#Deleuze about classification

“All classifications belong to this style; they are mobile, modifiable, retroactive, boundless, and their criteria vary from instance to instance. Some instances are full, others empty. A classification always involves bringing together things with different appearances and separating those that are very similar. That is the beginning of the formation of concepts.”

“Toutes les classifications sont de ce genre : elles sont mobiles, varient leurs critères suivant les cases, sont rétroactives et remaniables, illimitées. Certaines cases sont très peuplées, d’autres vides. Il s’agit toujours dans une classification de rapprocher des choses très différentes en apparence, et d’en séparer de très voisines. C’est la formation des concepts.”

Gilles Deleuze, Le Cerveau, c’est l’Ecran, in “Deux Régimes de Fous”.

 

1526801049263597330_40270600
#minimalism #minimalist #minimalistic #minimalistics #minimal #insect #minimalobsession #photooftheday #minimalninja #instaminim #minimalisbd #simple #simplicity #keepitsimple #minimalplanet #love #instagood #minimalhunter #minimalista #minimalismo #beautiful #art #lessismore #simpleandpure #negativespace

 

 

Advertisements

Fuir -> To Flee/To Leak – a #Deleuze word game

Fuir is a French verb, well, TWO French verbs, which are homonyms :

  1. Fuir : To flee
  2. Fuir : To leak

Therefore, it’s the same for “la fuite”, two homonyms :

  1. Fuite : a flight, an escape
  2. Fuite : a leak

So I suppose you understand it’s a bit “weaved” in our French brain. And if I ask “Fuite” in http://www.wordreference.com/, I find interesting things to prove it :

  • Fuite de capitaux : Capital flight (a leak, a flee)
  • Fuite des cerveaux : Brain drain (idem)
  • Ligne de fuite : Convergence line (in French, so, more like “a lign of flight”)

Gilles Deleuze is a playful philosopher. He likes to play with concepts to make tools.

He notices that to flee is NOT to renounce, or to give up, it’s a real action. To fly away is going on a line which stays like a symbol. It’s fuir (to flee) but also faire fuir (to “make a leak”). To run away is sometimes like to puncture the place you leave. You leave a hole, maybe… Therefore, a leak…

Fuir/Fuir : Flee/Leak.

Yeah I know, it’s a game of words, but it can give birth to ideas, right?

I like this idea too : to run away is to draw a line. Where you ran away, you have to do something else, the place you “leaved” (OK, left) does something else too. Flee as a disturbance. Each of them draws new lines, more lines. It’s like inventing new maps. To flee is quitting a territory A to go to another territory (B). Is it a “go back”? A flee & discovery? If there’s a leak on B, what is its nature? What happens, then? Can the runaway bird be replaced? By what? If you fly away, are you forced by something, pushed away, is it a choice?

More Territories games : you can see here.

Have a good day!

2014-10-21_1413908135.jpg

 

Deterritorialization is a funny tool/dial to use!

Deterritorialization (game : try to say it) is a concept invented by Gilles Deleuze (a French philosopher) in the seventies.

Of course it’s just a “concept”, a little tool or a grid you can use to study anything which, you think, is concerned by it.

As you’re a thinker, it’s a game for you.

Deterritorialize yourself, it means you quit some habits, rules, sedentarity. You go out.

Maybe it’s simple : because you travel abroad! But maybe because your own territory is moving, changing, disappearing too.

A new love story is a double-deterritorialization : each one, meeting a new personality, is changing, has to adapt, dances, unfolds possibilities and wonders, has to watch the other one, who is changing too, in a similar way : interested, moved and fascinated. Deterritorialized…

The funny part is that each lover meets a moment when he or she goes visit the other one’s house or apartment. Another… territory. You are blissfully (I hope) lost on a REAL new territory.

Of course, a deterritorialization is also often a reterritorialization. You go back on your field (before you’re tempted again, because it’s enriching, right?), where you regroup, you find yourself back, and you also begin to THINK : because you are different now, enriched, you gained experience : your inner frontiers have moved, you learned, your inner reterritorialization shows you new inner boundaries, it’s a new you, a new territory you live in.

Of course, you can live a micro-deterritorialization when you explore something you really didn’t know before : learning a new language, a new instrument, meeting a new person. It’s like a deterritorialization in parenthesis, a short one : you plunge into something new then you go back to what you know.

Think : decisions to change, migration, tourism, economical transformations, political change, collaboration, curiosity, melting pot, interbreeding, exchange and switches. Apply the concept everywhere and see what you find!

You can also read this article about frontiers and movements.

Thanks for reading! Have a great day!

1476289396776865880_40270600.jpg

2seccge.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inner Travels are cheaper

I don’t travel, I never took a plane : I know I’m wrong. I knowwww!

I like to read books; though (I’m an astronomer, not an astronaut) about traveling.

Every tourist will say he’s “not a tourist”, but each good traveling authors speaks about other things than local shopping or visiting “what you have to see”. Carrière tells us that he founds many beautiful things in Agra, India, which are NOT the Taj Mahal. And there are others things to see in Paris than Le Louvre and the Eiffel Tower.

Deleuze says that traveling authors always finish by saying they were seeking… a father. Beckett has a character who says something like “We are stupid, but not stupid enough to travel as a leisure”.

Proust says that we travel to check something. Mmhhh?

I would imagine, like Deleuze again, an immobile travel. Or a VERY SLOW travel.

So I like to read about these. And I like to prepare a good inner travel, too. With books and Internet, you can travel through the American Civil War, or the French Revolution, the life of Faulkner or Bartok, Stanley Kubrick movies or whatever. Choose your study. It’s a travel. Learning a language too. I had a friend who travelled through India, learned the language, and got married there. Good!

OK, I’ll get a passport.

Have a nice day!

C360_2015-10-11-05-19-05-157.jpg

 

“A model is a lie that helps you see the truth” – H. Skipper

“A model is a lie that helps you see the truth” is a quote by Howard Skipper, an American doctor.

Here I try to extend this pattern, replacing “model” by cousin ideas : “pattern”, “structure”, “map”, etc.

So what? A “model” is not the real world, it’s a construction made to help us to understand the real world.

A MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY, right? A map is a LIE, it doesn’t give you changes, colors, moods, light, temperature and life. But it’s a useful, thought, for a purpose…

You can be very serious while modeling things (in Science) and an architect will build models (in cardboard or on computers), but you can also be a little casual “just to see what you’ll see”.

For example you can see each of these things : a school, a couple, or a battle, as : a machine, a living creature, a computer, a kingdom or a business company. If you “apply” your model, you’ll rule out something, but you’ll find interesting things too. Then, trash the model. Because it’s a LIE, of course!

A model is a construction made to help us to understand the real world.

It can be using a structure and also “a way to explain how it works”, moves and evolves. Let’s use the model of “a business company” to study “a married couple”. Who’s the CEO, how does the money flow, what are the goals, etc…

It can be more like a skeleton, a complex map of “what it is”, or a single archetypal word :

  • Mauss studied suicide or gift and made entire books about these. A way to search for “what is common”, the “fundamental characteristics”.
  • Simmel studied the bridge : it links two territories, it is a territory itself, it “shows itself” as a bridge, and it is a “will of connection” (over a river, for example).

Yes, this leads to Archetypes (Jung)

a statement, pattern of behavior, or prototype (model) which other statements, patterns of behavior, and objects copy or emulate

To Forms in philosophy (Plato)

pure forms which embody the fundamental characteristics of a thing in Platonism

and to the most precious diamond : the Symbol.

a symbol is a mark, sign, or word that indicates, signifies, or is understood as representing an idea, object, or relationship. Symbols allow people to go beyond what is known or seen by creating linkages between otherwise very different concepts and experiences.

(All quotes from Wikipedia – I bolded some words)

Questions :

Who’s right? Skipper who uses the word “lie”, or Plato and Jung who seem to seek a “pure form”? Is all this a search for a link, common aspects in different things, or are these just tools to explore a concept , moving aside difficulties and details? Are you more interested in details, or structures? Why do we say that there are only a few ways to tell a story (Google : Seven Basic Plots)? What are the “order” games like MBTI, Zodiac or Enneagrams? Is a symbol the tiniest and more radioactive possible model?

Let’s say you’re introvert, fast, jealous, a father, a murderer or a valet. Is it a lie, because it’s true but way too simple (and a label on your face) – then you list the subtilities, the movements, the reasons, etc -, or is it a funny truth which could lead you to make decisions, or find other archetypes to think about?

You can also read : Ecceity

Yeahh, overthinking, I know…

Thanks for reading!

#angel

 

 

 

“Haecceity” : it’s about Labels on your Forehead – #Deleuze

Haecceity. I learned about this strange word in a book about Gilles Deleuze, a French Philosopher.

When we argue, when we talk, when we define ourselves, when you get an official letter, it puts a label on us. It says : “You are that”. So there!

It depends on the box, it depends how the society calls you :

Sociology, Psychology, Religion, Morals, Urbanism, Politics, Literature, Anthropology : every discipline PINS you on a board, as a woman, a muslim or a lover, a mother or a manager, et voilà!

The problem is WE ARE NOT AN ELEMENT OF A STOCK. We are human beings, and that implies that we are plugged, we change all along the day(s), we grow, we stop, we meet, etc.

Haecceity, says Deleuze, says that we should use more the word AND. Jean is a woman and a mother and a knitter and a fan of this group and has four good friends and likes France and just decided to divorce and plans to move and just began to blog and loves to bake with fruits, etc, she’s an INFINITY, and a moving one!

We are made of a series of events, of connections, of changes, and what defines us is our nature but also, a constant variation of plugs and deplugs, multi-events, joy, powers, feelings, intensities…

Wiki says :

Haecceity : the discrete qualities, properties or characteristics of a person that make it a particular thing. Haecceity is a person’s or object’s thisness.

There’s a danger is the way we write “We Are”, which label us and then put us “stuck in a stock”.

Deleuze says we are more accurately longitudes and latitudes, a group of different speeds and slownesses, an individual, a singularity, constantly inventing grapes of possibilities, a play of forces or encounters.

So play with words. Let people define you and other people. But don’t forget they are words. You are more than that.

There’s a article on WordPress about Deleuze’s singularities here.

Thanks for reading!

#bench #france #lille #rainyday