This article examines Gilles Deleuze’s concept of the simulacrum, which Deleuze essential Platonic distinction, Deleuze argues, is more profound than the. Deleuze’s essay Plato and Simulacrum attempts to reverse the the Platonic influence dominating in the philosophy/sophistry dichotomy. How might we. The Simulacrum according to Gilles Deleuze By George Konstantinidis Some was the dream of Deleuze’s cinema books.1 According to Deleuze, in Plato’s.
|Published (Last):||25 May 2010|
|PDF File Size:||9.19 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.4 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Reason is the black widow in the delejze of time. Spiderlike sufficient reason allows nothing to escape its dark power. Even the infinite cannot escape the grasp of this deadly creature, the venomous touch of reason kills everything within its purview, and like its dark precursor dissolves even the smallest elements into the acid bath of its formidable categories: Representation is the disease of time, the cracked wand of a dead wizard whose power is dispersed among the broken vessels of light scattered to the four corners of the universe.
Like ministers platl a dead god our philosophers and scientists serve a Master illusionist, a sorcerer who has hoodwinked them all into believing in the power of the mind to capture reality in a box, when in truth the Real is the wilderness that can never be captured by thought. In Hegel the game was rigged from the outset, the player and the played were bound to the curve of sufficient reason and clarity all along, and the touted power of this method was bound to a monocentric system of circular ratios that left no doubts giples chance and necessity.
Do not be fooled by those others who offer you the incompossibility of the world, either.
Between compossibility and incompossibility there is no true connection or reversal, the former is not reducible to the identical, and the latter is not reducible to contradiction. Representation may be infinite, but it has no positive power to decenter or diverge from the repetitions of the Same.
Caught in its own infinite loop it repeats itself ad infinitum like some clockwork god whose sole purpose is to subdue its own ouroboric horizon.
Underlying his critique of Hegel and Leibniz is the ever present thought of Nietzsche, the subterranean current of its genealogical movement. Of the two, Leibniz seems to fair best, for as Deleuze remarks:. His conceptions of the Idea as an ensemble of differential relations and singular points, the manner in which he begins with the inessential and constructs essences in the form of centres of envelopment around singularities, his presentiment of divergences, his procedure of vice-diction, his approximation to an inverse ration between the distinct and the clear, all show why the ground rumbles with greater power in the cast of Leibniz, why the intoxication and giddiness are less feigned in his case, why obscurity is better understood and the Dionysian shores are closer.
Deleuze asks the question: What motivated the subordination of difference to the requirements of finite or infinite representation? As with everything in Deleuze we return to the spider-man, Plato, who began it all anyway. One should slow down and listen carefully to Deleuze at this point, study the movement of his logic, his method of teasing out the intricate layers of Platonic discourse that have down through the history of philosophy invaded the very core of its representational theories.
Let us start here and see what we can:. It is correct to define metaphysics by reference to Platonism, but insufficient to define Platonism by reference to the distinction between essence and appearance. Now what if Ideas had a shape, a structure that stretched across time? There are two ways to think of this in an analogous way: On the other hand within Eastern traditions the obverse effect comes about: In the long history of representation the enemy has always been the simulacrum which always undermined the dichotomy between essence and appearance, the real and its negation.
An image without a model, lacking that crucial dependence upon resemblance or similitude, the simulacrum is a false claimant to being which calls into question the ability to distinguish between what is real and what is represented. The simulacrum also disturbs the order of priority: For Deleuze the copy is an image endowed with resemblance, the simulacrum is an image without resemblance.
God made man in his image and resemblance.
Through sin, however, man lost his resemblance while maintaining the image. We have become simulacra. The simulacrum is not a degraded copy. It harbors a positive power deleuzr denies the original and the copy, the model and the reproduction. At least two divergent series are internalized in the simulacrum— neither can be assigned as the original, neither as the copy…. There is no longer any privileged point of view except that of the object common to all points of view.
There is no possible hierarchy, no second, no third….
It was out of this logic of the simulacrum that Jean Baudrillard would push it to its final limits in a totalistic nihilism that would at once disperse its power and forgo any movement into the Dionysian seething maelstrom. To this murderous capacity is opposed the dialectical capacity of representations as a visible and intelligible mediation of the plafo. All of Western Faith and good faith was engaged in this gills on representation: Another denizen of the simulacra was the science fiction Philip K.
Not what it appears. The key linking 1 and 2 is: Here is where I went wrong: So to me it is epistemology which is involved: Again and again I attempt to formulate criteria for what is simuladrum and what is not fake, in every area. From a comic book to a world leader to a girl friend to an entire universe. It has to do with reality testing, which is related to another theme of mine: Blood Money, The Simulacra, Clans. So virtually all of my writing interlocks at this substratum.
Here I quote in full the final movement from Difference and Repetition of this particular post regarding the problematique of Platonism:. The primary distinction which Plato rigorously establishes is the one between the model and the copy.
The copy, however, is far from a simple appearance, since it stands in an internal, spiritual, noological and ontological relation with the Idea or model. While there is indeed appearance, it is rather a matter of distinguishing the splendid and well-grounded Apollonian appearances from the other, insinuative, malign and maleficent appearances which respect the ground no more than the ground.
This Platonic wish to exorcize simulacra is what entails the subjugation of difference. Edinburgh Philosophical Guides, University of Michigan Press February 15, 4. Open Court October 17, 5. The Exegesis of Philip K.
Dick Kindle Locations Critical Terms for Art History, ed. Nelson and Richard Shiff. University of Chicago Press, Accelerating toward the end of my project I find everything sucked into its wake.
Fiction is a kind of simulacrum without an original. Even a poem, a textual object made out of words, tends to trigger in the reader — or in me, anyhow — the nearly instinctive attempt to make sense of it, to find its meaningful referents.
What seems equally hard to eeleuze is turning even non-representational artworks or incompossible fictions into representations of the world outside of themselves.
So an incompossible text is read as pointing beyond itself metaphorically to the inchoate and infinite potentialities of the world and of the imagination, etc. Yes, in that sense writing is already bound to a frame, Book, Essay, etc.
The whole ideas of subverting this of providing actions theory and action practices to move to the side of this frame and produce both relays and networks that would deterritorialize without returning it to a hierarchical system reterritorialized.
In some ways what Philip K. Dick was doing with his use of the gnostic metaphor and insanity metaphorics was an attempt to subvert representational techniques. There was always that fine line between schizophrenia and schizoanalyis in his own work he admitted issues and concerns.
I see pointers in this direction. There is always an edge between comprehensibility and incomprehensibility in these works, of what is composible and imcompossible.
Even the work between Deleuze and Guattari were experiments in this direction… I think that if we escaped Reason and Representation altogether we would be forming alternative worlds with new ways of being….
Yet, being unable to renter the halls of reason and communicate to us their worlds in our terms we lock them away and isolate them from the rest of society. Maybe one day they will lock us away instead….
The emptiness of asylums…. These groups are divisible, manifold, permeable, and always optional. No, the guy over there, and that guy, and you, and all these others, their the ones writing this. You are commenting using your WordPress.
You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Of the two, Leibniz seems to fair best, for as Deleuze remarks: Let us start here and see what we can: Here I quote in full the final movement from Difference and Repetition of this particular post regarding the problematique of Platonism: Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Email required Address never made public.
Post was not sent – check your email addresses! Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.