Deleuze and Polytheism

Deleuze is firmly on the side of Whitehead in the production vs retrieval contrast:
« the aim is not to rediscover the eternal or the universal, but to find the conditions under which something new is produced (creativeness). (DIALOGUES II p.vi http://books.google.com/books?id=iqKGldo7A2gC&lpg=PP1&dq=deleuze%20dialogues&hl=fr&pg=PR7#v=onepage&q&f=false) .
Deleuze’s affinity with polytheism can be seen in his repeated references to the non-personal powers that traverse us. Deleuze’s pluralism can be seen as a form of polytheism. As Tim Clark remarks, Deleuze’s ontology is « a distinctly postmodern avatar of polytheism: a vision of multiple « little divinities » effecting random syntheses of differential elements within an immanent space of possibilities ». (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2997). However Deleuze prefers to speak of demons rather than gods, as gods are too often used in a way that is too codified and too territorialised:
« Demons are different from gods, because gods have fixed attributes, properties and functions, territories and codes…What demons do is jump across intervals, and from one interval to another. »
(DIALOGUES II p.30, http://books.google.fr/books?id=hv4OTGdr_AUC&lpg=PA30&ots=qGXNw4kgA9&dq=deleuze%20demons%20dialogues&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false).

Cet article a été publié dans Uncategorized. Ajoutez ce permalien à vos favoris.

4 commentaires pour Deleuze and Polytheism

  1. dmf dit :

    yes to the move from archetypal to prototypal

    J’aime

  2. terenceblake dit :

    I personally have no problem with the notion of archetype as I read Jung through pragmatic spectacles, as he himself demanded, so I jettison all the biological foundations and the universalist ontologising that accompanies the notion. So maybe you are right and the word « prototype » is less ambiguous for situating us in a post-jungian universe. (I would argue that Jung after his breakdown/breakthrough and more consciously and explicitly in his alchemical work was already « post-jungian »). As Jung is neither known nor understood we are confronted with a whole class of authors and works that are in fact post-jungian without knowing it. Dreyfus and Kelly, like Zizek and Michel Serres and many others are instances of this.

    J’aime

Votre commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s