The twin perils of Being of the inside.

 

 

Peril 1: Spinoza is very careful to in his definition of a singular thing. Singulars are defined not in the actions, but in the effects. If then a variety of elements all hook up together and create elsewhere a single effect, then he says this is a single or particular thing. Te singleton exists therefore as an effect, quite possibly in another. That is it exists with an element in which something happen, and which must look to another middle, not beyond its one nature of the roots for that effect. What else can a singular thing be indeed in the world where middle rules? It is the effects local groups or clumps of essence, of being in the middle of one change have in other things,: the challenge they send out.

 This challenge is however course really rather complex. There is no naïve realism in Spinoza’s accounts point is to that there is something beyond me, that I map in the intellect or learn about. It is rather that the hooking up, of elements within me, creates within me a moving shifting sand of otherness.  Am then suddenly not only not what \ was, but even worse included in the sense that another is caught p in what it is. I am hen dragged of towards the way that t is causing something. No his drug of will be all about me, and not it. I is enough than my part are coordinate according to another middle. More problematically yet, there nee no be any rule here of one. Tat is the other middle need not be itself a thing. Spinoza is overcall very many cause might be involved.  Might then be caught up in another, or many others, as a shifting elements, and half formed movements all the why up to nature itself All I can say in certainty that in this move the staid and fixed essences of other living thing will be important  but not the only influence).

To perceive is therefore to be hooked up into something else, and come caught up be that other. Nor is this affection Spinoza says something that one cannot o, or that one should not do On the contrary he suggests we actually have to do it. To be a part of god, is the perceive as God perceives, down wind of middles, and to be a part in other middles and  essence, one careful punning on the body of mind, cause and actual existence, is not  thing that is in isolation. It is rather that which it always in the shifting maze of causes, and middles, that which is caught up in perceiving, in being affected by the universe.

 And yet of a body will always run a risk in perceiving. T perceive is of one part of one body to allow movement in form another part of the universe. The part, which is or course in part create in the sense of it participates in these movements, will then need to communicate these element, these moves to the rest. Part of the body are then always taking up others movement, and always relying then one (as cause) to the rest. To perceive is quite literally to become another, and to hand that another on: it is to take on the something of the causal power of being that other things.

There is a great dwell o subtlety I this hook up within my body. All that matter is that element of that body interference to something beyond it become coordinated one with the other. The a world outside creates then within my mind a tapestry of interrelated movements, which fracture into my being, coordinating one with the other in me, as they relate to a world of causes beyond me, and dragging my affection one way or other. The idea, the perception so formed, then is given over to my middle, and performs its changes upon me,

The risk is obvious. There is become a point where one cannot simply hand that other on. There will become then a moment that forces one beyond the movement that one had, and to disrupts or destroys the body, or makes it take another movement, movements all bits of it cannot share, or last least cannot share in this sense.

 To perceive is then never to be within ones own show, or at least I is not o immediately. Rather one perceive on the side of God’s intellect, and therefore as the element of ones body are caught up in the causes of another, which drag it this way and that, and demand that it hooks these movements back into all the rest. To perceive is therefore ways to up against he forces that will one day kill one. Or more commonly to it to be hooked into a movements or sequence of movements that once communicated to oneself will cause ones own being to shift in what it can do or perceive or think. To be caught up with others, being in a very real sense to not what one was,. It is then to have no simple being, only an essence, which cannot be confined to a certain fixed abilities, or life, and merely exists as that which is always caught up in something as a body actually exists. I cease to be a fixed quanta of power as I come into my own into perceiving: I become rather as an agent in the intellect of God, a moving quanta of force, waxing and waning, according to the rhythms of the world. Perceiving might not kill me, but it will certain undo me as me. I cease to be single being, at all, and rather become in God a part in things.

 

 Spinoza suggest a series that might run:

 

These as me….These as me: that is I am a me in grasping others.

Or also

As me these as me these ;As to grasp other connects me to  who like me lake a centre to their being.

And finally.

Me these as…me these as, as to be caught up in others is to always risk a nature, one might collapse into other being, and becoming merely a part of then and their these…..

 

 

 

 

Peril two.

 However Kant has a rather different peril in mind when h postulates the need to apprehension. The manifold that is given me by perception is a manifold in within singularities endless flicker and wink, uncomfortably. It would be very easy to loose oneself in such a world. one might never finish observing the nature of this blue or that red or hearing  this sound completely. One is always at risk then with pure sense. On risks it overwhelming a nature, and setting itself up a whirl vortex or thing in themselves. Flickers which produce a movement God would only know where. One cannot therefore simply afford to build a world on impressions, and Hume might have wanted The patter of impressions is to chaotic and over all over the place. One needs firth and foremost take this affective chaos into a mind and echo it across ones own temporality. Apprehension must then run through and hold, together that manifold offered by impressions, such that it can be gathered together in a single representation. Without hi simple move, the mind would certainly fall apart or better it would never beginning. One would vanish into the shades of green or red or foul smells one perceives, and never e something oneself.

Apprehension there  grasps things in understanding them not as simply here and no, so much as in the way the are already  being transmuted to something else. Tat is one does not grasp then as singular and their (that is what is offered in the impressions themselves). One rather coordinates that singular, such ht the very act of grasping leads to the next grasp. One therefore grasps them in a movement, and no longer as something singular, and more as that which is opening out onto and reach towards the future. This flicker of red is the  that which I the perceiving leads to what… becomes the question apprehension ass of itself. A mind becomes the echoes future.

This move then Kant suggests creates a back and forward to death. He manifold of perception, itself always posed a risk itself, That is it is by itself, as it forces one into the vortex o another, to pose gains that othering time. The unity of consciousness is then the shield one wields, which pulls one beyond merely being caught up in things. As I am or a least as I think, I suppose that impressions are all caught in each other and each leads to and needs to be imagined as the gate to the next. Their recording becomes as heralds to what will b. And yet of course the toxin of the manifold  is to so easily contained. There will be times when this process might break down, and that worrying jump into the future revealed. These times will not of course concert apprehension, the move into a future That is unlimited They rather concern is bed fellow, recollection whose job is to hold all these element down, and present them a s single time. This process is limited. Or perhaps better there must exist within this process a natural internal present.

 To  put this a little more clearly: recollection is of course itself endless, and yet holding element inside the mind is not Under the normal was of things, this hold as the immediate past matters as it is across this past when fashions in understanding a present. Once this present is formed, and labelled with a concept, then the mind can relax as if fixes these elements of perceiving, with rules, which will allow this pinch of time to be fixed, named and labelled as a part of a certain present. To find a present in understanding is to fix that present in time (and so be free to infer pasts and future). And yet there is also another ’ natural’ present here. The mind has a delimited capacity to hold recollection prior to the labelling of the present. If then no rule can be found in time, then the nature process will pitch over and collapse. One will not be able to grasp reality in presences, and something else, some other side will bread though.

The impressions will then overwhelm the mind . and yet it is clearly a mistake to confuse this second overwhelm with he first. In the first the problem is the mind looses itself within the world the body immediately gives to it. One might then become lost in another, without ever being able to reach ones own mind. On might become lost then in a b way of being-  namely perceiving. The that of the sublime is a little different. This is a threat internal to the mind: it is a threat in a sense to consciousness. The threat then that the conscious will not e up to its self imposed task to regulate an create time. It is the threat then that it cannot form itself an airy body, of all the perceptions and impressions ht are tumbling inside it, and demanding regulation.

 The mind is therefore in a sense constellated to avid one trap by risking another. The trap of impressions, of becoming another too quickly is risked only in the imposition of time which then places a strain of ones own finitude. One has to pretend on is adequate to creating a world inside one, one has to take very the burden of this creation, and can only continue perceiving and thinks as one can.  Then one cannot, is the weight of things is such that it makes this move impossible then ones drowns in a being beyond ones nature.

 Kant therefore to run from the one danger or to suppose that h one danger must be countered opens himself up to the second. Or perhaps better he runs away from the problems of impressions and towards the problems o events. In the former what breaks through is the fact hat the body includes elements beyond it which  cannot conceive as such.: the problem I then the manifold of the simple. In the latter an event at a time and place break through as a complex phenomena ,and renders a mind otherwise (or creates real ripples in its consciousness).

 

 

 

And yet it is a mistake to rush too quickly into accounts that would renders the perils of Spinoza and the Perils of Kant as one and the same peril Or better if one does, one pays a price. Deleuze therefore works out a very beautiful theory based around understanding that event of Kant, in the sublime as the archetypal difference: it is then the way o account of the effect of another within one. Te sense of its singularity, is the sense of the break thought  something that cannot be held in the conscious mind at all, and belongs rather to time. He thereby in a sense taken Kant at his heard He accepts ht consciousness matters, and there those that break into that consciousness are all that matters. This move will then allow for a unity (consciousness is unified), but it will do so only but enduring opaque that earlier move which saw impressions themselves  as potentially threatening the unity if not he reality0 of consciousness. It all therefore becomes about time, and only about time, where Kant for one (and Spinoza in a different way) originally said something rather different.

 This difference is in a sense reheard in the very repetition of It think I think. a series that read I think I, and is then that beefy statement o self consciousness the Deleuze delights in splitting. But its is also the for more equivocal Think I think; a statement of doubt, and worry,: the statement that conscious makes in the face of impressionist hat appear to register in a world demanding a manifold of their own, and which can only be understood as a difference.

 

  But again one ought to avoid any simple coagulation of the body.  The body in neither of these theories hold key itself, The body is almost the problem. R better the problem is the price the body forces one to pay in the gasping

Of thing, and to have other beyond ones nature interfere in creating a mind. Here Deleuze is absolutely right: the challenge is to make that body hook into other elements otherwise, and use them differently. A challenge to both those impressions, that hook one into percept that open to world utterly beyond ones own nature, and also to affect which loop one into others bodies and therefore other beings.

An yet here again one caution. It would be a mistake to assume this mutually challenge to being, the ontology challenge that makes affects rooted in a place other than ones own identity, and the phenomenological challenge that challenges how one understands perception are one and the same. They might be at time. Consciousness 9which is a little downstream of all his, as the idea that arises from these elements0 would want to claim they are always(as it is constellated in the sense the they are both in a my mind), and is open to whatever is needed to make this point (events, the sublime whatever). But this is not necessarily all that is happening here. On needs to actually initially at least respect this difference, and the different perils imposed upon a mind that needs o view the world of others, while also being caught up in it.  Tat is one needs also not one way to understand series so much as two

 A series is then not merely the way to reassert an essence as its s caught up in the world; f is also the way the mind distances itself from the treats that is very act of perceiving opens out, the unties that it imposes and the realties it needs t hear. Both then pose a mind in the middle of other; but is then at stake is where and what these others other, and how they are bleeding into a mind. Understanding this, and how the two elements, the two approaches comprehend one another in no straight forward way, I he magic and mystery of empiricism itself, and its ability to transform world.,

 

 To exist in another is therefore to understand that other as an enigma, but also to be a part of tings themselves, and not the to understand so much as to be already doing; and care must always be taken in the cross breeding of these withins.