Skip to main content

Problems and processes

Deleuze found in differential equations a key to conceive of difference independently of syncategorematic operation of negativity. I think we can understand his trouble with negativity - and therefore contradiction (and, to some extent, contrariety) by considering Blanchot's insistence that denying something is already bringing what is denied to the fore. Negation - and any syncategorematic operation - preserves content (for instance, preserves the constituting propositions). Difference has to operate in a more internal level, in a somehow genetic level - it's got to do with genes and chromosomes or with clinamens that Deleuze (in D&R) takes to be not merely a deviation of the orbit of an atom, but rather what gives rise to the orbit and the movement of the atom. Difference is a drift from something produced not by an external intervention but rather by a modulation - it deals in continuities. Hence, differential calculus instead of propositional logic. Then the issue arrises as to what is the ontological status of those folds, those small differends, those tiny contituents - the infinitesimals or, rather, the differentials.

Deleuze doesn't want to merely incorporate infinitesimals to ontology - or to mathematics, in the manner of Robinson's non-standard analysis. Or, rather, he won't be prepared to do it before his 1988 book on Leibniz. In any case, he doesn't want to merely assume an infinitist ontology as that would mean, as it somehow does in Leibniz, envisaging a landscape of differentials that would be the ultimate identities - difference would be redeemed at the infinitesimal level. He rather wants to start out with difference - and not with differential (differential entities). This is where the problematic is brought up. Those differentials exist within the scope of problems - they are brought to the fore whenever a further difference is required. It is not that we could spot all the differentials if we had enough capacity of capture - like determinations that are there but we sometimes cannot see. The differentials are brought up (instaurés) by the problems. Those infinitesimals are built in the process, there is no archaic repository of differences from which we elaborate concepts and develop organisms built with matrixes of differences and indifferences. Differences are themselves sponsored by processes. Deleuze understands these processes in terms of his dialectics of the problematic - problems bring up differences, differentials. Here again, clausure and capture could seem sometimes very close: it is a matter of whether there is a world before the monads or rather the monads constitute the world. Capture is clausure inside-out. Problems are instances where not only a matrix of differences and indifferences is built but where differentials themselves are brought about. The various physical, biological, social processes produce and sustain differences as actants navigate in the space of problems. (Compare this process philosophy of problems with Latour's one of tests of force.)


  1. It seems that in DR differences have to do with production and not with induction, deduction, abduction or any kind of representational nexus. Differences aren’t reducible to identity, substance or object-oriented operations. Processes (=material production), are mediated by differences, and not the other way around (as in differences thought of as structuring input or as structured byproduct of processes). Real differences are producing differences, not structural ones, and so processes are differentially mediated by themselves: i.e. transcendental problems that reformulate themselves as they are solved. Deleuze’s process philosophy, as we might well say today, is an object-disoriented philosophy. And I guess his ontology (as required by D&G’s materialist psychiatry), a partial-object-oriented one.

  2. I like partial-object oriented and object disoriented! Hehehe.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Necropolitics and Neocameralism

It is perhaps just wishful thinking that the alt-right seemingly innovative and intrepid ideas will disappear from the scene as Trump's reign comes to an end. They have their own dynamics, but certainly the experiences of the last years, including those in the pandemics, do help to wear off their bright and attractiveness. Neocameralism, what Mencius Moldbug and Nick Land with him ushered in as a model of post-democracy that relinquish important ingredients of the human security system, is one of these projects that is proving to be too grounded in the past to have any capacity to foretell anything bright beyond the democratic rusting institutions. It is little more than necropolitics - which is itself a current post-democratic alternative. Achile Mbembe finds necropolitics in the regimes were warlords take over the state-like institutions (or mimick them)  to rule on the grounds of local security having no troubles killing or letting die whoever is in their path. Neocameralism pos