Transcript of the second conversation between Terence Blake and Kent Palmer, on Deleuze’s LOGIC OF SENSE, Series 2. Full text here.
Abstract: Mounting and descending arcs of the circle of the proposition, sense is the principle of variance.
Kent Palmer 31:19
Well, one of the things that he says is that we need the sense in order to have the genesis. And so that reminded me of Simondon, that what was motivating him was to deal with a pre-individual basis from which these aspects or functions of the individual propositions come from?
Terence Blake 31:44
Well yes, he only mentions it here. I think he’ll develop it later. But that’s a key point, because he’s already said that the problem with language as ordinarily conceived is that it privileges the nouns over the verbs. So it privileges the individuated, result of individuation, over the process of individuation. So sense will be what he calls the genetic power that animates the a priori internal model of the proposition so a priori, we can get to manifestation denotation and signification, and it seems like we’ve said everything. But we’re already fact, according to the Deleuze, latecomers. That’s at a fairly late stage along the path of individuation. It’s a sort of synchronic photograph, or cut of what’s going on. But it can’t explain genesis. So you’ve got a whole set of other relations between the different senses, the different noemata. He calls, what does he say? He’s talking about Husserl on page 21, at the top…
I just want to in passing indicate a terrible mistranslation. He says, at the top second line, at the end of the second line: “the tree greens – is this not finally the sense of the colour of the tree; and is not the tree greens, it’s global meaning?” There’s something wrong there. I looked at it in the French. And the second sentence is “the tree trees”. So “the tree greens” is the sense of the colour and “the tree trees”, “l’arbre arbrifie” in French, is the global meaning. That changes the meaning of that passage radically.
It’s a really big mistake, but it’s a misprint, I suppose, that’s all, I think. Anyhow, after that, he asks is the noema anything more than a pure event? The tree occurrence. So tree occurrence refers back to “the tree trees”. So he’s sort of parodying or incorporating Heidegger with “the nothing nothings”, or “the world worlds”, situating Heidegger on the dimension of sense. So, as usual, Deleuze prefers a more ordinary example. So he takes “the tree trees”, and that’s already good enough for him.