northanger (northanger) wrote,
northanger
northanger

dark princes we know & love

okok... there's the Dark Lord of the Sith, the Gnostic Dark Prince of Cold Rationalism, the Dark Prince of Comedy, the Dark Prince of Gnostic Nihilism & the Mild Prince of Italian Marxism.

[07-Aug|11:38]

Breeding Demons Chapter Three: Forces and Deductions V. Demon I

In Differénce et Répetition, difference of intensity, infinitely doubled differences potentiating infinities is called disparity, dispars, the dark precursor or demon: this function was met with in an earlier chapter, where the importance of difference as internal was noted, together with its rôle as differenciator. The model of science as Dispars, as demonic rather than divine in nature, is thus never concretely completed: it does not present, like Compars, a finished world, but a cosmos in continual involution, perpetually variable, dividing into itself and with each division changing in nature. The demon is implicated with the causality specific to nomadic science, a reverse causality that testifies ‘d’une action du future sur le présent, ou du présent sur le passé (to an action of the future on the present, or of the present on the past)’[179]. Again, however, this is not a generalizable function, but is specific to each system; its connection with the concrete actualization of any distribution is always an effect, rather than a condition of its operation. The demon, or dark precursor ‘détermine à l’avance le chemin renversé, (determines their path in advance but in reverse’, functioning as a virtual attractor, the nature of which is only discernible in retrospect.[180] It is not something always already there, however, but generated in the process of its concretization, like the convergent wave or the anticipated potential.

It is important not to confuse reverse causality with teleology, however: as mentioned before, machinic production conjuncts mechanism and teleology through difference to take synthesis across the threshold of antinomic division, changing the assemblage and re-wiring the transcendental network, unhinging the faculties and differentiating the process of production from its source conditions. Reverse cauality is without finality: the future is not somehow there in advance, pre-determined and fated; rather it is virtual to the formations of the actual.

The demon is not a point or principle in advance of individuation, or a form governing beforehand the material constitution of a machine, body or system: it is instead a radically local function, an element in a science of intensities which invents orders of communication amongst differences for which no prior order exists, using of necessity the elements of a majoritarian form but speaking of necessity a foreign language. Whereas Kant reconciles differences in intensive magnitude by referring them to an extensive space which equalizes them out into a uniform field, Deleuze uses such differences as communicating principles amongst disparate series, which are themselves composed of intensive differences, and it is the complications of the relations generated in this manner which demand the invention of new concepts, new terms, new functions and new distributions and the creation of a foreign philosophical language.

A Whiteheadian Chaosmos: Process Philosophy from a Deleuzean Perspective

But what are we to make of Deleuze’s own account of how the requisite synthesis of pure potentiality comes about? Is he seriously suggesting that for the "God of religion" we substitute an equally primordial (and mythic) Divine Schizophrenic, an "Antichrist," Satan himself? No such supremely individuated Being appears in the system of Difference and Repetition; in fact, any form of monotheism is ruled out in principle by the operation referred to above as "pluralizing Spinozism." Nonetheless, as I suggested earlier, Deleuze’s anti-theism by no means leads us straight to a naturalism, for while it certainly ensures that pure potentiality is not to be identified with God, it nonetheless maintains that "the energy sweeping through it is divine. . . . Hence the sole thing that is divine is the nature of an energy of disjunctions" (AO 13). But, to put to Deleuze the question we posed to Christian: what precisely is this nature? — what is the precise mechanism involved in this "disjunctive" synthesis? In fact, as will become all too clear, Deleuze’s response to this problem is often no less vague, obscure, at times near tautologous, than Whitehead’s own. Here is how Deleuze faces up to it:

The most important difficulty, however, remains: is it really difference which relates different to different in these intensive [purely potential] systems?. . . When we speak of communication between heterogeneous [incompossible] systems . . . does this not imply . . . an agent which brings about the communication?. . . what is this agent, this force? Thunderbolts explode between different intensities, but they are preceded by an invisible, imperceptible dark precursor, which determines their path in advance but in reverse, as though intagliated. . ." (D&R 119)

I am not sure that it is possible to "explicate" this impenetrably dark notion of the "dark precursor." Suffice it to say, "it" is that element which functions as the agent of communication between incompossibles, as the immanent operator of disjunctive synthesis. Almost immediately, Deleuze poses the crucial problem for himself: "The question is to know in any given case how the precursor fulfils this role" (D&R 119, italics added). A few lines later, the semblance of an answer is offered:

Given two heterogeneous series, two series of differences [incompossible potentials], the precursor plays the part of the differenciator [sic] of these differences. In this manner, by virtue of its own power, it puts them into immediate relation to one another it is the in-itself of difference or the "differently different" — in other words, difference in the second degree, the self-different which relates different to different by itself." (D&R 119)

One might, not unreasonably, object to this formulation, pointing out that in order to deal with the problem Deleuze has here reverted to a tortuous syntax that could fairly be described as Hegelian dialectic "with one term missing" — in other words, that by making his primitive concept of difference do all the work, the inevitable result is mere vacuous repetition, empty tautology. It is indeed at this point that Deleuze, self-confessed, attempts to think something "contrary to the laws of thought" (D&R 227), and thereby risks that lapse into vacuity for which Kant condemned all of metaphysics. But the lines that immediately follow attempt to explain why — at least within the terms of the Deleuzean chaosmos itself — this moment of attempting to "think the unthinkable" is, at the limit, ineliminable:

Because the path it [the dark precursor] follows is invisible and becomes visible only in reverse, to the extent that it is traveled over and covered by the phenomena it induces within the system [i.e., within an actual world], it has no place other than that from which it is "missing," no identity other than that which it lacks: it is precisely the object = x." (D&R 119-120)

Thus Deleuze presents his speculative, and distinctly Platonic, hypothesis: the visible, actual world is an effect of this invisible "reversion" of the potential, the infinitely rich sediment it leaves in its track. As the object = x, the (path of the) dark precursor is that virtually unintelligible object which corresponds to the thought of difference "in itself." Necessarily unintelligible insofar as the very conditions for the production of novelty (viz. disjunctive syntheses of incompossibles) entail that intensive (potential) differences will always already be cancelled within the novel extensities and qualities in which they are actualized -- (through the conjunctive syntheses of compossibles; in Whitehead’s terms: through a demand for "balanced complexity" -- the integration of incompatibilities into realizable contrasts, cf. PR 278). As such, the object = x is inevitably occulted by the forms of representation (categories, concepts and laws) under which the actual, extensive, contrasting "phenomena" are thinkable, and by which their behavior is explained. Thus, Deleuze concludes, "it is not surprising that, strictly speaking, difference ["in itself"] should be "inexplicable.". . For difference, to be explicated [actualized] is to be cancelled. . ." (D&R 228).

Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll

CHAPTER V: WOOL AND WATER

Alice was just beginning to say 'There's a mistake somewhere --,' when the Queen began screaming, so loud that she had to leave the sentence unfinished. 'Oh, oh, oh!' shouted the Queen, shaking her hand about as if she wanted to shake it off. 'My finger's bleeding! Oh, oh, oh, oh!'

Her screams were so exactly like the whistle of a steam-engine, that Alice had to hold both her hands over her ears.

'What is the matter?' she said, as soon as there was a chance of making herself heard. 'Have you pricked your finger?'

'I haven't pricked it yet,' the Queen said, 'but I soon shall -- oh, oh, oh!'

'When do you expect to do it?' Alice said, feeling very much inclined to laugh.

'When I fasten my shawl again,' the poor Queen groaned out: 'the brooch will come undone directly. Oh, oh!' As she said the words the brooch flew open, and the Queen clutched wildly at it, and tried to clasp it again.

'Take care!' cried Alice. 'You're holding it all crooked!' And she caught at the brooch; but it was too late: the pin had slipped, and the Queen had pricked her finger.

'That accounts for the bleeding, you see,' she said to Alice with a smile. 'Now you understand the way things happen here.'

'But why don't you scream now?' Alice asked, holding her hands ready to put over her ears again.

'Why, I've done all the screaming already,' said the Queen. 'What would be the good of having it all over again?'

By this time it was getting light. 'The crow must have flown away, I think,' said Alice: 'I'm so glad it's gone. I thought it was the night coming on.'

'I wish I could manage to be glad!' the Queen said. 'Only I never can remember the rule. You must be very happy, living in this wood, and being glad whenever you like!'

'Only it is so very lonely here!' Alice said in a melancholy voice; and, at the thought of her loneliness, two large tears came rolling down her cheeks.

'Oh, don't go on like that!' cried the poor Queen, wringing her hands in despair. 'Consider what a great girl you are. Consider what a long way you've come to-day. Consider what o'clock it is. Consider anything, only don't cry!'

Alice could not help laughing at this, even in the midst of her tears. 'Can you keep from crying by considering things?' she asked.

'That's the way it's done,' the Queen said with great decision: 'nobody can do two things at once, you know. Let's consider your age to begin with -- how old are you?'

'I'm seven and a half, exactly.'

'You needn't say "exactly",' the Queen remarked. 'I can believe it without that. Now I'll give you something to believe. I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day.'

'I ca'n't believe that!' said Alice.

'Ca'n't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. 'Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.'

Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said 'one ca'n't believe impossible things.'

'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!'

AQ 284 = DARK PERCURSOR = OUTLAWED OTHER = SOLVE ET COAGULA = THE LAW OF LIBER AL = UNDERESTIMATED

AQ 344 = THE DARK PERCURSOR (see Typhoon Matsa)

one hundred and one, five months and a day

The Book of the Law :: 08-April-1904:

1904 + 101 = 2005
five months = may, june, july, august, september
one day = 09-September-2005??

I was pleased to see Bennett establish his interest in the Domino Room by arriving with a guest of his own the following day — none other than Aleister Crowley, the Beast himself. Having ordered drinks, Crowley began what became an animated conversation with the apocalyptic statement: "Christianity has collapsed. It can no longer serve humanity — if ever it did. A new aeon for mankind has commenced. My Holy Guardian Angel, Aiwass, has appeared before me to dictate a new Book of the Law." Crowley was deadly serious, but Bennett had difficulty in keeping a straight face. "You must give me the details when your angel finishes his task," he remarked." "That I will certainly do, but already I can tell you the basis of the New Law. There shall be no law beyond Do what thou wilt. The word of Sin is restriction. On no account live within your own skin ..." Bennett's mouth, which was always half open, gaped wider as the Beast continued, his narrowed eyes making him look more Mongolian than ever.

lol, seriously, it's all in the gematria ... honest! (so much fun!) ok, must go babysit furry person (aka, Bubbles).

Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

  • 0 comments