The Craftsman [of the universe] does not—indeed logically cannot—copy by replicating the Living Thing; his challenge rather lies in crafting an image of [the universe] that is subject to the constraints of becoming: unlike the model, it must be visible and tangible (28b7), hence three-dimensional (solid—stereoeidê, 32b1). This constraint in turn requires the postulation of a three-dimensional field in which the created universe may subsist, a field that Timaeus initially calls the “receptacle (hupodochê) of all becoming” (49a5–6) and subsequently calls “space”(chôra, 52a8, d3). (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2009 Edition)Derrida (1995), writing on Plato's concept of chôra, states: "Khôra receives, so as to give place to them, all the determinations, but she/it does not possess any of them as her/its own" (Khôra 99). The Event of thought for the concept Routine,--the mutual interrelatedness of the components that comprise the consistency of the concept--that will place the event in my subject position, appears to be closely related to the concept of chôra. The conceptual persona, I think, will play an integral role in this notion of creating a receptacle or space for becoming on Deleuze and Guattari's "plane of immanence;" which, as location or space of becoming (bearing all of its possibilities within itself), in name and meaning, expresses the concept of chôra.
The following additional quote from Derrida's Khôra seems important. I'm not quite sure how to interpret it in the context of our project right now, but I'm hoping that it will make more sense later:
But if khôra is a receptacle, if it/she gives place to all the stories, ontological or mythic, that can be recounted on the subject of what she receives and even of what she resembles but which in fact takes place in her, khôra herself, so to speak, does not become the object of tale, whether true or fabled. A secret without secret remains forever impenetrable on the subject of it/her" (117).In post-structural linguistics, chôra means "to write with all the meanings of a word" (Lecture Notes).
The concept of chôra can be both positively and negatively related to the concept of routine. Virno helps us to negotiate the difference in (and relationships between) routine as the outcome of a rule of law (civil state) and common behaviors that represent the prejuristic drives (or common “rules”) of humans living in society (species-specific regularity (Virno, 37)). Greg Dean, the tale component of the CATTt, by contrast, will prepare us for the manipulation of language and meaning using the mechanism of creating a joke in a stand-up comedy routine.
The structure of Deans' stand-up routine will help us break the infinite regression that is associated with the rule of institutions and the dictates of practical reason. For example, Virno asks, "Why is it necessary to obey?" (25). If someone answers “because the law commands it” he or she would enter into an infinite regression because to follow a rule or law is to imply that a rule or law exists to create it—one that “is previous or more fundamental” (25). "Thus . . . one never arrives at an end result" (25). Virno explains that a rule is not defined by prior rules, but by its target, the subject(s) that, in any given situation, decides whether to follow the rule or ignore it. While the rule cannot logically open itself to an origin of infinite regression, it can open to an infinite progression (an inversion of its logical inconsistency), as it were, in its application (the state of exception). It is in this progressive space of its implied future that the rule becomes a means to a fixed end. It achieves its stability (power) only through the condition it creates to be acted or decided upon in a particular human situation (phrónesis).
No comments:
Post a Comment