Ugh.
Ok, I made it through most of this and was able to absorb a very small amount. I often found my mind wandering while my eyes ran over the words. However, I think I found a section that deals with what Peter was asking us to look for (not that I found it particularly clear).
In The Folds In The Soul, Deleuze gets heavy into mathematical language in talking about "inflection," or the fundamental component (the atom) of a fold. He breaks it down into three types, vectorial (symmetrical/orthogonal/tangential), projective (defined by hidden parameters), and infitely variable (like fractals).
Ok, I think I'm following.
He then goes into irrational numbers, talks about limits (yay Calculus!), and then I get a bit lost again.
"When mathematics assumes variation as its objective, the notion of function tends to be extracted, but the notion of objective also changes and becomes functional."
I'm looking forward to reading someone else.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think this was meant for the blog and not a reply email. Either way, I thought it was worth including in the discussion:
Ok, good. It is difficult, yes. But you've hit on one point: namely the operational nature of mapping a function on to a function. Keep in mind that this mobility of numerical operation is contrasted with two other conditions, namely the stasis of the Cartesian grid and the similarly the tradition of mathematics up until Leibniz in which numbers are treated as discrete, that is, static objects. Calculus changes this sense of a numerical "proprty" immensly. At the same time, he is borrowing from Leibniz an entire metaphysics, which means, yes, things like the soul. So, the question, more simply put is, how does Deleuze use the models? What is he using them to explain? The nature of the soul? But why? Now ask yourself; in what ways do architects and other philosophers use mathematical models? Were Vitruvius and Boulee just using the idea of symmetry as an architectural concept unto itself? What I really like Daniel is how you identified those three moments. Its ok that we don't fully understand the mathematical principals in and of themselves. What is important is how they use those models.
P
Post a Comment