Jean-Sébastien Laberge, Hétérogenèse, écosophie et
dissensus.
Au même titre que l’éthique est indissociable de la
métaphysique chez Spinoza, je considère que de la métaphysique de la
différence, majoritairement définie par Deleuze, suit une éthique, l’écosophie,
principalement développée par Guattari. En ce sens, il est pertinent de
remarquer que le concept guattarien d’hétérogenèse que Deleuze utilise pour
définir sa propre philosophie (Deleuze, 2003: 338), et qui a ainsi une acception
métaphysique, est central dans l’écosophie de Guattari, ayant alors une
acception esthético-éthico-politique. De surcroit, c’est conformément à la
causalité immanente de l'être univoque que Guattari soutient qu'« il n’est pas
juste de séparer l’action sur la psyché, le socius et l’environnement »
(Guattari, 1989: 32) et qu'il fonde ainsi la concaténation écologique qu'il
nomme écosophie. Les implications pratiques de la philosophie de la différence,
et ainsi sa relation avec le pluralisme politique, sont exposées le plus
explicitement dans l'écosophie guattarienne qui offre « la perspective d’un
choix éthico-politique de la diversité, du dissensus créateur, de la
responsabilité à l’égard de la différence et de l’altérité. » (Guattari, 2014:
33) Après avoir exposé les liens qu’il existe entre leur utilisation respective
de l’hétérogenèse, je traiterai du dissensus impliqué et valorisé par
l’écosophie qui permet d'aborder de manière concrète le défi de la cohésion que
pose un pluralisme assumé.
Doctorant à l'Université d'Ottawa — École d'études
politiques
jeanseblab@hotmail.com
Jean-Sébastien Laberge est doctorant à l’École
d'études politiques de l’Université d’Ottawa. Après s'être intéressé dans le
cadre du programme EuroPhilosophie à l'appropriation deleuzienne de la
métaphysique de Spinoza à travers son interprétation de la genèse de Dieu dans
les premières propositions de l’Éthique, ses recherches portent maintenant sur
la relation entre la philosophie pratique de Spinoza et les travaux de Deleuze
et Guattari. Il s’intéresse plus particulièrement aux liens qui peuvent être
établis entre une écologie politique spinoziste et l’écosophie guattarienne
ainsi que sur ce qu’elles peuvent apportées au traitement des enjeux liés à la
biodiversité et à la diversité culturelle.
jeanseblab@hotmail.com
Larissa Lai, Becoming Racial, Becoming Relational:
Sovereignty and Species Difference
Recent turns in animal rights discourse have used
critical race theory to argue for animal justice in ways that parallel human
rights discourses. Predicated on identitarian notions of both human and animal
subjects, such analogies are productive but only in limited ways. In this
paper, I turn to Deleuze and feminist posthumanism, specifically the concepts
of becoming and autopoieisis to interrogate the fields of possibility, or what
Deleuze calls the virtual, to seek alternate ethics and alternate forms of
relation that are not necessarily predicated on identitarian politics. I ask
further what forms of sovereignty become newly accessible when racialized and
animal beings are open to the process of becoming rather than constructed as
traumatized subjects of the past in need of restitution, recognition and
healing. Reading Madeleine Thien’s Dogs at the Perimeter, Kyo MacLear’s The
Letter Opener and Leanne Simpson’s Islands of Decolonial Love I propose forms
of Asian/Indigenous relation that are not triangulated through the colonial
state, though they still depend on processes of becoming that may be violent or
forgetful. Via always changing animal or object states we stumble into
relation, differently.
Larissa Lai is the author of two novels, When Fox Is a
Thousand and Salt Fish Girl; two books of poetry, sybil unrest (with Rita Wong)
and Automaton Biographies; a chapbook, Eggs in the Basement; and most recently,
a critical book, Slanting I, Imagining We: Asian Canadian Literary Production
in the 1980s and 1990s. A recipient of the Astraea Foundation Emerging Writers'
Award, she has been shortlisted for the Books in Canada First Novel Award, the
Tiptree Award, the Sunburst Award, the City of Calgary W.O. Mitchell Award, the
bpNichol Chapbook Award and the Dorothy Livesay Prize. She directs The
Insurgent Architects' House for Creative Writing at the University of Calgary.
haamyue@gmail.co
Gregg Lambert, "Who are Deleuze and Guattari's
Conceptual Personae?"
My talk will address the notion of the personnage
conceptuel that appears in Deleuze’s later philosophical reflections with
Guattari concerning the special nature of “philosophical enunciation.” While in
some respects, “conceptual personae” originate and function very much like
clichés in language, and they circulate and are reproduced through the powers
of repetition and abstraction. Consequently, like clichés, in order to achieve
a maximal degree of repetition and consensus, by means of the conceptual
personae entire philosophies are pared down and a few simple features or
sentences that are extracted from the work in order to convey an abstract image
of thought. What interests me most, however, is the nature of those
philosophers and their conceptual personae that produced such an extreme range
of positive and negative evaluations concerning the fundamental expression of
their philosophies, and so the changing nature of the conceptual personages can
be made dramatically evident in these special cases (e.g., Plato and Platonism,
Descartes and Cartesianism, Spinoza and Spinozism, Kant and Kantianism, Hegel
and Hegelianism and here we might also add several contemporary personages
associated with the philosophies of Bergson, Deleuze, Derrida, etc.); that is,
each proper name must be accompanied by multiple conceptual personae that begin
with the prefix “anti-.”
glambert@syr.edu
Jay Lampert, Future and Future Tense
Is the future filled with virtual events, or is the
future the empty form of time? Deleuze's analysis of the future in
"Difference and Repetition" leads in both directions. But how can
there be dark precursors if the future is “the emptiness of pure time”? If the
pure past is the past that never was, is the pure future a future that never
will be? Is there anything about the future that can be expressed in future
tense?"
Jay Lampert teaches Philosophy both at Duquesne
University (USA) and at the University of Guelph (Canada). His past books have
included Deleuze and Guattari's Philosophy of History, Simultaneity and Delay,
and Husserl's Concept of Synthesis. His future books will include "The
Future of Decisions" and "Short Term".
Jlampert2uoguelph.ca
Andrew Lapworth, Sex, death, and ‘becoming-bull’ in
Pedro Almodovar’s Matador
In elaborating the immanent ethics of a pluralist
empiricism Deleuze frequently turned to the ontogenetic terrain of the arts.
The art-encounter, for Deleuze, is defined in terms of its capacities to induce
thoroughly nonhuman individuations and becomings, a thought he continues to
trace through his two-volume study of the cinema. Here Deleuze constructs the
cinematic screen as a machinic space for the expression of new “signs”, impersonal
sensations or pure qualities, which act as multiplicities of perception and
duration without ontological mooring in human subjects. It is precisely in
terms of cinema’s pluralist empirical experiments in nonhuman becoming that I
frame the spaces of encounter in Pedro Almodovar’s 1986 film Matador. Set a
decade after the death of Franco, Matador presents characters caught within the
repressive excesses of a Francoist plane of organisation, which subtends their
sado-masochistic search for new material forms of sensibility and ethological
modes of alliance. Rather than merely representing these thresholds and forces
of animal becoming on screen, Almodovar’s use of irrational cuts and tactile
close-ups of indiscernible flesh amplify the molecular speeds, relations and
affects of the protagonists’ becoming-bull. By dramatizing these intensive
forces of nonhuman individuations, the filmic encounter unravels the molar
semiotics and identitarian logics of thought that continue to structure the
bodies, institutions, and experiences of contemporary society.
Andrew Lapworth is a Senior Associate Teacher in the
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol. His research interests
lie at the intersection between theories of art (particularly cinema),
empiricism, and the politics of individuation. Drawing on the philosophies of
Deleuze, Guattari, Simondon, and Whitehead, his PhD thesis explores the
production of new collective emergences, nonhuman experiences, and transversal
encounters in contemporary practices of ‘art-science’. This research has
recently been published in the journal Cultural Geographies and (forthcoming)
in Theory, Culture and Society.
Senior Associate Teacher, School of Geographical
Sciences, University of Bristol (UK)
Leonard Lawlor, Three Ways of Speaking
The question that has animated all of my research over
the last several years is this: what is required from us in order to retreat
from the will to the worst violence? It seems certain that we need a new way of
thinking that is not based in determinate genera and species, determinate
categories and concepts. In other words, what we need is a new way of speaking
(and writing) that is adequate to the fundamental dis-adequation,
dis-identification, in-exactitude and injustice that is fundamental to all
experience (what Derrida has called “transcendental violence”). So far, I have
discovered three candidates for this new way of speaking. There is the idea of
speaking-frankly (parēssia) given to us by Foucault in his last three courses
at the Collège de France; there is the idea of teleiopoesis given to us by
Derrida in his Politics of Friendship; and finally, there is the idea of
speaking-for given to us by Deleuze and Guattari in their final collaborative
book, What is Philosophy? The focus of my talk be Deleuze and Guattari’s
valorization, in Chapter 4 of What is Philosophy?, of “speaking for” as the
philosophical utterance.
Leonard Lawlor received his Ph.D. in philosophy from
Stony Brook University in 1988. He taught at the University of Memphis from
1989 to 2008 where he became Faudree-Hardin Professor of Philosophy. In 2008,
he became Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Philosophy at Penn State University,
where he continues to teach and serves as Director of Graduate Studies in
Philosophy. He is the author of seven books: Early Twentieth Century
Continental Philosophy (Indiana University Press, 2011); This is not
Sufficient: An Essay on Animality in Derrida (Columbia University Press, 2007);
The Implications of Immanence: Towards a New Concept of Life (Fordham, 2006);
Thinking Through French Philosophy: The Being of the Question (Indiana, 2003);
The Challenge of Bergsonism: Phenomenology, Ontology, Ethics (Continuum Books,
2003); Derrida and Husserl: The Basic Problem of Phenomenology (Indiana, 2002);
and Imagination and Chance: The Difference Between the Thought of Ricoeur and
Derrida (The SUNY Press, 1992). He is one of the co-editors and co-founders of
Chiasmi International: Trilingual Studies Concerning the Thought of
Merleau-Ponty. He has translated Merleau-Ponty, Derrida, and Hyppolite into
English. He has written dozens of articles on Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze,
Lyotard, Bergson, and Merleau-Ponty. He is the co-editor of The Cambridge
Foucault Lexicon (forthcoming 2013). Lawlor is currently working on a new book
called Violence against Violence (for Edinburgh University Press).
Pul19@psu.edu
Oleg Lebedev, Les machines désirantes ne meurent pas:
la mort impersonnelle et sentiment d'éternité
La condition de l’inconscient machinique est la mort
qui désire, le corps sans organes comme moteur immobile qui nous force à
déposer les organes ; mais le fonctionnement de ce même inconscient est la vie
qui désire, la réappropriation des organes miraculés par ce corps sans organes
lui-même. La grande santé du cycle des machines désirantes est ce passage,
cette conversion même, où le mouvement est à double sens : tantôt la remontée
de l’état catatonique où l’intensité est à son degré zéro vers une
expérimentation de devenirs et sentiments intenses, tantôt la redescente à
partir de toute intensité vers la mort qu’elle enveloppe et qui la fait naître.
La présente communication se propose d’éclairer la difficile théorie de la
double mort, de la mort comme modèle et de la mort comme expérimentation, que
Deleuze et Guattari empruntent à Blanchot. Quelle est cette mort qui n’a rien à
voir avec moi et sur laquelle je n’ai aucun pouvoir ? Plus particulièrement, on
sera attentifs à l’affirmation que les machines désirantes ne meurent pas, et
au lien qu’elle établit avec l’idée spinoziste d’un sentiment d’éternité, où la
mort est certes nécessaire, mais d’une nécessité qui appartient simplement aux
accidents et qui vient du dehors. En ce sens, la mort ne concerne ni notre
essence singulière éternelle, ni nos rapports.
Oleg Lebedev is a teaching assistant in philosophy at
the Université Catholique de Louvain (Belgium). His research interests focused
so far on cinematic realism (especially among French theoreticians and film
critics influenced by Bazin, such as Daney or Comolli), and on the
conceptualisation of the link of politics and aesthetics proposed by Jacques
Rancière. His current research pertains to the theory of subjectivity and
individuation in the philosophy of Deleuze.
Kanakis Leledakis, The Locus of Desire
Deleuze and Guattari bring to the forefront the question
of power and the creation of desire. It is not simply discourse, which
structures subjectivities; it is also, and more importantly, desire. Desire
does not emanate from a coherent subject, it is not pre structured. On the
contrary, it creates the subject. However: 1.Desire may not have a unitary
origin, a center, but it does have a locus: It always refers to the individual
as subject, and Desire may be externally constructed and a correlative of
power. Yet, it cannot function anywhere: its locus, the subject, has a history
and this history influences the possibility of purchase of desire. Deleuze and
Guattari are critical towards Freud and Lacan. Lacan does indeed, especially in
his early phase influenced by existentialism, presuppose a subject either as
lack or as a project. Paradoxically, part of the Freudian corpus indicates the
possibility of avoiding such an essentialism. Thus, If desire is to structure,
to create subjectivities, this cannot be done mechanically. It cannot be a case
of simple fluid mechanics: channeling, diverting. Α mechanism has to be there
and in the concept of identification, Freud provides us with precisely such a
mechanism.
Kanakis.leledakis@gmail.com
Sandra Lemeilleur, Le web comme territoire
interstitiel de subjectivation
Le territoire, composante de l’agencement de désir
avec l’état de chose, le type d’énoncés et la déterritorialisation semble
évoluer avec l’avènement du web. En effet, la fiche de profil d’un internaute
complexifie l’agencement car elle réunit sur une « même page », le territoire,
le type d’énoncés et la déterritorialisation. Même si, les quatre composantes
de l’agencement ne sont jamais à penser comme des entités séparées, le web
modifie les mouvements entre elles. C’est plus la porosité de ces composantes
l’une vers l’autre, l’autre tendant vers l’une qui importe. Le web devient
alors un territoire de l’entre-deux, un territoire interstitiel grâce aux
marques laissées par les internautes. Cette évolution travaille les flux de
lutte pour la subjectivation qui s’y projettent. Nous posons l’hypothèse d’un
sujet, las de devoir s’auto-définir pour répondre au bio-pouvoir et ainsi à
chercher dans le web un moyen d’œuvrer pour sa subjectivation. Afin de façonner
une forme d’expressivité de sa multiplicité, il tente de se dégager des
dualismes qui lui sont imposés. Cette communication vise à interroger la
production de subjectivité à la lumière des nouveaux agencements rendus
possibles par la machine du web. De plus, elle s’attache au sujet alternant
entre aliénation aux dispositifs des institutions et lutte pour la liberté de
sa subjectivation. Ce flux d’affrontement est motivé par la volonté de dépasser
ce dualisme. C’est plus cette volonté de tendre vers la fin des dualismes qui
serait la véritable motivation de la production de subjectivité.
Sandra Lemeilleur est doctorante en sciences de
l’Information et de la Communication au laboratoire Média Information
Communication Arts à l’université Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux 3. Ses
recherches s’orientent vers une anthropologie des usages des NTIC plus
particulièrement sur l’expressivité de l’intime dans les réseaux sociaux et les
sites de rencontres et sur les processus de subjectivation mis en œuvre dans
ces nouveaux territoires.
sandralemeilleur@yahoo.fr
Amalia Liakou, Δημιουργία κι αντίσταση. Aπό τον Ντελέζ
στη φωτογραφία
≪
Δημιουργώ σημαίνει αντιστέκομαι ≫, ισχυρίζεται ο Ζυλ
Ντελέζ σε συνέντευξή του. Mε αφετηρία αυτήν την ρήση επιχειρούμε έναν στοχασμό
για τη σχέση τέχνης κι αντίστασης, και θέτουμε έναν προβληματισμό για μια τέχνη
που, αν και δεν φαίνεται να απασχόλησε ιδιαίτερα την σκέψη του φιλοσόφου,
μοιάζει ωστόσο να σχετίζεται άμεσα με τις θέσεις του αναφορικά με την αντίσταση
του καλλιτέχνη και του έργου τέχνης. Αναφερόμαστε στη φωτογραφία. Σύμφωνα με τον
Ντελέζ, στη βάση της τέχνης βρίσκεται η ιδέα μιας κάποιας ντροπής του να είσαι
άνθρωπος. Έτσι λοιπόν η τέχνη τείνει να απελευθερώσει τη ζωή που φυλάκισε ο κι
αυτό είναι αντίσταση. Η ιδέα της ελευθερίας φαίνεται να υποβόσκει
στην καλλιτεχνική δημιουργία. Ας θυμηθούμε επίσης τον
Σπινόζα που στην Ηθική του διατείνεται ότι η σοφία του ελεύθερου ανθρώπου είναι
μελέτη όχι του θανάτου αλλά της ζωής. Μιλώντας για την φωτογραφία αναπόφευκτα
ενδιαφερόμαστε για το πραγματικό, με το οποίο, ακόμα και στην πιο αφηρημένη της
εκδοχή, συνδέεται άρρηκτα. Η φωτογραφία, ανάμεσα σε ντοκουμέντο και τέχνη,
σύμφωνα με τον γάλλο θεωρητικό Andre Rouille, φαίνεται να θεμελιώνεται τόσο σε
μια εξωτερική, όσο και μια εσωτερική αναγκαιότητα. Τι είναι λοιπόν ένας
φωτογράφος απέναντι στην εποχή του; Ποια ζωή φυλακισμένη απελευθερώνει μέσα από
τις εικόνες που δημιουργεί; Προκειμένου να στοχαστούμε τη σχέση δημιουργίας -
ειδικότερα φωτογραφίας- κι αντίστασης, προτείνουμε τρεις καλλιτέχνες, την
αμερικανίδα Diane Arbus, τον γάλλο Mathieu Pernot και την ελληνίδα Λυδία
Δαμπασίνα
Η Αμαλία Λιάκου είναι ερευνήτρια Αισθητικής και
φωτογράφος. Σπούδασε Φιλοσοφία και Ψυχολογία στο Αριστοτέλειο πανεπιστήμιο
Θεσσαλονίκης και στο πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Στα πλαίσια του μεταπτυχιακού της
στην ιστορία της φιλοσοφίας στο Α.Π.Θ., παρακολούθησε μαθήματα φιλοσοφίας της
τέχνης στο πανεπιστήμιο Paris I Pantheon-Sorbonne. Με υποτροφία του ιδρύματος
Αισθητικής Μιχελή πραγματοποίησε διδακτορικές σπουδές στο Παρίσι στο τμήμα
Τεχνών, Φιλοσοφίας κι Αισθητικής του πανεπιστημίου Paris 8 και το 2013
υποστήριξε τη διατριβή της σχετικά με την Αισθητική του υπερρεαλιστικού
φαντασιακού και την ελληνική φωτογραφία. Τα ερευνητικά της ενδιαφέροντα
αφορούν στη φιλοσοφία της τέχνης, τη θεωρία της φωτογραφίας, τον υπερρεαλισμό,
την μοντέρνα και σύγχρονη τέχνη, την ≪πρωτόγονη≫
τέχνη, την τέχνη και την ψυχανάλυση, την τέχνη και την πολιτική. Έχει
συμμετάσχει σε ημερίδες και συνέδρια στο Παρίσι και το Βέλγιο, ενώ άρθρα της
βρίσκονται σε συλλογικούς τόμους στη Γαλλία. Συμμετείχε σε ομαδικές εκθέσεις
φωτογραφίας στη Γαλλία και τη Βραζιλία και η πρώτη της ατομική έκθεση
φωτογραφίας θα πραγματοποιηθεί το 2015.
Sebastian Hsien-hao Liao, Vitalism in the Middle:
Reconnecting with Life via “force” in Deleuze and Taoism
Deleuze has on several occasions described his
thinking as “vitalistic”. In addition to being intentionally scandalizing, he
also did this with some self-justification. But if he could be considered
vitalistic, his form of vitalism does not fit into the dichotomy of vitalism
versus mechanism. Rather, it should be labeled “machinic vitalism” or
“practical vitalism” where he endeavors to reconnect with Life without however
submitting to the idea of a transcendent will presiding over all becomings. In
his later phase, Deleuze puts even more emphasis on an energetics of Life where
“force” or “desire” serves as the material manifestation of Life. As Deleuze's
famous remark "It’s organisms that die, not life" has made clear,
Life is a realm of pre-individual multiplicities or non-organic forces, which
exceed biological existence. This immanently “vitalistic” tendency finds a
strong echo in Chinese Taoist philosophy where Life is construed immanently and
materialistically and manifested as “qi” or vital forces. The concept of “qi”
dissolves the centrality of the subject by construing “individuation” as the
folding of the “qi,” a purely material process. And reconnection with Life via
the “qi” enables one to transcend the organismic existence and thereby participate
in a world of multiplicities called the Tao. Albeit the culmination of a minor
tradition in the West, Deleuze’s (and Guattari’s) “machinic vitalism” can not
only help bridge the gap between Western and Chinese philosophies but also
contribute to illuminating the various practices based on the idea of “qi” that
have hitherto remained in the realm of the esoteric.
Hsien-Hao Liao is Professor of English and comparative
literature at the Department of Foreign languages and literatures at National
Taiwan University. He received his Ph.D. from Stanford University and was
post-doctoral fellow at Harvard University. He was visiting professor at
University of Washington (Seattle), and visiting fellow at Princeton
University, Chicago University, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Charles
University (Czech), and University of Melbourne. In addition to being chief
editor for three important literary journals Chung-wai Literary Journal
(literature Chinese and Foreign), Studies in Languages and Literature, and
Journal of Anglo-American literature, he also served as President of the
Comparative Literature Association of Taiwan (ROC) (Hsien-hao Sebastian Liao
2002-04) and Director of the Department of Cultural Affairs of Taipei City
Government (2003-2006). His research interests include comparative poetics,
literary and cultural theories (with a focus on Lacan, Deleuze, postcolonial
and transnational theories), modern Anglo-American fiction, modern Taiwanese
literature and culture, the Chinese diaspora, and cultural policy formation.
His most recent publications include “Becoming Butterfly: Power of the False,
Crystal Image and (Taoist) Onto-Aesthetics” in Deleuze and Asia, eds. Ronald
Bogue et al (Cambridge Scholar, 2014), “From Poetic Revolution to
Nation-(Re)building: Vicissitudes of Modernity in Modern Chinese Poetry” in
Modern China and the West, eds. Isabelle Rabut et al (Brill, 2014), and
“Becoming God, and Dog: Taoist You, Deleuzian Nomadism and God, Man, Dog.” in
Deleuze in China, eds. Paul Patton et al. (U of New South Wales & Henan U).
He is currently working on two projects-- “The Sino Maritime” and “Deleuze and
Taosm”.
Elena Loizidou Suicide As a Way to friendship
According to Antonakakis and Collinsat (2014) between
2009 and 2010 one person per day committed suicide in Greece and 50% of these
suicides were due to austerity.For Camus, suicide constitutes a real
philosophical question while for Derrida, suicide left behind a wish for an
improvised conversation amongst friends/philosophers (between Derrida and
Deleuze). Derrida, in the eulogy at Deleuze’s funeral, turns to Deleuze’s
philosophy, to address his friend’s suicide, to search for a reason, a way of
thinking about suicide. He directs us to a quote from Joe Bousquet that Deleuze
uses in The Logic of Sense as a cursor to the kind of movement that takes place
when one inclines towards death: it is a movement of the body that gestures
towards what is to come and that can only occur in the leap itself. This
movement - we can call it a scream - the scream of thinking after Nietzsche’s
Prologue 5 of Thus Spoke Zarathustra; a movement that cannot be scripted or if
it is to be put down in writing it has to remain the unfolding of thinking or a
way. The paper wishes to pose the following questions: what kind of testament,
what sort of scream(s) or pathways are these austerity related suicides asking
us to sense? What do I sense? In addressing these questions I will turn to
ethics and the question of friendship.
Elena Loizidou is a Reader in Law and Political Theory
at the School of Law at Birkbeck College. She is the author of Judith Butler:
Ethics, Law, Politics (2007) and the editor of Disobedience: Concept/Practice
(2013). She is currently writing a monograph on Anarchism as an Art of
Living.
E.loizidou@bbk.ac.uk
