4 ruses for being inside.

 

 

Spinoza great lesson for Deleuze, and for us all  is that one easily ought not to assume being inside another too easily. This is not a simple hypothesis, as one cannot jump not substance right at once, and even if one does, one does not immediately know quite what that jump is. Being inside is rather more nuanced than that. And yet this of course creates the deep problem of exactly how one understands or locates this being inside another?

 

Perhaps there are four main answers to this is Spinoza and beyond.

 

Spinoza immediate answer appears a negative one. One might know the actual existence of a body puns a formal with an objective reality, and yet this by itself does not give us an immediate handle on formal reality itself, as we cannot get at the body itself or understand its nature quickly of easily (we do not know what a body can do….)  Nor is it safe to assume that easy unity even the unity of the attribute itself is simply reflecting substance. Substance is greater than its attributes, although it is immanent to it. It I better or rather inevitable Spinoza suggests that we start with those things that occur within our body – that is those affections it has. Here again it is going to be tricky. It would be great if one cod jump to those affection that are generated within the body as their adequate cause, and yet this I going to be impossible. There are too many of these, and they pass too quickly. Were a mind is going to start then is not with adequate but inadequate ideas.

 These ideas tat are different in nature form our body. It thinking then therefore our being is taken up and changed in someway by another, this change has then two aspects.

 Right at its hart it has an enigma. That is there is appoint in understanding or grasping its won actual reality, that a mind is turned elsewhere. Something breaks in from outside, something that imposes a break on the bodies own existence, even s that existence is being expressed (and is constituted). To perceive another is therefore to gather an idea that at some point is incomprehensible, an idea that tumbles in from elsewhere. But this elsewhere is not a showy affair, it is not an Other or even death, rather the tumble comes through the attributes, and is therefore given within the body in the very same sense that one self exists. One is therefore caught in existing, in being apart of others, and perceiving them. One ceases therefore to be single.

What is more this lack of own isolation  adds another point in the mind. Tat other, that is breaking in, in turning away form the body, forces upon that body a unity of composition. To see that other thing, is to see it and all the change that it causes in the single throw. It is another, and to see that others, is to perceive it. T casts then a single simple shadow in the mind. Or to put it another way, it creates within ones mind a unified image of itself, a series of effects, than tare caught up with its external presence (or absece0. it is a vortex therefore, a series of effects, caught up in the giving in our bodies of another single being.

 To think this things is therefore to think both of another as external, but also  as it is external, also o think it as a unified cause beyond ones nature. A perception leading to an outside. This ‘unity’ is then defined within the mind the sense that the body finds itself already embodying or creating these perceptions. The body is that which is giving that other.

 Finally for this first dimension of being within., this other is never a simple idea within the body. As I perceive another in then in the finishing of that idea in myself, in the ‘oh that is a unity there’ of that idea in my mind (this thing here) I create a strange entity to think this. The entity itself is sealed in caught up in the external cause, and yet as my body or mind constantly communicates its changes on to the other, this unity itself is never (quite) fixed. I perceive this other, and yet the perception of that perception, or the thinking of how this there might be in the future or the past or somewhere else across a unity of my own existence, will also cause its own effect The singleton of another will then be multiplied by indeterminate powers in the mind. It otherness will be transposed into o other times, or across other worries. It will cease o be simply given.

 The full formula is that another is for me that unity that I fix beyond me, and yet which I must give the same existence as me (actual existence), and which once fixed bleeds across my consciousness, and patterns my mind. To be another, is to be unified beyond, and fractured within: Spinoza originality here is f course that he values the fracture and not the unity…

 

 

At which point the second main element of the anothering kicks in. to have that other actual existing in the same manner as oneself if of course to be changed by it. It the [presence of another my body takes on different motions, and different powers. I can quite literally change my nature. It become not what I was. I  become capable of being and thinking other (many other) things and ideas. This transformation is then direction; This is what I am in the actual existence, and not a matter of comparison. Another’s power, another’s change, will therefore immediately places me in the middle of existing? I cease to be a single thing, and become rather a series or cycles of transformations, which increase or decrease what I was, or what I will be..

 But here two elements kick in. Firstly the unity that was supposed before becomes then something. As  think another unity, as I must grasp it in the beyond, this other is gives also as a sequences of changes. To think that others effect, to give its unity is to cease to be what one is. secondly, and very critically for Spinoza, this sequence of changes is distinct in the first effect from the attribute. It is possible to be effected negatively (or by limited positives which in another head are harmful elsewhere in the body). The entity thrust on, me, a ns the change is not therefore ht simple change of attribute. It is not then one with actual existence, but is rather created within me, and within me as  actually exist (it is then a real change in the world, and yet peculiarly my change).t is not necessary (or even possible) to externalize this change into a single medium whose reference point is beyond me (sat itme0. it is rather a change whose nature is related to the very sense I am actually exiting.

 It therefore thrusts the  and into a change that is more about tense than time. In understanding that other, I am compelled to  a real change which alters my nature, and tumbles me into a past or a future power.: pleasure or pain are then created in me, directly as the change in my power: think I become caught up at the gates of the future, and given in the transgressing into the future. I am as I am gripped by initial passions given in the transformation into another- into  a future.

 And yet this giving has then two further effect. On  the one hand, its giving is contained itself within idea the other's presence force upon me. To understand another, is therefore to be transformed in the idea of that other. The other will then be seen as presence in this change – t is its cause, it is what is existing through it, or encapsulating it. I love you and therefore the thought of who effects a thousand changes in my. I lath them, and they become given in my mind as a pain.

On the other it follows that what I am, in essence is never neutral in this giving, My desires are always there, always reacting; Waxing in the pleasure, and waning or storing against the pain. Moreover this being of myself is very asymmetrical (for all pain and pleasure tip of the tonge0. to be in a pleasure is to have a desire which gives itself in the same sense that the pleasure is giving. The desire locates itself in the pleasure itself, it creates the middle of an existence in the giving of that desire: it is making itself more being. though it (3/11). Pain by contrast presents desire with a problem, It will always strive against the giving of this another, and the movements it creates within a mind. It will therefore drive itself otherwise, and towards other giving, it will attempt to occlude the need to give this others presence.

 This difference really kicks in the mind as it becomes caught up in the bleeding of these joy or pain and their desires across ones own consciousness. As these are given, as they are understand across other aspects of my, as their pains or joys are then used (as both are transposed in the thought of this other into othering times) then the change and their challenge finds endless new echoes in everything I am, or want to be.

To be othered is to have the presence of another given in the mind as a change, a tumble into an elsewhere; One becomes quite latterly different form what one was or will be. To be othered it o b driven then into tenses which are as wrapped up in the external as the mind itself it, for the unit you a tense is given always in the idea and its standing within the mind, and not in some apriori schemata force upon reality. One become then temporal in the forcing of others finite presence upon one.: it is the place where finite effects, internal and external blend become given as one.

 

At which point the third point kicks in. it is clear ht the other themselves as they are fixed beyond my mind is never simply there. They are caught in their own fluxes, and changes. What I grapes in my unity is then merely an affect in myself. This being within another is moreover actually what is fundamental. The prime units of matter (the infinite immediate mode0 is composed of motions hose effects is only given as they are within other motions: three exist in the moving of others: Their existence I then to be as the gates for future for others  these essence those others are not what they where. Rest here being the othering of the future, and the forcing I it into resolutions or bundles or resolving. To be there effecting others is therefore to be prime. The unity I thrust, that unit of cause is therefore a unity within a me alone, that wrapped up a whole sequence of causes and effects within the single entity or presents (everything I an accidental cause of something in another-  their presence what part of the original change), Others  unity therefore reality are to the fact that the body is changed by something outside it, that is given through the change it effects as a single cause, as the cause that effects this change.

But this is not o simple once one is within a mind, and it is then striving or mediating around the notion of that unity. To love is then in the giving of what that love in the mind (understanding its presence in temporal context, as in a past or future tens) is then to also bleed the changes that love bring across hopes, and despondencies. The signal cause, will then even as it is given to other times force the mind to embody new tenses. These tenses echo the initial change (which has wrapped up in it own presence), they echo the changes (positive or indeed negatives), and yet do so in a different place and according o a different rhythm. 

The difference between the thing and its unties in the mind will then be transpose across the mind itself. one will view ones loves or hates from outside, in different tenses (and a single thing: it will be alright when I see then, or reach such and such: to hit these target, o got this is allowed need). Humans needlessly then bleed unity or combine them into with other bleeding, other embodiments until then unit upon the unites they most desire, that is the ones they feel they can arrange into neat little desires, which can be achieved with ease and credit.

The tense that gathers me through is finitude upon my from beyond ( I am limited in the giving, by the giving to see this thing as one, as one effect), and yet this limit is not then limited within me On the contrary as I exit I can spin it into myriad differences and across very man changes: its being one becomes then the forcing house for a mind, and always with the proviso, that each unity I spin into another reality in my mind, is not the same in the giving as the unity that that other initially forced upon me; for they are as different as the thing that love is actually very different (even in my mind) form the stories, or hopes and fears that I bleed into what I am  t demonstrate that love to myself.

 

This leads to the final element. The being inside another is the giving oneself as finite as one embodies another, who can only be understood in part and as a unified effect. One sees only united , because ones power is curtailed, and never able to simply transcend and reach outwards that others actual nature. The difference, the unity one embodies ad the external cause are then clear define things, and remain so, even when that unity (in me) is spun across my mind into a thousand other stories or possible places or tenses. However Spinoza is very clearly there ought to be rather a lot of hope here. There are even in this difference this rift between that there beyond m, and the singleton inside, three hopes which pattern the sense that I and it are caught up on the one story, and can actually reach across to each other.

 Firstly we both exist less as things and more as forces. To actually exist as something that can pattern a present is not to be infinite and therefore not to be eternal (as Spinoza is clear that the infinite things are all eternal). I is then to be composed of a body, and to exist as the force which is necessarily present as the middle to that actually existing body. This force is then given in it as it is given in you. To be touched by another’s force is therefore to also understand that other: It needs as force echo ones own needs ones own problems, - echoes one can hear.

 Secondly and are more fundamentally, the power I borrow from the two infinites (the before of the immediate and after of the mediate modes), in seeing another, really lets something else into my body and mind. N seeing another I really do borrow reality from elsewhere, and am caught up being different. I might then delimit by perception, and yet in the very limiting, shining through it are elements that run beyond that limit and hook he into other realties. To perceive at all is then to be inituively grasping the reality of others.

finally all is not lost even in my own single nature. That mature is not my own (essences are not single or multiple), it so rather thrust upon be as a am necessarily actually exiting (2/10s). It is then as leaky as my body is leaky, that is as my body can be thought as being composed itself of parts, parts hat might be identical to or already caught up with others, these others and their part are given to my mind. Actual existence is not then a prison. I might impose limits and point one cannot comprehend, and yet it opens the doors to other begins, and other places to perceive, if only one has eyes and ears…

 

To actually exist, is to be caught up in the strangest of finitude one s finite not really because ones body itself is finitude but because that body impose limits on how one can grasp at others: I is in attributing a finite reality o another’s we see our own finitude clearest. This finitude then cuts of in the giving f these others into moods or tenses. We give in a  certain manner, and according or a certain manner of change. The problem is always then to understand this manner, this tense. If one can then one can define, perhaps, how one is caught in being in the world, even as one composed it to oneself, across these changes in ones own tense. It I to these compositions, and the differences they compose the next chapter turns….