Tag Archives: Gilles Deleuze

Compre Exam Review Notes and Updates #1: Zhang Yimou/Campos/D&G/

win_20170115_15_31_05_pro

DAY 1 Р3: REFERENCE HUNTING

With only a few days after the orientation last January 9, I spent my few days gathering all the book needed for the review. Very, very special thanks to Rose Roque for providing more than enough reading material for borrowing, especially the Philippine Cinema section. I also bought books available at the academic press. Thanks to mother and father for providing financial contribution for the references I bought. I still have other references to look for and book to photocopy. I managed to find other references in the web and have them printed right away. I will have access to other book tomorrow @ the library.

So far, I have 80% of the required literature reading and I am infinitely astounded by the volume of readings I have read. What more if this is a PhD exams? Can I survive? I enjoy theory a lot and I enjoy reading all these texts, but given the time pressure, it’s a torture. Let’s put it in numbers: 25 books in one month. The hell with it! Let’s read them all, even at lightning speed.

DAY 4: A Day with Zhang Yimou

011-raise-the-red-lantern-theredlist

JAN 14 (Sat) – I saw for the first time Zhang Yimou’s Raise the Red Lantern (1991), one of the required films for the comprehensive exams. It was astounding! The use of color red as a metaphor for so many things, but does it function only at the metaphorical level? The color red functions also as a cultural index and a territorial marker. I could go at length in discussing the geopolitics of red, and even implicate McKenzie Wark’s Molecular Red for odd reasons. Where am I going? But the¬†delirium and poststructuralist avowal of the color red in the film reactivates the politicization of the mise-en-scene. The mise-en-scene is at work here. ¬†More of writings on this in the next few days.

Day 5A: Campos and Crossings

On

Day 5B: C

Leave a comment

Filed under Academic Writings

Aleiatorytexts for Augustus

libary-babel

Borgesian library-Google Data Bank. (from here)

1. Each text is a construct: a reduction of thoughts’ pluripotentials into a well-arranged, grammatically sound signifying system. ¬†2. To arrange a text is to intervene in thought itself. 3. Hence, the arrangement of the texts in a hypertextual environment is a political act: a will to power is involved. 4. In this day and age of informational catastrophe, the author is self-aware of this text’s¬†complicity with the politics of the digital. 5. This act of hypertextual writing is preconditioned by another construct: an¬†assumption that there exist¬†an anonymous¬†individual X who will read the excess ‘i’ in the text’s title and wonder if it is something that the author of the text intends to typogrify.


 

Text 1.


Anti-Auteur
. I am currently developing a polemical piece that seeks to critically ‘deconstruct’ the tenets of auteurism tentatively entitled ‚ÄėParricide to the Auteur‚Äô. The seed idea came from my reading of Jacques Derrida‚Äôs book Of Hospitality where I encountered the radical word ‚Äėparricide‚Äô (a passage of which will be provided in a separate text below). Derrida dispenses the radical potential of a Foreigner as parricidal speculum¬†to the paternal logos. We commonly associate the logos¬†to¬†the rule of law, the central structuring force of all knowledge and discursive structures in the history of thought.

This parricide to the paternal logos is very much close to my developing polemic against the celebritification and mythologization of auteur in today’s film industry. In my developing study on Lav Diaz, I outwardly criticize the signifying logos of the auteur as all-encompassing concept to my philosophical investigation of the Diaz’s cinema’s relation to time.

In one of my papers submitted in Advance Film Theory and Criticism¬†class (Film 270) (view here), I proposed a reconfiguration of the author-function as inherently complicit with the passage of time. In a way, I was trying to re-envision Diaz as a continuing process of constitution and deconstitution, an assemblage of significations and many other things beyond his body. That, in the cultural sphere, he no longer exists as One body, but as a¬†continuous being-in-process¬†, a¬†becoming-in-transition. The massive circulation of texts within and outside the¬†stratifying machine of culture, the free play between signifier and signified, and asubjective ruptures surrounding his work, all of which¬†participate in the constitution and deconstitution of ¬†his ‚Äėbeing‚Äô, transforming him into a ‚Äėdifferential immanent object.’ ¬†To simply put it, ‚ÄėLav Diaz‚Äô no longer exists as purely as Diaz-in-himself but rather his body becomes¬†reconstituted and mediatized by informational, cultural and socio-political fields.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Notes

Intuition as a Method in Philosophy

Bibliographic Note: Deleuze, Gilles, Bergsonism, trans. by Hugh Tomlinson & Barbara Habberjam (New York: Zone Books, 1988), 13 – 35


My critical summary of Chapter 1 of Bergsonism. I provided my own examples apart from what Deleuze gave. This is an exercise in¬†making reflective memos, a tip I got from Raul Pacheco-Vega’s blog.


In Chapter 1 of his book entitled Bergsonism, Deleuze emphasized that intuition is a method of ‘precision’ that follows a set of ‚Äėstrict rules‚Äô. This is indeed counter-intuitive to what we usually think as ‚Äėintuition‚Äô. Intuition is not a gut feel;¬†neither it is the feeling that wins you over a bet or a game of luck. It is, for Bergson and also for Deleuze, a philosophical method, a decisive turn in a given duration or state of things. Intuition provides us precise ways of knowing and differentiating lived experiences and reality itself.

Deleuze wrote¬†that Bergson considers intuition as a simple act but this simplicity is accompanied by the act’s¬†involvement with the plurality of meanings and irreducible multiplicities in any given experience. The intuition as a method follows three rules:

  • Statement and creation of problems (a method of problematizing)
  • Discovery of genuine difference in kind (a method of differentiating)
  • Apprehension of real time (a method of temporalizing)

Intuition as a Method of Problematizing

Deleuze‚Äôs first criterion for the method of intuition is to ‚Äėapply the test of true and false to problems themselves. Condemn false problems and reconcile truth and creation at the level of problems.‚Äô

In philosophy, problematizing something i.e. an event, an object, a set of relations, is one of the first steps in drafting a philosophical proposition. Problems are always tied to philosophical concepts and percepts. Bergson (via Deleuze) proposes that it is not enough to state one’s problems accompanying a set of solutions. One has to discern or evaluate whether the stated problem is true or false. In order to do so one uses intuition as a method of qualifying and evaluating problem statements.

Continue reading

5 Comments

Filed under Notes

Six Plateaus of Separation from Gilles Deleuze

gilles_deleuze_2_hA personal account of my encounter with the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze. A work-in-progress. 

s

Pre-Figuring Deleuze in Figural Analysis

.

Before I proceed any further to¬†this blog project, I would like to take time in introducing my strange ‘friendship’ with Gilles Deleuze: a friendship¬†which involves “competitive distrust of the rival as much as amorous striving toward the object of desire…¬†claimant and rival.’[1] My admiration for Deleuze traverses between an¬†amorous¬†cohabitation¬†and a¬†rivalry. His philosophy, for the past two years, provided me enough space for thinking. His philosophy became my¬†place of residence, my living¬†abode, my overgrown garden where I could sit¬†every afternoon drinking tea. It is as if¬†each of his concept is¬†meaningfully placed in a space before¬†me, like objects in a toolshed –¬†a network of ideas sliding on top of¬†each other, ceaselessly transforming in each step of the way. Each concept is a friend, a tool, a¬†strange outgrowth.¬†Deleuze¬†easily¬†became a confidant, a keeper of my secrets, a giver of pathways.¬†Yet, one can never be too close to a friend.¬†A right amount of ‘rivalry’ or critical reading and admiration sets the friendship in motion. And for two years we have been¬†in¬†conversation, in continuous debate, which would often amount to a transformative becoming of each other. Am I talking sense here? Is it possible to be in ‘conversation’ with a dead philosopher for two years? Or am I talking about my undisclosed invisible friend named Gilles Deleuze? Well, my encounter with¬†Gilles Deleuze is real. The inscription of his philosophical ideas in my mind did not happen in¬†thin air. I read him. I read his books and wrote marginal notes on it. I also read him through¬†the books written by Deleuzian scholars. ¬†The encounter more or less is¬†real.

512HPSY4HKL._SX314_BO1,204,203,200_

Deleuze’s Wake: Tributes and Tributaries, part of SUNY’s Contemporary Continental Philosophy Series, was the first book I bought about Deleuze. It was written by Ronald Bogue, one of the early scholars of¬†Deleuze. I bought it when I was still an¬†undergraduate student in Chemical Engineering (2008-2009) from a¬†Booksale Bookstore¬†at North Avenue. Like many other books at home, it¬†laid¬†on my bookshelf for years. I did not know what¬†to do with it. It is a¬†philosophy¬†book¬†with a strange and unfamiliar language. I remember reading it six years ago confused with the words deterritorialization, asubjectification, refrains, affect, time-image, as if underneath each word lays¬†a secret world: a¬†dense vegetation waiting to be explored and uncovered. My nineteen-year-old self is not¬†enthusiastic enough to partake on a Deleuzian¬†journey.¬†So I left it on my bookshelf for years¬†to gather dust .

Continue reading

5 Comments

Filed under Notes

Tracing and Mapping Time

heremias

This is just a quick update on my research project. Some exploratory notes on the domain of research. 

My research project on Lav Diaz is becoming a rigorous cartographic project of existing literature exploring the domain of all possible and impossible fields that might actually play in dispensing and distilling the idea of cinema and time. It is unforgivable to perform cartographic sketch for a filmmaker coming from only one root or one guiding framework. Frameworks are arborescent structures. They are centric and centered on subjectivity and historical & cultural determination decreasing potentiality of the plane generative of pure events. The plane for this project must manifest as a empirical space for contending issues which includes not only the problematics of time and cinema but also the following: ontology of representation which dates back to Plato, emancipatory power of cinema , the author/auteur, affect and perception, spectatorship, political economy of time, ethics, the Other and the Minoritarian, digital era, etc.

After tracing and mapping ‘time’ from all¬†directions: from Rodowick (digital x time) to Flusser (post-history) to Bliss Cua Lim (postcolonialism x time) to Agamben (time vs. history) to Deleuze (who reads Bergson, Spinoza and Kant) to Guattari (transversality, ecology) to Derrida (time’s invisibility, differance, trace, critique of metaphysics of presence) to Massumi (perception x time), I am¬†now entering ¬†a differential passage.

  • Toni Negri for labour time
  • Bernard Stiegler for technology x time
  • Jacques Ranciere for¬†image x politics and his writing on Bela Tarr
  • Quentin Meillassoux for his¬†striking proclamation of ‘time as absolute’ in After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency‚Äč
  • Ray Brassier for relation of time to extinction
  • some contemporary writings on slow cinema (recently Justin Remes’ Motion(less) Pictures: The Cinema of Stasis)

The project is becoming a hyperplane, a manifold of intersecting discourses, which will eventually collapse into a field or a network of relations that would answer the question: What is the relationship of time and the film image? 

Time is the most difficult component of the project, while Diaz’s cinema remains as an object of philosophical and critical analysis. The relation of time and Diaz’s cinema¬†is¬†a difficult mix of philosophy and cinema studies.¬†I can, however, remain considerably ‘disciplined’ by focusing only on film studies aspect¬†reviewing and integrating only the¬†literature available within the film discipline along with extensive formal film analysis, generating a work of secondary literature. The¬†addition of¬†time as a component to the research¬†stretches the¬†domain¬†of¬†the project.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Blog Post

Cine-Philosophy?

A Moment Of Innocence by Mohsen Makhmalbaf - 015

A Moment of Innocence (Moshen Makhmalbaf / Iran / 1996)

Q: What is it like to move between cinema and philosophy?

By relation, they are not opposites. Nor can we define this movement as absence or presence of one another, as in the closer it is to cinema, the more it becomes an absence of philosophy or the closer it is to philosophy, the more obscure cinema becomes.  Instead, the movement must be conceived as a violent movement of thinking between the two disciplines. Thought bridges the two disciplines. It forms a plane where two disciplines co-exist, where the film image and its affects co-exists with concepts, where Orson Welles is adjacent to Baruch Spinoza, where a cinematographic cut can be thought off alongside with the concept of the panopticon.

Is this plane possible? Cine-philosophical plane is not separate from the real world. Well, it is real because, as we speak, it is being constructed in this text. This hypertext participates and collaborates in the signification of its unstable and fleeting existence in this world. It exists not because we believe in it, but because its expressible intensities, the words ‚Äėcinephilosophical plane‚Äô and its expressivity emitted by several LED components of your screen is within ‚Äď and this is where philosophy kicks in ‚Äď the order of the visible, the sensible, the perceptible, the expressible. Its visibility, its signifying movement in the digital plane, its inscription in the global network of information called the internet as pixilated bits grants its mobility and existence in the world.

The question: is the ‚Äėcine-philosophical plane‚Äô fiction or real? is no longer important. Because as we speak, the movement of the fictive layer of our world: God, the Virgin Mary, the Terminator, Neo of the Matrix, String theory, Harry Potter is already at work more than ever. Each is deployed at various intensities, each affects us in an incorporeal manner ‚Äď in other words, we are moved even by fiction. It is very hard to think of the real world divorced from fictions. Social scientist Bruno Latour theorized that the effect of incorporeal and corporeal events are very much alike but differ in their intensities of affectation. As Levi Bryant puts it ‘the incorporeal and corporeal realms are equally capable of having effects on the world.’[1] Cinema and literature, and even music, are not divorced from these fictions. In fact, they feed from it. They are industries of fictions and incorporeal intensities, which move us beyond the ordinary banal world we experience. They create new worlds, new modes of thinking, new sensations, most of which cannot be captured by the vapidity and simplicity of the real world. And this is where the ‚Äėcine-philosophical plane‚Äô reside, as a between-plane between two plateaus of discourse: the first one, cinema, a plateau of affects, percepts, sensations and the second one, philosophy, a plateau of concepts and relations.

For cinephiles, filmmakers and even film scholars, the common misconception of cinephilosophy is that it is field where cinema can be conceived as a philosophy, or in other variants, in order to conceive a film, one must consult philosophy: ‚ÄúI must apply Marxism in this film. I must apply Freud‚Äôs Interpretation of Dreams. I must show the idea of Baudrillard‚Äôs simulacra.‚ÄĚ Miguel de Beistegui, reiterating Deleuze‚Äôs famous talk on philosophy and art in 1987 entitled ‚ÄėWhat is the Creative Act?‚Äô, that artists and scientists ‚Äėdo not need the help of philosophers to reflect on their respective field: the only ones who can adequately reflect on mathematics are the mathematicians themselves, on film the filmmakers, etc.‚Äô [2]

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy