hey tony,
What is a chronophile? Motorcentrism? Does chronophile mean you are an
enthusiast of the time-image? (And MC = enthusiast of movement-image?)
Don't they happen at the same 'time' (or capture)? How can you have a
time-image that is not already a movement-image? Isn't it a question of
the modality of duration being captured? Post-war _whatever_ cinema
allowed for the capture of a different modality of duration? I really
don't know as I have not finished reading the Cinema books. (Yes, that
was a Auge joke... lol!)
>
> Let's assume I'm a chronophile. Wouldn't that be exactly the person D
would want to convince? otherwise, isn't he preaching to the achrono-
choir? I mean if you can't convince the people who disagree on a root
level, then what gives your theory its signficant intellectual weight?
How is it to produce significant real change in the world? if you're
only convincing those who already agree, then why wouldn't you be
considered intellectually unadventurous? Wouldn't any theory only be as
strong as its strongest opposition? Now, the claim could be made that a
chronophile is simply unconsciously subject to, let's say, motor-
centrism, and so is constitutively blinded to the truth of
chronocentrism. But even so, presumably again, the motor-centrist would
be the main guy to convince??
>
Your questioning the value of a piece as being determined by its
capacity for argument winning reminds me of this passage from _What is
Philosophy?_
"We pick out a quality supposedly common to several objects that we
perceive, and an affection supposedly common to several subjects who
experience it and who, along with us, grasp the quality. Opinion is the
rule of the correspondence of one to the other; *it is a function or a
proposition whose arguments are perceptions and affections*, and in
this sense it is a function of the lived. [...] This is the Western
democratic, popular conception of philosophy as providing pleasing or
aggressive dinner conversations at Mr Rortys. Rival opinions at the
dinner table -- is this not the eternal Athens, our way of being Greek
again? The three characteristics by which philosophy was related to the
Greek city were, precisely, the society of friends, the table of
immanence, and the confrontation of opinions. One might object that
Greek philosophers were always attacking *doxa* and contrasting it with
an episteme as the only knowledge adequate to philosophy. But this is a
mixed-up business, and philosophers, being only friends and not wise
men, find it very difficult to give up *doxa*." (144-145)
From what I can understand, Derrida argued there cannot be a
comprehension of the 'pure event' in language. There is always
slippage. To denote an event is to actualise it, and thus infinite
regression. Deleuze's conception of the pure event, and therefore
the 'concept', is different. But that is what The Logic of Sense is
for. Have you seen Foucault's review of LoS and D&R? I wish I had seen
it two bloody years ago: http://www.generation-
online.org/p/fpfoucault5.htm
From what I can tell, Deleuze's method in the Cinema books seems to be
different than in any other of his books. Perhaps this is just my
reading? I don't know. There is the creation of a concept (in two
parts: time- and movement-image respectively), but instead of
conceptualising it in such a way that renders it perpetually
problematic, he throws the concept back into the field from where it
came and creates more and more concepts. He is thinking *with* the film
makers as artists who have already done the work, so to speak. Similar
to _Kafka_ perhaps? So he is not dissecting cinema as much as using
cinema as a tool to dissect itself.
ciao,
glen.
--
PhD Candidate
Centre for Cultural Research
University of Western Sydney
Read my rants: http://glenfuller.blogspot.com/
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|
