Monday, November 13, 2006
(12:12 AM) | Anonymous:
Report on Stengers Lecture at Middlesex.
Isabelle Stengers seated, from the side.First, I want to begin by thanking everyone who donated money to help me get down to see Isabelle Stengers speak at Middlesex. It was worth it, even though, as you'll see, the talk was not exactly path breaking, but these events are always more about getting a bunch of people together anyway.
"Thinking with Deleuze and Whitehead: A Double Test"
Stengers began the talk by saying that when reading Deleuze and Whitehead one must resist the temptation to compare them. Whether or not her own paper actually resisted in this way is up for debate. In a phrase that seemed to grate on Ms. it's nerves Stengers wanted us to think of Deleuze and Whitehead as two witches' rides passing. I think this is a reference to The Fixer where reading Spinoza is described as taking a witches ride and, if this is the case, she could have made the point that more clearly. Stengers appears to want to leave room for something like God, much to the chagrin of the Middlesex crew, and this witches comment seemed to confuse them more than anything.
What was interesting was her insistence on the epochal situating of thinkers. Deleuze and Whitehead are dealing with their own problems in their own times and thus they constitute two very different philosophies. The lineage of problems for philosophy has gone from error to illusion to, in Deleuze and Whitehead's time, bêtise. In English bêtise is something like stupidity or foolishness, but is also connected to the idea of "beastliness". It was this bêtise that Deleuze was responding to with his philosophy, even if he responds to it by calling for a "becoming-animal".
I've not read Whitehead yet, and so most of what Stengers had to say about him didn't mean much to me. She did keep banging on about some conception he has against the bifurcation of Nature, where we shouldn't separate the beauty of the sunset from the way science understands a sunset to be composed (electrons, light waves, etc.). The two are the same (essentially? linguistically? culturally?), which comes to a statement she made in an earlier session that there is no difference between the neutrino and the Virgin Mary. In Whitehead there is a concept of God, though to me this just seems to mean that God is a name for the experience of process that remains unnameable within reason, and Stengers seemed to really like this. I do find this to be an interesting concept coming from a philosopher of science who remains in the actual practice of science, but the concept was undetermined in her lecture. I'm currently translating a short piece she wrote on Gaia that may help to bear it out, but again this is no God of the religions (or, perhaps, it is the same God prior to determination, a determination I'm drawn to force?) Again, this really seemed to bother many of the Middlesex crew. During the Q&A Peter Osborne seemed to become increasingly upset as Stengers refused to 'admit' that God was no answer. I believe his statement was something like, "If God is the answer, then you're asking the wrong question."
He'll push you into the bushes and lead you astray to the restuarant.The Social Aspect of Talks
Part of the reason I wanted to attend this lecture was to meet some people whose work I've been reading: Peter Hallward, whose recent polemic against Deleuze I reviewed for Angelaki, and Daniel Smith, as well as Eric Alliez, whose book I had hoped to translate but failed to do so. A year ago I entertained thoughts of applying to Middlesex, as it seems to me that the most exciting kind of Continental philosophy is now coming out of Britain (though that may be unfair). And, indeed, the department seems to be really strong. Though I was really resistant to Hallward's book he is really a pleasure to speak with. Very insightful and open without being wishy-washy and not at all pedantic. It was nice to meet up with Daniel Smith again and I'm hoping to have him come down to Nottingham for a talk, even though I may be the only student interested in Deleuze in my program.
It was also really good to see Ms. it as well. I don't think she really enjoyed the lecture and I was shocked to see the shit she has to put up with, but she was incredible gracious as a host and really fun even as the night grated on. We had a bit of trouble getting home since the tube shut down earlier than expected, so after an hour or so on the night bus and dealing with an asshole cabbie who tried to rip us off, we made it to her humble lego-like abode. Also was able to meet Alberto Toscano, which I was a bit nervous about to be completely honest. I've read a bit of his stuff and he's obviously quite learned, but in person he is really down to earth. In the words of Philip, I think he's going to go far and may be someone to watch.
Books for BuyingThere was a great sale on Verso titles at Judd's Books (near the British Library). So I picked up a few, the first such purchase in a really long time. With the 10% discount for students I think I spent about $45 on brand new books. I have to say, buying things feels good.
I realized some things on this trip as well. Talking with Ms. it I realized that I need to start writing and working out some actual philosophy. In discussions with her and Peter Hallward I realized that, though I have some rough ideas of where I want to go, I have to argumentative support. I've yet to work out any kind of idea with clarity. I also realized that I need stop being the timid teenager regarding my own work. I really would like to do some translation, but I've been too afraid to admit my inadequacies and ask for help when I need it leading to no actual translation and my own skills remaining undeveloped. I know this is in part to feelings of inadequacy, but it's also incredibly lame and it's time to get over it.
