Deleuze, Klossowski, and Hillman on psychic multiplicity

Latour attempts to give us a phenomenology of the original experience of emotion that underlies the mode of existence of invisible psychogenic beings, or “divinities”. He declares that with the emotion and the impression that it comes from outside there is

the suspicion that there is something else, something other in this trial, that he or she has made a mistake as to the attribution, the target, the goal: “I’m not the one targeted”

This seems to be phenomenologically wrong. He talks of a “suspicion”, a cognitive aspect to the emotion. One feels there is “something else”,  “something other”, the emotion comes from outside and affects me. But what is all this talk about “targets”? I am not the one responsible, I do not command my emotions, but this has nothing to do with “I am not the target”. This is monistic language: the “I” is not a given, it is a monotheist fantasy. For Deleuze and Klossowski, the death of God means the dissolution of the ego. The multiplicity of invisible beings is described by Deleuze and Klossowski in terms that do not presuppose an “I” as given. There is no primary phenomenon of “targeting”, but there is transiting and transforming.

The psychic mode of existence means that the self is just one psychic figure amongst the others. For James Hillman in RE-VISIONING PSYCHOLOGY the invisible figures inspire, protect, guide, influence and constitute us, they do not just “target” us.

Latour’s description of this mode of existence seems pre-oriented by his later description of religion. The gods “target” us, and mistake us for another, yet somehow produce our psyche as composite interiority. God “addresses” us and does not mistake us for another, and institutes us as a unified person. The psychogenic description concords with thinkers as different as Deleuze, Hillman, and Dreyfus and Kelly (despite the restrictive use of ego and targeting). The religious description seems to be just pasted on, in contradiction to the rest, but this contradiction is neutralised by the protective manoeuvre of decreeing that two different modes of existence are involved.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Deleuze, Klossowski, and Hillman on psychic multiplicity

  1. dmf says:

    I think that early Hillman (not unlike Nietzsche) purposely focused on the powers that defy facile distinctions such as good/bad, or for/against, and with that work there is vitally a sense in which for an experience to have the characteristics that might be properly called arche-typal it must have some aspect of being more-than (in the sense of taking possession of, over-powering even, and not just being more than one) hence patho(s)-logical, and so the references to gods.
    He does unfortunately seem to ultimately put his faith in the Un-Conscious somehow having our best interests at heart in ways which are ironically all too reminiscent of a theology for my tastes but this isn’t necessary for working out of his excellent Re-visioning book.

    Like

  2. Keith Harris says:

    bookmark. i was reading Degen et al’s essay (2010) on affect and urban experience/ANT this afternoon and was having similar thoughts; look into klossowski and hillman

    Like

  3. Keith Harris says:

    Reblogged this on My Desiring-Machines and commented:

    bookmark. i was reading Degen et al’s essay (2010) on affect and urban experience/ANT this afternoon and was having similar thoughts; look into klossowski and hillman

    Like

  4. terenceblake says:

    Thanks for the references. Keith is this the article you are refering to? I did not know of it.

    Like

  5. Pingback: CLEARING THE GROUND (3): Latour and the pluralist outside | AGENT SWARM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s