideas and communicate them in this way. i'm not really trying to be an attention whore. but it is psychological.

>What's the structure of your day look like?
currently very happily unstructured, soon to be very unhappily overstructured. comporting myself to this w/a lot of books.

That picture has to be Paglia. Nobody else writes that manic.

What a fucking joke; I wish I could resurrect Leibniz just to have him laugh at this meandering metaphoriac malappropriation of his Monadology.

Here's how the Monadology works:
- All substances are minds (monads).
- Everything else is merely appearances in minds.
- Appearances harmoniously behave exactly *as if* there were associated external objects in a shared external world.
- This system is perfectly harmonious because God set it up that way in the beginning.

It's a clever non-solution to the mind-body problem. Everything else is masturbatorial bullshit. But Deleuze, of course, is mostly interested in that part.

>meandering metaphoriac malappropriation of his Monadology

>do not induce vomiting
but I can hardly breathe

What is a musical composition?

your face is a clever non-solution to the mind-body problem

girardfag why does your writing remind me of the 36 lessons of vivec

no shit i was thinking this too

b/c i apparently live in a batshit crazy alternate universe with an unhealthy amount of metanarrative?

i am afraid to ask why but i must know
>say the words, hortator
>sermon thirty-two did nothing wrong

ALMSIVI

>tfw you suspect you are about to get memed with a meme so subtle & perfect you cannot understand it until it is too late
>aaaargh

>what did he meme by this?

see
i have no idea what this means but i suspect it has something to do with having consented to become a meme myself

so it's a fitting fate

girardfag delenda est

live by the meme, die by the meme

Is she smoking crack?

Do you ever wonder if youre imprinting too much of yourself on the works and interpretations of others? Its something im always wondering, the divide between the authenticity of meaning and the constructed/imprinted one.

Also have you read augustine, you seem to be a heidegger fan?

I'm afraid I have no say in this conversation so I will just work on self loathing by telling y'all strangers I'm trying to get through with Kierkegaard only, and I could hardly understand anything any of you bots said

OP I think you are crazy.

kierkegaard was hard going for me (). slightly too deep into the theology column. it only works if you read the holy text the same was as he did.

>Do you ever wonder if youre imprinting too much of yourself on the works and interpretations of others?
of course. the irony is that i wound up sounding like this because i was afraid of imprinting myself too *little.*

> Its something im always wondering, the divide between the authenticity of meaning and the constructed/imprinted one.
the space between individuals and their expressions is very hazy: memes, simulacra

consider this. is it better to live
a) in a platonic world, where we discuss the forms objectively
b) in a taoist world, where we cannot possibly discuss the forms objectively
c) in a lacanian world, where we are profoundly aware of our discourse
d) in a _____ world, where ______

right? all of this is in play. and it's never entirely up to us which of these is in effect, because we are negotiating with others
>well, except i suppose if we are in an analytic scenario
>or projecting ourselves into ancient greece
>or in china
>or
>also or

hopefully i'm communicating some of this here. basically what i've learned is that when people tell you, 'keep an open mind', that this is good advice but there is also a horizon beyond which you necessarily need to circle the wagons to some degree and try only to discuss that which you actually can be said to *know* with some certainty.
>and for that reason it is not worth it to spend too much time talking to cynics & sophists, because this will only fuck you up

charity matters, excess charity is madness, minimal charity is foolishness.

>augustine
read confessions back when, not yet city of god. will surely get to that at some point ofc.

i'm fine with this obv. those ff6 references tho. i'm as self-flagellating as they come but come on. of all the crazy things i've posted on this board i am unironically pleased with that one

bump

off-topic, but

>A game is a machine that can get into action only if the players consent to become puppets for a time. - McLuhan

or if, in the 21C, we have in games a place to be *hyperreal puppets*

depends on the game
depends on the playa
you gots your cinema-games like ff6
and you gots your very other games like pic rel
>b/c there you have to ask, since this is at least a two-player movie, *whose movie are we in exactly*
>hnng

it's almost like icycalm was literally correct about absolutely everything he ever wrote on vidya