In the beginning of Deleuze and Guattari’s chapter on Geophilosophy, there is a frenzy of new assertions which appeared messy and troublesome to me. It seems helpful to dissect the beginning distinctions which are laid out. D & G state “thinking is neither a line drawn between subject and object nor a revolving of one around the other” (86). Clearly they are attempting to draw the distinction which has been made a focal point in philosophy since the early modern period – that between the observation and that which is observed. In shirking off this dichotomy, D & G are attempting to go past what have become familiar mainstays in philosophy. Instead, D & G believe that “thinking takes place in the relationship of territory and the earth” (85). This territory is constantly re-molding and shaping in accord with the contours of thought which are being deterritorialized – or rearranged and changed, destroyed, etc.
This alteration of the domain of thinking can be carried out in two ways, and is either relative or absolute in scope. Relative deterritorialization has as its object “the historical relationship of the earth with the territorites that take shape and pass away on it…” (88). This form of deterritorialization seems to be concerned primarily with connections between the tangible and actual in the world. On the other hand, deterritorialization is absolute when it crosses over, or extends into the conceptual plane of immanence. D & G state that an absolute deterritorialization entails that “the earth passes into the pure plane of immanence of a Being-thought…a Nature-thought of infinite diagrammatic movements” (88). In this moment, all the elements of the earth are somehow conferred upon this plane and thus help to re-invent the earth by giving the base from which a new world is posited. The words may make sense to me, however the conceptualization of this process is still difficult.
Yeah, still not quite clear on this concept either. It would help to clearly define terms but that doesn't seem to be their style. And I just found it odd that the earth is what they would choose to focus on. Why not culture or society or something?
ReplyDeleteRather than employing the language of the abstract, subject and object, it seems as though Deluze and Guattari have decided on distinctly visual imagery that relates to our real experience. I think it is helpful to take the language that Deluze and Guatttari seriously and to actively read the text as a descriptive narrative. In Geophilosophy “territory” and “earth” apply as formal surrogates to describe a classic problem yet give a new meaning. "Earth," seems to be a thoughtful choice, referring to a real space which that we as beings traverse. Yet, the course we take in this real space is unpredictable and thus can appear chaotic. Often we may become paranoid, feeling deceived by our intuitions and uncertain of whether or not this world actually exists. Still, sometimes we are at ease, able to make sense of what we are experiencing. This experience is a physical one, however “subject” and “object” seem to imply otherwise. When we travel as physical bodies we also travel as minds, able to identify, define, make sense of our experience of civilizations, constellations, ideas, “territories.” Thusly “earth” is referential of our experience of the world as a space in which “territories” are discernable. The conditions of “earth” are constituted in the constant movement of these “territories,” the shifting of ideas, the changing of power, the development and decline of nations. Thinking about these terms as not only referential but meaningful allow us to better envision the condensation and dispersion of concepts as the transformation of real thought and culture throughout history without necessarily applying a language of transcendence to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI take the imagery of ‘earth’ to be quite literal (i.e., earth as concrete societal, cultural, psychological, and even physical conditions to which humans are subject, not as dirt). Much of the chapter on geophilosophy takes on the task of explaining the relation between the emergence of Western philosophical thought and the societal conditions in ancient Greece. (They eventually determine that any explanation of this relation would be precluded by sheer contingency of the birth of philosophy occurring under these conditions; an exposition of why they think this would make for a great blog post). Much of D and G’s account of philosophy thus far has described a purely theoretical structure of thought and concept. Here, they seem to explore the relation between thought/concept and societies, the concrete world (e.g. earth) in which human beings actually live. They seem to be talking about philosophies relation to life, historically and as it is presently. Kant is praised for constructing a philosophy bedded in the Copernican revolution; modern philosophy is related to the emergence of capitalism. Clearly, thought is no longer something confined to the abstract. It’s grounded in the societal landscape. There is a connection between the abstract plane of immanence of concepts and concrete social conditions. Perhaps we can dig into what these relations are in class on Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction made between the types of deterritorialization (although quite interesting), seems to have significant implications concerning our present state of affairs. Deleuze and Guattari explain that, unlike the deterritorialization that occurs in states (which takes place through transcendence), the deterritorialization that occurs in cities take place through immanence (86). Absolute deterritorialization, which passes through into the pure plane of immanence, transforms the movements of relative deterritorialization and “pushes” them toward the absolute. D and G praise the capacity of the Greeks to invent an absolute plane of immanence and their ability to “summon forth a new earth, a new people” through this process (99). The French, the Germans, and the English, on the other hand, are criticized for lacking creation and their resistance to the present; these societies have “lost site of the plane of immanence” (104). If philosophy is partially reterritorialized on the Greeks in the past, it seems that these democratic states should strive to establish a plane of immanence through the use of absolute deterritorialization.
ReplyDelete