The Plane of Immanence

"Thinking provokes general indifference.

It is a dangerous exercise nevertheless. Indeed, it is only when the dangers become obvious that indifference ceases, but they often remain hidden and barely perceptible, inherent in the  enterprise. Precisely because the plane of immanence is pre-philosophical and does not immediately take effect with concepts, it implies a sort of groping experimentation and its layout resorts to measures that are not very respectable, rational or reasonable.These measures belong to the order of dreams, of pathological processes, esoteric experiences, drunkeness and excess.

We head for the horizon, on the plane of immanence, and we return with bloodshot eyes, yet they are eyes of the mind.

Even Descartes had his dream. To think is always to follow the witch's flight....danger takes on another meaning: it becomes a case of obvious consequences when pure immanence provokes a strong, instinctive disapproval in public opinion, and the nature of the created concepts strengthens this disapproval.

This is because one does not think without becoming something else, something that does not think--an animal, a molecule, a particle--and that comes back to thought and revives it.

The plane of immanence is like a section of chaos and acts like a sieve. In fact, chaos is characterized less by the absence of determinations than by the speed with which they take shape and vanish.  This is not a movement from one opinion to the other but on the contrary, the impossibility of a connection between them, since one does not appear without the other having already disappeared, and one appears as disappearance when the other disappears as outline. Chaos makes chaotic and undoes every consistency in the infinite.The problem of philosophy is to acquire a consistency without losing the infinite into which thought plunges...

To give consistency without losing anything of the infinite...."

"What is Philosophy?'

    DELEUZE & GUATTARI

Comments

[Barnaby]

Ouch

[melissa]

hehe... its similar to the logic of like... abstract art, as opposed to like... realist art perhaps. There is something at work here that lies in between the space of recognition and warpness.. there lies the power of its ontology... it has an energy which 'does' something material... like 'ouch'.

great picture btw:)

[Barnaby]

That'a Deleuze himself - sounds like a pretty cool guy... Wish I could understand what the hell he's talking about.

http://www.egs.edu/resources/deleuze.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze