Skip to main content


Deleuze's remark towards the end of Le Pli that Whitehead inaugurated a move from clausure to capture is very interesting. Ontologies of clausure have to do with closed individuals - substantialism as in the postulation of closed monads that subsist in time and substatism according to which individuated units are independent of their actual properties. (To be sure, Leibniz held obviously the first but not the second.) Ontologies of capture postulate signals, broadcasts, transmission, modulators, antennas, satellites, connections and all those things that can contaminate each other and display vulnerability to the way they receive and to how they are received. Tarde prefigured this move towards capture in his analysis of societies: social populations are tied together in a way that they are modulated by other individuals of the same kind - like cellular automata. Molecules are highly social, birds are very social, humans are less social because they capture signals from bacteria, the elements, their inner ecology etc - and these signals affect their rhythms. Planets are social to planets and large masses because few things outside the society of planets and large masses can affect them.

Capture is about rhythms - about entrainement and heterochrony. The more social a population is, less entrained by other, extra-social elements. Repetition gives rise to regularity and if what is repeated is tuned to the same signals, a regularity is maintained. I remember our house in Hove street, Brighton, where lived 4 women and only Mar was taking the pill. Mar entrained the menstrual cycle of all the others while she was entrained by extra-social elements. All this entrainement happen simultaneously. Simultaneity is the nature of chronos, the time of present: things happen at the same time in chronos, the hormonal processes, the digestive processes, the emotional processes, the social processes all at the same and this means all synchronizing each other. Entrainement is the mark of chronos - the mark of the density of the present. Now, events are entrained by the co-existing rhythms but also by the capacities of matter that can be thought in terms of its folds, the folding capacity of each thing. Entrainement is enabled by the capacity of something to fold in a way that the rhythm can be somehow acquired and modulation is possible. Folds and beats. Differences both in folds and in beats can always configure an overall difference - the folding capacities of my body enable my rhythmic entrainement and the folds I'm capable of doing. You could dance like me but have different folds responding to different beats.

Heterochrony, on the other hand, is the introduction of a different rhythm that will change this ontological jam session. This is where I find urges. But difference is tied to repetition - heterochrony comes from entrainement. I tried to explain the constitutive drift of repetition in my introductory class to Deleuze's D&R through Chinese Whisper. We do no more than repeat - and the drift is there. There are too many extra-social elements in the reception and in the transmission. These extra-social elements can be seen as micro-urges to which we are tuned. In fact, it is not about urges that (passive voice!) get recognized but rather about who capture them as such. All receptors are modulated in a matrix of differences and indifferences - a tick can be oblivious to a quake etc. The urge that is effective is the urge that is captured. Shocks and catastrophes are urges that everyone (in a population) captures. Something that intervened in the repetition and that comes from a synchronic process that is happening at the same time. Less sociality (in Tarde's sense) means greater vulnerability to urges. In a rigid society, nothing is taken as a disturbance because receptors are oblivious to where the disturbance could come (Tough Guys Don't Dance). To dance is to expose your antennas - to show what tunes you.


Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne