following on a discussion earlier with a friend, we were discussing the two ‘positions’ of the order of things of the syntheses… via secondary source elaborations. We are both reading D/R together, and we each have a different secondary source as a companion. Anyway- Hughes posits that Williams places the third synthesis as prior to the rest, while Hughes claims that sensibility must come first. Reading this post, I’m inclined to agree with the way Williams handles the material. Otherwise, if sensibility does come first, there would inevitably be an originary or pure ‘sense’ as mentioned here, rather than a field of conditions by which we are affected.
Anyway- a very shorthand bookmark for myself to return to this and engage Hughes’s text more in relation to D/R.
I thought some readers of this blog might find this paper of interest. I presented it at the “Experimenting with Intensities” conference at University of Trent back in 2004 (the year Constantin Boundas retired, sadly). I’m not entirely satisfied with the argument today, though I would still contend that the transcendental in Deleuze’s transcendental or superior empiricism lies in a production of sensibility, rather than a mere receptivity. I suppose I shouldn’t post these things on a blog. But why publish anything anymore? Where there are no encounters and where there is no possibility of dialogue save the occasional inquiry I receive in email, what could the possible value of publication be? Perhaps one aim of academic writing today should be the destruction of the privilege surrounding the academic apparatus, its journals, its conferences, its books; all of which produce isolated islands and foster specialization, staving off any encounter…
View original post 926 more words