In LS the actor assumes a particular role close to the stoic sage waiting the event. Through different uses of these singularities and through all kind of relations we construct a subjectivity, a self. What is marked are singularities, the qualia of an affect and a percept, which are a-significant and impersonal. For our purpose I propose to consider every and any experience as an Event, something that is marked on the body – the corporeal – as well as projected in an incorporeal surface, the virtual space of the body, as opposed to actualization. This operation, for Deleuze, is a moment of identification, the moment of representation, the present of the actor. This means wanting not the Event but wanting something that happens in the Event, and this is what Deleuze names the operation of the quasi-cause or counter-effectuation. This was the great moral stand for the Stoics, one you can only achieve through a kind of a spiritual leap, a proairesis. For the Stoics the unity of the Being could only make sense – and the Event is the production of sense – if these two dimensions, the corporeal as the profound plane of Being and the incorporeal as the surface plane of thought and sense, were undifferentiated. With the effectuation we are thrown to a sequence of chained presents, a relation of causes with no effects, while in the dimension of language we are inserted in the instant, the space between a before and an after, and instead of being understood as effects of the corporeal the incorporeal is in fact considered quasi-cause. For example, a knife cuts through the flesh: the event here is the distinction between the fact of the knife cutting through flesh – what Deleuze names the effectuation or the actualization of the Event, the mixture of two bodies in the corporeal dimension – and the expression “a knife cuts through the flesh” which expresses a transformation of a different nature than that of the corporeal, named incorporeal. But what is the Event Deleuzean terms?ĭrawn from Stoic philosophy the Event is what happens as the in-between, the frontier between world and language. My interest in the phantasm relies not in its psychoanalytic arguments but how its concept is resumed by the french philosopher: a pure event that puts in communication the corporeal and the incorporeal, the fact that it is not a representation but rather what frees singularities from a self and expresses a becoming. By Phantasm of the scene we mean the production of an Event which is the result of the encounter between an actor/performer and a character of a theater text: what we see is neither the actor nor the character but rather something else, the fortunate or misfortune encounter between two bodies. Nevertheless, the phantasm serves us as a productive concept to criticize the idea of character incarnation. The phantasm is greatly hold up by the argument of a theatrical unconscious – a theater of terror in Melanie Klein's terms – and not machinic or industrial as the unconscious is presented in AE. Hence I shall attend the actor as he appears in Logic of Sense ( LS ) associated to the Event and its double reading of time and the phantasm and Deleuze approach to the paradox of the actor, present a concept drawn from that impressive text, and last but not least we will present a critical reading of Diderot's Paradox of the Actor, regarding Lacoue-Labarthe's arguments and our phantasm of the scene, as opposed to incarnation of characters.Īs you may know, Deleuze has eradicated the psychoanalytic concept of the phantasm from his thought in face of the more problematic, creative and productive concept of BwO. Nevertheless I take this opportunity to clarify a problem and engage a dialog hoping you won't turn into a Minotaur. I had to be extremely concise, many of the concepts brought to light here are themselves problems and themes for dissertations in their own right. Certainly I failed to be one in this paper and could have failed better. Perhaps you all have already lived this particular situation: you have pages and pages regarding your investigation, they seem to have a logic within them, how concepts play with others or are connected to others, but when faced with a strict economy of time and you need only to address one problem it is terribly difficult to find a Ariadne who will give you a thread, one that you must hold on in order not to loose yourself along the labyrinth of a problem. Before I begin I must address an apology to you all.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |