Ray's questions return us to the substance, as I recall, of Andrew 
Murphie's reflections - so long ago...

Ultimately, Deleuze begins from the hypothesis that cinema has 
witnessed a shift from the dominance of the 'movement-image' towards 
that of the 'time-image' since, roughly, the end of WW2. This shift 
parallels what has been called, by Prigogine, the 'rediscovery' of time 
in C20th philosophy and science. However, what characterises this 
return is that the traditional - Aristotelian - means of 
conceptualising the phenomenon of time is inadequate (as Heidegger 
argues), or, from the perspective of science, Newtonian conceptions are 
similarly inadequate.

Deleuze's aim, in the Cinema volumes, is in part to develop the 
conceptual means to think time anew, and, simultaneously, to develop a 
means for analysing temporal representation in film. His resource for 
doing so is Bergson. Specifically, Bergson's displacement of the 
Aristotelian concept pair potentiality [dynamis] and actuality 
[energia] with the concept pair virtuality/actuality. The relevance of 
differential calculus to this lies in the fact that it provides a means 
for formalising the relation between virtual and actual, and more 
basically, of providing an 'ontology of the virtual'.

Deleuze may not think that all of this is true, but nothing he has 
written leads me to think that he is not sincere in what he proposes.

2 points therefore: first, Deleuze's work does seem to me to provide a 
new means for understanding the way that time functions in the medium 
of film, a medium which Tarkovsky describes filmaking as sculpting in; 
second, to what extent do S & B's criticisms affect the grounds 
of Deleuze's Bergson-interpretation, and hence of of his reflections on 
cinema?

With regard to this latter point, & Ray's second letter: I don't really 
think Rodowick has fully grasped the basics of what Deleuze is talking 
about, hence the rather strange claims which you rightly call into 
question. On the other hand, the new way of thinking about time which 
Deleuze is trying to develop strives to accord priority to the 
differential aspect of temporality and our temporal experience rather 
than that of continuity. I believe that it is the obligation to account 
first and foremost for the continuity of time, and only difference 
derivatively, which bedevils Aristotle's attempts to give a coherent 
account of the 'now' in Physics IV.xi-xii. As Carl Boyer notes in his 
History of the Theoretical Development of the Calculus, it would have 
been a surprise, to say the least, to Aristotle and his contemporaries, 
were they to have found out that the mathematical-logical ground of 
continuity is in fact separation, as evidenced by the Dedekind cut...

However, in order that Deleuze achieves his objectives, he needs a 
means of thinking difference which neither interprets it as the mere 
negation of identity nor as something which can be recuperated in the 
manner of the Hegelian 'Aufhebung'. *One* resource for doing so is the 
differential calculus. For this reason, I am tempted to think that in 
fact the 'correctness' of Deleuze's interpretation of the calculus is 
indeed of importance, for error at this level would undoubtedly 
undermine the effectiveness of the attempt to provide the new 
conception of temporality which Deleuze is proposing.

So, not yet necessarily 'right in itself', though the project seems to 
me to be unquestionably important. As to the relevance to cinema - I 
can only rely on 'empirical evidence' here, namely the fact that for 
the last few years I have been teaching a graduate seminar on 
philosophy, time and film, and my students have regularly found 
Deleuze's work the most helpful in thinking about the way in which film 
is a temporal medium, how time is represented in film, and perhaps most 
importantly, how film may force us to reconsider our philosophical 
assumptions about the nature of time.

Robin Durie
Lecturer in Philosophy
Staffordshire University
UK

On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:33:15 +0100 Ray Monk <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Listmembers,
> 
> I am new to this list & I have been following with interest the arguments
> for and against the attempted debunking of Deluze's use of mathematical and
> physical terms by Sokal & Bricment & it has prompted me to ask the
> following, perhaps rather naive, question:
> 
> Let us suppose that Sokal & Bricment are wrong and that Deleuze's
> understanding of mathematical and physical terms & ideas is entirely sound
> & his use of them entirely responsible. Let us further suppose that
> everything Deleuze says about perception, consicousness, time-intervals,
> continuity, etc., etc., is not only coherent but adds up to a theory that
> is as well-founded as a scientific theory can be.
> 
> Then, my question is this: would this well-founded, coherent and
> wide-ranging theory do anything to improve our understanding of movies? If
> so, what?
> 
> Ray Monk




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%