[D-G] Communism definitions Physics

discuss with text or post-media the universes of references associated
with deleuze and guattari.
Post Reply
User avatar
sylviajenepi
Site Admin
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:49 pm

[D-G] Communism definitions Physics

Post by sylviajenepi » Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:01 pm

hello Mike,


i am sorry i cannot answer asap with a text from Nick Land on socialism in
the USA
this would deserve some work of research from me.

in the meantime here is the posted text by Andrew Culp on today's Dank
Deleuze Guattari Facebook Group.

<< Many of these writers draw upon the 'empiricism' of a philosopher

whose thought will inform my own, alternative, approach: Gilles Deleuze.

The exact status of this empiricism is, however, a strong point

of contention within the secondary literature.

By his own definition, Deleuze uses a reworked version of philosophical

empiricism whereby 'empiricism is a philosophy of the imagination and not

a philosophy of the senses'. Demonstrating the importance of the
imagination,

he readily draws upon the literary works of the Anglo-American writers

to demonstrate its principles. In his strictly philosophical work,

it appears as the paradoxical formulation of a 'transcendental empiricism'

as a philosophical alternative to Kant's transcendental idealism,

in which the transcendental field is separated from its empirical givenness

to bypass the personal, individuated world of the subject.

In the recent secondary literature, many writers have departed

from the object-orientated camp by following Deleuze's claim that

this empiricism 'treats concept as object of an encounter'.

They clarify that Deleuze's empiricism is strictly concerned with

the real conditions of thought and thus fundamentally uninterested

in an empirical tracking of the habits of thought expressed in lived
experience [vécu].

Taking seriously Deleuze's separation of the transcendental form of

the empirical, these thinkers focus on concepts and not ethnography

or personal reflection ('for the data of empirical lived experience

doesn't inform thought about what it can do'). Shifting the focus

to concepts is part of their wider move to claim that

'there is no "ontology of Deleuze"'.

They appeal to Deleuze and Guattari's suggestion

in the introduction of A Thousand Plateaus to 'overthrow ontology'

by substituting what 'is' for Hume's ongoing series of interacting

exterior relations 'and...and...and...'. The philosophical consequence

of the concept-based approach is an engagement with the outside as a

relative exteriority beyond sensory givens. Interestingly,

this is also how Foucault defines the experience of thought.>>


§


here comes the definition by wikkipedia / google of surplus labor /
necessary labor


*Surplus labour* (German: Mehrarbeit) is a concept used

by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy.

It means *labour* performed in excess of the *labour necessary*

to produce the means of livelihood of the *worker* ("*necessary labour*").




§


and here comes SPINOZA's Ethics Book II Prop 7 Scolie (Trad.Génicot)


(tease out)(...)

<<Par exemple, un cercle existant dans la Nature et l'idée du cercle
existant,

laquelle est aussi en Dieu, sont une seule et même chose, qui s'explique
par des attributs différents; et ainsi,

que nous concevions la Nature soit sous l'attribut de l'Etendue, soit

sous l'attribut de la Pensée, soit sous quelque autre, nous trouverons un
seul et

même ordre, autrement dit une seule connexion des causes, c'est-à-dire les
mêmes choses

se suivant les unes les autres.(...)>> <<(Et lorsque j'ai dit) que Dieu est
cause de l'idée, par

exemple du cercle en tant seulement qu'il est chose pensante, et du cercle
en tant seulement

qu'il est chose étendue, ce n'est pour aucune

autre raison, sinon que l'être formel de l'idée du cercle ne peut être perçu

que par un autre mode de penser qui en est comme la cause prochaine,
celui-ci à

son tour par un autre, et ainsi à l'infini (...)>>


>> For instance, a circle existing in Nature, and the idea of the existing
circle, this idea being as well in God,

are each one single and same thing, explained away by different attributes;
and so, whether we conceive Nature either

under the attribute Extension, either under the attribute Thought, either
under any other attribute, so shall we find one single

and same order, that is one single connection of causes, that is the same
things following up each one another. (...)>>

(And when I say) that God is the cause of the idea, for instance of the
circle in that it is a thinking thing, and the cause of the circle

in that it is an extended thing, it is for no other reason, if not for the
formal being of the idea of the circle not to be otherwise perceived than by

another mode of thought which is to the circle as a next of kin cause, the
latter in turn to be perceived by another next of kin cause, and so ad
infinitum.(...)>>



-§- (as well) - § -


Eth. Book II Definitions III


<< - Par idée, j'entends un concept de l'Esprit, que l'Esprit forme parce
qu'il est une

chose pensante.


Je dis concept plutôt que perception, parce que le mot perception semble
indiquer que l'Esprit pâtit d'un objet,

tandis que concept semble exprimer une action de l'Esprit. >>


>>By idea, I understand a concept of the Mind, that the Mind forms because
it is a thinking thing.

I say concept rather than perception, because the word perception seems to
imply that the Mind suffers

from an object, whereas concept seems to express an action of the Mind.>>



///


Do you mean Mike Lansing in your post today that a worker in USA

or a worker in France have a different surplus labor?

I in any case am not sure of the definition offered by Google/Wikkypedia

( seek above) because it seems obvious that I work a lot, like at this
present moment, sending this message,

in a way which could be defined by either definition of necessary labor or

surplus labor, according to where we cut the Time Line and its encompassed
Vision.

Besides something is existing between the recipient(s) of the message and

the executive producer of the message. This produced thing is both real and
behaving and becoming with a neighbor: distance:

the same things (formal being) are to be found in

one single connection of causes. It grows or decreases. As such it is
perceived within a Ratio by the Mind. We could say that to cut Time Line is
trying to tease out a phase (ie. a partial object) instead than

a full concept. Yet Time does not exist. Time is a partial object or
partial concept. Extension exists but Time does not. The text by these
secondary Philosophers espousing in Andrew Culp's

vision of transcendental empiricism, this text shows this not: it cuts out
a part of reality (ironically

when we find on same Facebook group today Sam Bhag, the correspondent with
Andrew Culp, deals with the Winnicott partial objects in Three Ecology).

But the Vision or Ratio of the Time Line _can_ or _should_ exist.

It is part of Perception. A Perception as Concept, or as Action. A Sensible
Intensity that can be approximated

with another according to a certain Ratio. This Ratio belongs to the
Deleuzo-Foucaldian requisite of concept-based

approach (ie. 'a relative exteriority beyond sensory givens' ) because the
sensory given (or the sensory produced, when happily this event happens)

is always an Intensity, extension being the increase or decrease of a
formal being. The latter being affected

by positive affections, either sad or happy. So remains the question of the
collectivity . This is where Ethics come

involved within the definition of Marx's necessary or surplus labor. The
necessary labor requisite comes verified when the sensory comes produced
within

a necessary increase of the producers' sensibility. This happens when the
(Transcendental) formal being undoes the sadness of the struggle of its

conatus, which can in certain circumstances encompass ignorance of the
Transcendentality of its Being, or its Self-Re-flexion. When Narcissism
ends up with The vanishing Illusion of Inertia.

a Space-Time understood by its emotion(s): as surplus affection or
decreased affection(s) of the commune (notion) shared by channels or
attributes

of new other Space-Times. (ie Space-Time agents or patients) . The latter
can be given with 'conceptual exteriority' only within distance, ie.
within the Vision of increase or decrease of

interaction(s) taking the shapes, or ratios, of intensities.



Very Respectuously,


Johnny Petterson.


On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 6:45 PM Mike Lansing <badger2 at mail2world.com> wrote:

> We look forward to discourse from Nick Land or these other
> communist/post-communist philosophers because of the deadly democratic
> socialist thrust beginning to gather momentum inside the American
> rhizome. If Hardt and Negri are correct in stating that the pivot of
> socialism, the point at which it becomes impossible is necessary labor
> vs. surplus labor, then we must tease out differences between UK,
> France, Venezuela, U.S. from the confusion.
>
> 'On a January evening in 1934, approximately 6,000 Chicagoans gathered
> in the city's large Coliseum Hall to celebrate and remember Lenin. It
> was the kind of evening that brought out the complexities of Communism
> in the city. "In behalf of the American Communist Party," the main
> speaker declared, "I say that the one program which will bring unity to
> the American people is the program of Lenin." ....In a sense, this
> occasion honoring Lenin's memory had already begun the work of unifying
> American people across the lines of age, sex, ethnicity, and
> occupation. And yet Communists clearly had their work cut out for them.
> American Federation of Labor leaders, the speaker warned the crowd,
> equated Lenin's program with "a Russian program - not one for the
> United States."
> ....
> What did this diverse grouping of Chicagoans find relevant about Lenin
> and the Communist party? How are students of American history supposed
> to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory images: one of an
> organization that celebrated Soviet leaders, co-opted Soviet symbols,
> and embraced revolutionary Marxist-Leninist ideology, and on the other
> a somewhat popular American social movement comprised of a wide array
> of otherwise ordinary people?'
> (Storch R, Red Chicago: American Communism at Its Grassroots, 1928-35)
>
>

Post Reply