>Dear Ted,
>
>thanks for your reply. I thought you had given up the fray!
Tenacity is my tendency, some would say bloody-minded obstinancy, like the
knight in Monty Python film who insists on going on fighting when limbless
- but I haven't even lost a digit yet :-)
>And for
>those who don't want to wade through my reply I would be interested in a
>general discussion about such issues as perception and differentials,
>etc in relation to film (the differential as a way of describing various
>'limits' between conscious and unconscious, frame and out of frame,
>across cuts, etc).
Wow "differential" sounds impressive ! "A way of describing..." what way
of describing ? What "limits" (and what does that mean - in a
non-mathematical way ?) between the conscious and the unconscious - has
anyone determined what these are exactly ? Or did Freud or Lacan make some
of their dogmatic assertions about this and thus supposedly settle it ?
>It might be fruitful ground for those into the
>cognitive, the psychoanalytic, Deleuzeans and beyond, especially if we
>disagree!
Well most of this stuff is so vague, confused, obscure that it would be as
difficult to know what one was disagreeing about as agreeing about.
Don't you have anything important to do - apart from failing students ? :-)
>In the meantime - my reply to Ted...
>
>* Your one big problem in claiming I haven't read the book<
There you go - do try to get right what YOU have said at least - I don't
"claim" you haven't tread the book, I quoted YOU SAYING you hadn't. This
sort of thing does cast doubt on your other arguments.
>is that I
>only deal with the D and G section - which I have, in fact, read. (This
>didn't take lond as I had read most of it before - in D and G's own
>books - these guys must have paid a fortune in copyright - or should
>have). I make no claims about the rest of the book and never have (ok -
>well nothing substantial apart from a bit of mudslinging).
More fudging - don't sling mud at what you haven't read.
And, as I showed, you got the chapter you claim to have read wrong in
significant ways.
>Quoting from
>the intro and so on does not help the poverty of the D and G chapter. I
>quite carefully looked at the percentage of quoted material and
>commentary in this chapter (because I was astounded) and it was around
>85-95% quoted material. Then again, it was a long time ago and I stand
>to be corrected - but that's how I remember it (you can do the basic
>empirical study yourself if that's what you're into - you've got the
>book - how much of this chapter *is* quoted material?).
This emphasis on quantitative measurement as a basis of judgments of
quality is odd; it is possible to refute a book with a sentence if what it
contains is relevant, true and contradicts the entire basis of the book.
In fact the book is intended to be a kind of compendium - of D&G's etc
misuse of scientific and mathematical terminology. It started with Sokal's
research for his spoof article; the book provides more examples, briefly
analysed or commented on, while several other chapters go into some of the
more general issues raised.
>
>* You quote the pretty much the only attempt at real critique the two
>make in this *whole* chapter (re the differential), although they domake
>a few other jibes, it's true.
Fudging again, "pretty much the only" - becomes "a few others" too,
"jibes" is your term and inaccurate for their pointed if brief comments and
many references.
>As I said I was hoping for more critique
>rather than less and frankly I could do a better job on D and G myself
>than Sokal and Bricment.
Judge them on what they said they were doing, not what you think they
should have done.
>
>* As far as the comments that I criticise Sokal and co for merely
>writing "see how silly this all this" or equivalents after most of the
>material they quote and then say something similar myself - give me a
>break.
But then they didn't just say what you claimed, but you did do what I claimed.
>I'm not selling these emails or making anything like the claims
>that Sokal and Bricment do. This is an email. If you want to read my
>articles (obviously you won't - one includes a longish use of the
>differential material for a start) go ahead.
I think one should defend (if meant seriously) what one writes whether it's
in an e-mail or an article.
>
>* What I meant by Deleuze's use of the term "differential" in a
>'non-mathematical way' was that Sokal and Bricment criticise Deleuze for
>using the term in a non-mathematical way. This seems, in fact, the basis
>of all their criticisms.
They don't and, as I pointed out, it isn't.
>Yet Deleuze himself points out that he is using
>the term differently. What he writes is "there is a treasure buried
>within the old so-called barbaric or pre-scientific interpretations of
>the differential calculus.. a great deal of heart and a great deal of
>truly philosophical naivety is needed in order to take the symbol dx
>seriously" (Difference and Repetition:170). He then goes on to point out
>that even Kant and Leibniz wouldn't have gone along with him . You might
>critique the project here, but not on Sokal's basis that he doesn't seem
>to realise the problems have been solved in mathematics. This is
>obviously not what he is concerned with. He certainly isn't ignorant of
>the fact that he is proposing a different use of the term. As for
>d'Alembert, it's true that I'm no scientist but nevertheless, let's play
>failed student and suggest -
>
>Isn't the reason for a rigourous notion of limit in differential
>calculus precisely that, outside of pure mathematics. i.e. in
>philosophy, "the differential risk falling into the abyss of the
>infinitely small", as Deleuze writes. I would love to be corrected on
>this - seriously! It would assist my work greatly to read a full
>critique of these ideas. So please respond - this is important to all
>theories of perception (or is it not - again I stand to be corrected)
>and might start another interesting strand on this list (calling all
>cognitive scientists!).
Ah, now the humble seeker after truth huh ? :-) Why don't you provide a
clear statement of what you think is meant by such stuff and how it relates
to perception in ways that are illuminating for film philosophy.
>
>* Let's now move to the actual major criticism as you quote it -
>
>"Here D &G recycle, with a few additional inventions (infinite speeds,
>chaotic virtual), old ideas of Deleuze's that originally appeared in the
>
>book Michel Foucault judged 'among the greatest of the great',
>Difference and Repetition. At two places in this book, Deleuze discusses
>classical
>problems in the conceptual foundations of differential and integral
>calculus... These problems were solved by the work of d'Alembert around
>1760 and Cauchy around 1820, who introduced the rigourous notion of
>limit - a concept that has been taught in all calculus textbooks since the
>middle of the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, Deleuze launches into a long
>and confused meditation on these problems, from which we shall quote just a
>few characteristic excerpts:..." p. 151
>
>What is their criticism here?
>- that Deleuze discusses classical problems and that these have been
>solved? I have dealt with this above, although Deleuze goes on to give a
>history of the problem in *philosophy*. The major philsopher discussed
>in one section is Bordas-Demoulin (1843). Here Deleuze is quite
>deliberately using some relatively old ideas to get at a philosophical
>series of problems. He quite clearly sees the difference between these
>older ideas and the present. What does Deleuze say about him? -
>
>"In this respect, Bordas is already close to the modern interpretation
>of calculus: the limit no longer presupposes the ideas of a continuous
>variable and infinite approximation. On the contrary, the notion of
>limit grounds a new, static and purely ideal definition of continuity,
>while its own definition implies no more than number, or rather, the
>universal in number..." (Diff and Rep:172)
And what illumination do you gather from this of relvance to film
philosophy ? Please explain, I'd really like to know myself.
>
>There's no assumption of groundbreaking in maths here. Indeed Deleuze
>quite clearly reconceptualises this both within history and within
>philosophy, as against even modern assumptions. Nevertheless, if someone
>wants to rip this to pieces I'd be seriously glad to hear it.
To do so one one first have to be clear about what's being said and why we
need this excursion into the philosophy of maths, which some people who
actually have expertise in the area (unlike most film philosophers) find
confused and pointless.
> In
>particular I'm interested in the differential as a way of registering
>perceptual operators (like those between conscious and unconscious, in
>frame and out of frame, Deleuze even goes on to talk about the : cut"
>here and I wonder how useful this material would be in approaching the
>cinema books).
I wonder too, you repeat what you said above and it's no more clear that
you understand these terms or how they might usefully apply to film
philosphy, or even whether they can be defined clearly so that people at
least know what they are arguing about.
>
>What's Sokal and Bricment's critique, beyond the fact that Deleuze is
>out of date scientifically? - "Deleuze launches into a long and
>confused meditation on these problems, from which we shall quote just a
>few
>characteristic excerpts:...". So Deleuze is *long* and *confused*. The
>trouble here of course is that though Deleuze *may* be confused, but
>without further argument the reader, unless a disciple, is left to
>conclude that Deleuze might just be confusing Sokal and Bricment - i.e.
>they may be confused.
I see, when they quote a lot it's too much and when they don't it's not
enough. They make their points by examining a few examples, quoted at some
length. They give an explanation of most of their criticisms, clearly it
might take a whole book to fully analyse even one of D's turgid chapters.
>Then, of course, they run off for a few more
>extraordinarily lengthy quotes (and I'm sorry Ted - the way they quote
>in this chapter is ludicrous, I'll leave the rest of the book to you -
>maybe they're great on Kristeva and the rest - I for one will never know
>but that's my loss!).
See above.
>* As for the charge that I have missed the fact that Sokal and Bricment
>are only against extrapolations from one field to the other 'without
>argument', the above should serve to answer.
Which is a direct contradiction of your earlier claim that they are against
any extrapolation.
>They simply don't seem to
>read the arguments provided in D and G's work caefully at all.
Again pretty rich coming from you. The detail of their references suggests
otherwise.
>Deleuze's
>arguments for doing this may be wrong but at least he has some. Sokal
>and Bricment don't seem to bother that much really when they travel in
>the opposite direction (i.e. we are going to point out how these
>philosophers get scientific terms wrong on the basis of science...??!)
They say if they're presented as science but used wrongly they'll criticise
that and if they are used non-scientifically but with no clear redefinition
of scientific terms they criticise that.
>* My point about 'chaos' was not, of course, about D and G's use of the
>term. It was about science's extrapolation of the term from other realms
>of thought and, in fact, what amounts to an almost complete reversal of
>the sense of the term. This is, of course, a very useful reversal. The
>point is simply that terms change when they move from field to field.
Had you read S & K you would know they have no problem with that.
>The fact that S and B admit that D and G are using the term
>non-scientifically has nothing to do with my argument here.
>Incidentally, much as I'm not necessarily up with the latest on
>differential calculus (no thanks to S and B) I do understand chaos
>theory - I have read D and G on this issue extensively and they do
>understand it - quite amazingly they are even able to play with the term
>- they can use it scientifically and philosophically, sometimes both at
>the same the time...!
LOL yes and probably three other ways too.
It would help if you read what I wrote and quotations I provide too, then
either agree or disagree but don't just it gnore it:
As for chaos:
"Let us note in passing that the word 'chaos' is not being used here [by
Deleuze and Guattari] in its usual scientific sense (see Chapter 7 above),
although, later in the book, it is employed without comment also in this
latter sense." (and a lot more detailed criticism relating to chaos and
they give precise references, unlike Murphie), pp.146-7.
Show me ONE way in which differential calculus is relevant and illuminating
for film philosophy, or philosophy in general for that matter.
>Still, if there's going to be a serious debate about such issues as
>perception and differentials, etc in relation to film then I'm in. It
>would be fruitful ground for those into the cognitive, the
>psychoanalytic, Deleuzeans and beyond.
Then start it by making some clear statements about it, ones we poor D&G
deficient mortals can understand.
>"I can't go on... I'll go on.."
You do go on, but you just keep going back and covering your tracks then
not getting very far forward.
>"I thought I had reached port; but I seemed to be cast
>back again into the open sea" (Deleuze and Guattari, after Leibniz)
Probbaly drank too much port and felt all at sea - so left their readers
there too.
Cheers, Ted
Ted Welch Lecturer in history and theory of the media and webmaster
School of Communication, Design and Media, University of Westminster,
London, UK
http://www.wmin.ac.uk/media
web designer of http://www.frontlinetv.com
http://www.wmin.ac.uk/media/aij (Association of Investigative Journalists)
"Truth Matters" Noam Chomsky
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
