de warren, n., paradigmi-dewarren

7/26/2019 De Warren, N., Paradigmi-Dewarren

1/14

The Anarchy of Sense:

Husserl in Deleuze, Deleuze in Husserl

Nicolas de Warren(KU Leuven)

In memory of Krzysztof Michalski

Les obections n!ont amais rien a""ort#$%& 'eleuze

I

It is one of the cruel ironies of the current ave of interest in the ritins of *illes'eleuze that+ for a "hiloso"her ho incessantly struled aainst clich#s in every form and uise+so much of the secondary literature abounds in clich#s of all forms and uises$ ,his "henomenonis es"ecially a""arent ith assessments of 'eleuze!s confrontation ith -usserl and the ays inhich critical features of transcendental "henomenoloy are reconfiured and transformed into

the transcendental em"iricism of Logic of Sense and Difference and Repetition$ Within thisliterature+ e find a veritable chaos of clich#s ith res"ect to -usserl in "articular. ,hrouh thee"och#+ "henomenoloy reduces any transcendental orld or transcendent thin in itself to a"henomenon/ anythin transcendent comes to be located within e0"erience+% the poch+ orbracketin+ of the natural attitude ives rise to a "ure consciousness distinct from the 1artesiancogito in that evidence does not address the outside orld+ but rather the content ofconsciousness+% and other infelicities betray a less than ade2uate understandin circulatinthrouh such thin imaes of -usserl!s thinkin$ ,his lack on the side of -usserl contrasts ith afullness of "ara"hrasin and "arrotin on the side of 'eleuze$ We find here a deliriousre"roduction of terms (sinularity+ intensity+ im"ersonal transcendental field+ etc) and statementsthat merely succeeds in a s"ectacular fashionin of 'eleuze$

Missin amon this din is the kind of encounter beteen conce"ts that 'eleuze himselfre"eatedly orchestrated in his ritins and for hich he crafted a s"ecific form of "hiloso"hicaldiscourse$ 3s 'eleuze rites in Thousand Plateaus+ the 4first! lanuae+ or rather the firstdetermination of lanuae+ is not the tro"e or meta"hor but indirect discourse% ('eleuze 5678+89:88)$ With indirect discourse+ boundaries beteen distinct fiures (-usserl and 'eleuze)become "orous and different "oints of vie (-usserl!s thouht is ;+ 'eleuze!s thouht is


2/14

of surfaces+ neither heiht nor de"th$5>uch an assemblae is fitted throuh a series of reci"rocalcom"lications and im"lications. internal com"lications "roduced throuh im"lications ithin anoutside and im"lications of an outside "roduced throuh com"lications ithin$ ? 3s 'eleuzeremarks in Difference and Repetition. 1ommentaries in the history of "hiloso"hy shouldre"resent a kind of slo motion+ a conelation or immobilisation of the te0t. not onlyof the te0tto hich they relate+ but alsoof the te0t in hich they are inserted @ so much so that they have a

double e0istence and a corres"ondin ideal. the "ure re"etition of the former te0t and the "resentte0t in one another%('eleuze 566A+ 00ii)$ ,he folloin is an e0"eriment in ust such a double:discourse on -usserl in 'eleuze+ 'eleuze in -usserl$ My focus shall be limited to 'eleuze!sconfrontation ith -usserl in oneseries fromLogic of Sense$ Likeise+ I shall limit myself to aset of concludin remarks meant to outline the contours of a more com"licated entanlementbeteen -usserl and 'eleuze that "ros"ectively looks forard to -usserl!s Bernau Manuscri"tson time:consciousness throuh the lens of 'eleuze!s Logic of Sense$ Thisconfrontation beteen-usserl and 'eleuze on time ill have to ait for another occasion+ iven the limited s"aceavailable here as ell as my "rimary (and "reliminary) interest in first com"licatin 'eleuze!sconfrontation ith -usserl on the "roblem of sense$

II

Logic of Sense could also have been entitled Logic of Time$ ,his loic of time isconstructed around a basic o""osition beteen ChronosandAionthat traverses the entire seriesof "arado0es that collectively assemble 'eleuze!s theory of sense$ Chronos re"resents ameta"hysical conce"tion of time that is edded to thinkin time as a chronoloical series of"resent instants/ only the "resent e0ists ith the "ast and future releated to simulation or non:bein$ =r rather+ the "ast and the future oe their res"ective sense as before and after to the"resent+ as ith 3ristotle!s seminal definition of time as the number of movement ith reard tothe before and the after$Aion envisions a heteroeneous tem"oralization that has broken ithlinear succession and a field of tem"oral distribution centered on the "resent instant$ 3s 'eleuzeremarks. In accordance ith 3ion+ only the "ast and future inhere or subsist in time$ Instead of a"resent hich absorbs the "ast and future+ a future and "ast divide the "resent at every instant and

subdivide ad infinitum into "ast and future+ in both directions at once% ('eleuze 566C+ "$ 577)Aion is a line re"eatedly re:confiured and hence re:tem"oralized% by an instant that is itselfre"eatedly missin from its on "lace of occurrence$ 3t every instant+ the event of time (orenesis%) is an instance of subdivision into "ast and future$ ,his instance of oriinaldifferentiation and com"le0 re"etition entails that the instant is alays ithout "lace in time+ outof oint ith the time that it itself oriinates$ ,he instant arrives in no time at all$ ,his 'eleuzianinsiht into the aleatory instant is only thinkable ithin a theory of sense that has broken ith the"rimacy of ontoloy$ 3s 'eleuze remarks in Thousand Plateaus. to overthro ontoloy+% doaay ith foundations+% and nullify endins and beinnins% re2uires a loic of the 3N'%('eleuze 5678+ "$ ?D)$ ,he loic of the and% im"lies an irreducible co:e0istence of the "ast andthe future ithout a foundin a0is on the is% of the instant$ 3ristotle!s conce"tion of time issubverted. movement (or becomin%) is the co:"resence of the "ast and the future ith reard to

an instant of time that never is$ Likeise+ this loic of the 3N'% re2uires a loic of sense thathas broken ith thinkin of sense on the basis of an o""osition beteen bein and non:bein+much as the tem"orality ofAionbreaks ith an o""osition beteen the "resent that is and the"ast+ the future that are not$

5>eeLogic of Sense+ Eihteenth >eries of the ,hree Imaes of Fhiloso"hers$

?>ee GranHois ourabichvili+La philosophie de Deleue(Faris . FUG+ 566A)+ "$ 79$

?


3/14

Within Logic of Sense+ the im"assibility of sense and its "oer of enesis in theGourteenth >eries of 'ouble 1ausality forms a crucial "arado0 ithin the series "arado0esthrouh hich 'eleuze enerates a theory of sense$ Each of the thirty:four "arado0es in Logic ofSenseives e0"ression to the insiht that sense is a non:e0istin entity+ and+ in fact+ maintainsvery s"ecial relations ith nonsense% ('eleuze 566C+ "$ i0)$ ,his "ervadin "arado0 of sense isinse"arable from the fraility of sense that+ in yet another turn of "arado0+ defines sense as an

event of structuration$% *enesis and >tructure% could be an a""ro"riate sub:title for Logic ofSense$ ,he "arado0 in the Gourteenth >eries marks an inflection "oint in the "roression of'eleuze!s arument by eneratin a hy"othesis that ill uide the subse2uent series of"arado0es. the transcendental field as the domain and enetic "oer of sinularities and anti:eneralities% that are im"ersonal and "re:individual$ ,he fact that 'eleuze evokes -usserl in theconte0t of eneratin this hy"othesis is the focus of my interest in this "a"er/ my concludinsuestion is that this hy"othesis is already im"licated in -usserl!s "roblem of time:consciousness+ thus further com"licatin the encounter ith -usserl!s transcendental"henomenoloy for 'eleuze!s transcendental thinkin$

3s e0"lored in the Gourteenth >eries of 'ouble 1ausality+ the fraility of sense consistsin the im"assibility of sense ith res"ect to beins% and states of affairs+% by hich is to be

understood that sense is an effect of cor"oreal causes and their mi0ture% ('eleuze 566C+ "$ 5C6)$>ense is irreducible to its cause+% such that the relationshi" beteen cause and effect is one ofheteroeneity%&a moment of non:sense% dislocates the effect from its cause+ not in order torender the effect a cause on its on+ but to "roduce an effect on its on+ as the full autonomy ofthe effect% ('eleuze 566C+ "$ 5C6)$ ,he effect of sense is autonomous ith reard to its (on)cause$ In a sitch of formulation+ 'eleuze re:inscribes this o""osition beteen im"assibility%and enesis% into an o""osition beteen formal loic% and transcendental loic+% hich is saidto traverse the entire theory of sense% ('eleuze 566C+ "$ 55C)$ ,his distinction is evidently dranfrom the discourse of transcendental "hiloso"hy+ ith -usserl here s"ecifically invoked$ With thiscontradiction beteen the im"assibility of sense and the "oer of eneration+ 'eleuze im"licitlydelineates the contours of his on transcendental em"iricism and its transcendental "rinci"le ofintensity$ Whereas intensity "roduces 2ualities and e0tended manitudes (2uantities)+ it is itself%

effaced or dis"laced/ intensity is indivisible or im"assible+ and yet itself transformed in dividinitself into 2uality and 2uantity$ 3s a transcendental "rinci"le+ intensity is the co:"resence of senseand non:sense/ it is a zero deree of ma0imal intensity% that does not "resu""ose hat it(em"irically) enenders (2uality and 2uantity)$ ,his zero deree of intensity is the sinularity ofthe event of transcendental enesis$J

With this translation of the o""osition beteen im"assibility% and enesis% into theo""osition beteen formal loic% and transcendental loic+% it is not accidental that 'eleuzecalls u"on the e0am"le of -usserl in !deen !$ More than sim"ly one "ossible e0am"le amonmany+ -usserl!s formulation of the transcendental structure of intentionality "rovides a sinularconte0t and indis"ensable reference for the eneration of 'eleuze!s hy"othesis reardin thetranscendental field and its "oer of enesis$ Logic of Sensecan be read as a criti2ue of the

noetic:noematic structure of intentionality in !deen !+ understood as a transcendental loic ofsense$AIn the Gourteenth >eries+ the focal "oint of 'eleuze!s interest in -usserl centers on theintriue "resented by the conce"t of the noema$ 3s 'eleuze tacitly reconizes+ the conce"t of thenoema is the decisive "hiloso"hical invention of!deen !$ ,he force of its oriinality as a conce"t+

J>ee 1ha"ter 3symmetrical >ynthesis of the >ensible% inDifference and Repetition$

A >ee Len Lalor+ Fhenomenoloy and meta"hysics+ and chaos. on the fraility of the event in 'eleuze+% in. The Cambridge

Companion to Deleue+ eds$ '$W$ >mith and -$ >omers:-all (1ambride. 1ambride University Fress+ ?C5?). 5CJ:5?D$ >ee also 3lanBeaulieu+ Edmund -usserl+% in. Deleue"s Philosophical Lineage+ eds$ *$ ones and $ offe (Edinburh. Edinburh UniversityFress+ ?CC6). ?95:?75$

J


4/14

one of the most contested in -usserl!s thinkin+ consists in delineatin a ne "roblem in thehistory of "hiloso"hy$ ,his ne "roblem "osed inthe conce"t of noema is the "roblem of senseitself. every obect has sense+ but sense is not an obect$ ,here is+ moreover+ an essentialentanglement beteen the "roblem of sense and the "roblem of time+ or more s"ecifically+ therelation beteen time and movement as formulated by 3ristotle. every movement+ or chane+ isin time+ but time is not a movement/ hence+ time is not iven ithout somethin ha""enin+

ithout an obect+ and yet time is not an obect$ In the conte0t of -usserl!s analysis of time:consciousness+ this 3ristotelian formulation becomes translated into a distinction beteen timeand sensibility. every sensation is tem"oral+ but time is itself not a sensation$ D>ense is likeiseiven ithin sensible e0"erience/ e see the tree as havin such and such a sense+ yet sense itselfis not a sensible (or intellectual) obect$ ,his "henomenoloical articulation of sense moti#atesthe "roblem of sense runnin throuh Logic of Sense. sense is a non:e0istin entity+ and+ in fact+maintains a very s"ecial relation to nonsense% (L> i0)$ ,his s"ecial relation% to nonsense in the"roblem of sense is embodied in the a""arent nonsense+ or ambiuity+ hauntin -usserl!s conce"tof noema/ it is as if the conce"t of noema ris$edits on nonsense in order to create a ne sensefor the "roblem of sense as a non:e0istin entity$% 9,he forceof the "roblem that orks itselfthrouh the conce"t of the noema threatens to dis"lace the sense of the conce"t itself$ ,hisinternal disru"tion of -usserl!s conce"t of the noema by its on indeterminacy or opennessas a

"roblem accounts for its diverse im"act on thinkers such as -eideer+ Gink+ 'errida+ Barthes+and 'eleuze$

,he conce"t of the noema in !deen ! emered from a lenthy "eriod of estation in-usserl!s thinkin that reaches back to the criti2ue of "sycholoism in theLogical !n#estigations$,he details of this develo"ment cannot be investiated here nor can a reconstruction of -usserl!sconce"tion of the noema be hazarded in full$ In brief+ as Michalski coently reconized+ theabsurdity% of "sycholoism for -usserl is not sim"ly the result of mi0in u" to differents"heres of obects @ the real ith the ideal+ facts ith meanins+% but consists in the obfuscationof a distinction beteen sense% and obect$% ,he "ro"er formulation of a distinction beteensense and obect is inse"arable from a "ro"er clarification of consciousness in its structure ofintentionality$ 3s -usserl arued in Logical !n#estigations+ meanins are not obects in the

ordinary sense+ they are only the manner in hich obects are iven to us/ obects and meaninsare inse"arably bound$%8,he irreality% of sense e0"resses the insiht that sense itself is notsomethin e0istin% in the manner of an obect$ 3s an ideal s"ecies+ sense is e2ually not asemantic construct since sense can be iven+ or fulfilled+ in intuitive acts of consciousness/ senseis ("erce"tually) e0"erienced$ But+ althouh -usserl succeeds in drain a distinction beteensense and obects+ and thus im"licitly "rovides a first sketch of the "arado0 of sense+ the handlinof the "roblem of sense in the Logical !n#estigations remained ham"ered by -usserl!s onconstrual of the relationshi" beteen sense and e0"erience in terms of a relation beteen s"ecies(ideal s"ecies of sense) and "articulars act of intentional consciousness$ 3s Michalski notes+ theirreality of sense cannot be e0"lained ith the aid of such conce"ts as 4essence! and 4individual+%since this ay of thinkin fails to do ustice to its s"ecific character+ hich "revents "lacinmeanin either on the side of subectivity or obectivity$% 7,his insiht is crucial in to res"ects/

both insihts set the course for the develo"ment of -usserl!s thinkin durin the years leadinfromLogical !n#estigations to !deen !$ Girst. sense is an intentional correlate of consciousness

D>ee Nicolas de Warren+%usserl and the Problem of Time(1ambride. 1ambride University Fress+ ?CC6)$

9=n the incom"rehensibility of the noema+ see 3dorno!s schrill criti2ue+ Die Transenden des Dinglichen und &oematischen in

%usserls Ph'nomenologie+ in. (esammelte Schriften)I (Grankfurt. >uhrkam"+ 568J)$8Krzysztof Michalski+Logic and Time* An +ssay on %usserl"s Theory of ,eaning('ordrecht. Kluer 3cademic Fublishers+ 5668)+ "$

?9$ Michalski s"eaks of meanin here I shall s"eak of sense$ -usserl!s term is Sinn$7ibid$+ "$ J?$

A


5/14

that is neithera content in consciousness (meanin is not in the head%) noran obect in the formof a thin or entity$ >ense is neither subective% or obective+% and yet sense is that in terms ofhich obects are iven or e0"erienced to consciousness as such and such+ namely+ as havinsuch and such a sense$ >econd. the distinction beteen sense as an ideal s"ecies and itsinstantiation in "articular acts of consciousness in the Logical !n#estigations (i$e$+ -usserl!snotion of intentional essence) is framed by a conce"tion of intentionality based on the schema of

a""rehension @ content of a""rehension$% ,his distinction further reflects a distinction beteenenerality% and individual% that im"oses an ontoloical constraint on the "roblem of sense$ 3sMichalski remarks. 'ie Irrealitt des >innes+ seine unzeifelhafte Unabhnikeit vomkonkreten Konte0t+ in dem er erscheint+ kann man mithin nicht mit -ilfe der Beriffe 4Wesen!and 4Individuum! verstndlich machen$%6We face here u"on hat 'errida has insihtfully calledthe anarchy of the noema$% ,he noema does not have an oriin in the different reions of beinnor can its sense be ca"tured throuh traditional o""ositions such as real:ideal+% actual:"ossible+% and individual:enerality$% 3s 'errida notes+ the noema is anarchic not only due to itslack of oriin ithin a determinate reion of bein/ it is anarchic in its disorderly movement+ ordifferentiation+ in traversin and crossin:out different reions of bein$5C

In res"onse to "roblems enendered by his first breakthrouh ith the "roblem of sense

and intentionality in theLogical !n#estigations+ e"istemoloical as ell as ontoloical+ -usserlcreates the conce"t of noema to desinate an irreducible dimension of sense that is neithersubective nor obective+ and that+ moreover+ cannot be fitted into an o""osition beteenenerality% and individuality% (2ua instantiation of a s"ecies)$ -usserl!s "assae from ontoloyto transcendental idealism "asses throuh this discovery of the noema as ontoloically anarchic+yet transcendentally indis"ensable$ -usserl!s transcendental idealism is the anarchy of ontoloy/hence the su"reme efforts ith hich -eideer attem"ted to domesticate the destructive force oftranscendental thinkin+ in both Kant and -usserl+ by mutin its oriinality throuh a criti2ue ofits su""osed forettin of bein$% ,he idea of noematic sense makes its first a""earance in-usserl!s 56C7 lecture course on the theory of sinification and has its linuistic ba"tism as atechnical term in 565?$55Even thouh the "resentation of the conce"t of noema in!deen !is oftenrearded as definitive+ -usserl in fact continued to develo" his conce"tion and re"eatedly

e0"ressed his on dissatisfaction ith its various formulations$ 3s -usserl notes to himself in ane0tended set of reflections entitled N=EM3 und >INN% from 56?5. Ich muss die Beriffe vonNoesis und Noema neu estalten$%5?3s ith other conce"ts in -usserl!s thinkin+ the noema is ane0"erimental conce"t in the makin over hich -usserl never fully ained mastery$ Even themost cursory readin of his manuscri"t N=EM3 und >INN% (B III 5?)+ due to a""ear in the-usserliana edition Studien ur Stru$tur des -ewu.tseins+ reveals a truly anarchic situation in-usserl!s attem"ts to fit toether different "ieces of a "uzzle for hich is lackin a uidinimae$5J

,he noema is a com"le0 structure ithin the noetic:noematic intentionality ofconsciousness$ I shall here "resu""ose a basic familiarity ith the theory of intentionality asdevelo"ed in !deen !and "ass directly to a discussion of those as"ects salient for 'eleuze!s

6Krzysztof Michalski+ >inn und ,atsache$ Ober -usserls 3useinandersetzun mit dem Fsycholoismus+% in. /ffene Systeme !!*

Logi$ und 0eit+ eds$ K$ Maurin+ K$ Michalski+ and E$ udol"h (>tuttart. Klett:1otta+ 5675). J?6:J8C/ "$ J96 P,he irreality of sense+its un2uestionable inde"endence from concrete conte0ts+ in hich it a""ears+ can not be made understandable ith the assistance ofconce"ts such as Qessence! and Qindividual!R$5C

>ee the insihtful remarks on the anarchy of the noema in ac2ues 'errida+ 4*enesis and >tructure! and Fhenomenoloy+% in.1riting and Difference+ trans$ 3$ Bass (1hicao. University of 1hicao Fress+ 5687). 5DA:597/ "$ 59J$55

>ee 2orlesungen 3ber -edeutungslehre$ Sommersemester 4567+ -ua ;;I/ see -ua IIIS?+ "$ D98$5?

B III 5? IS7Da PI must desin ane the conce"ts of noesis and noemaR$5J

,his three:volume edition is currently under "re"aration by my colleaue Ullrich Melle$ Fublication is e0"ected in ?C5D$

D


6/14

thinkin$ ,he anarchy of the noema is structured around a nucleus of sense that is distinct but notse"arate from the do0ic modalities of consciousness+ the noematic "redicates of the obect+ andhat -usserl called noematic characteristics$% ,he noematic nucleus of sense is im"assible%and irreducible% ith reard to modalities of do0ic belief. the different ays in hich an obecta""ears as "robable+ 2uestionable+ etc$ Likeise+ hat -usserl identifies as the noematic"redicates of an obect or+ in other ords+ the definite descri"tions under hich an obect is

intended as such and such (as blue+ round+ etc$)+ are also distinct from the nucleus of noematicsense$ Ginally+ the noematic characteristics of an obect+ namely+ the ays in hich an obecta""ears as bein:ishful+% as bein:desirable+% etc$+ are e2ually distinct from the nucleus ofnoematic sense$5A ,he noematic nucleus of sense desinates the identical "ole of unity thatsu""orts% the "ossible "redicates and determinations of an obect as intended$ 'ifferent ays ofintendin ("erceivin+ imainin+ etc$) as ell as different definite descri"tions under hich anobect a""ears are directed toards an ideal sense that is not identifiable ith these differentnoematic characteristics and dimensions$

In hat is undoubtedly the critical thouht behind the noema for 'eleuze+ the noema istranscendent ith reard to consciousness/ it is not a reell% "art of consciousness (in contrast tohyletic data and noetic acts)+ yet on the other hand+ the noema is a non:inde"endent "art+ i$e$+ it

does not enoy a self:sufficient mode of bein$ ,he noema frames transcendence ithinimmanence+ yet the transcendence of the noema does not sinify that the noema e0ists%inde"endently of consciousness$ Indeed+ the noema does not e0ist% at all$ Its manner of bein%(-usserl s"eaks of Seinsweise des &oema) is ontoloically ambiuous+ anarchic$ 3s -usserle0"lains. 'as in dieser Blickstellun *eebene Pdas &oemaR ist nun zar selbst+ logischgesprochen+ ein *eenstand+ aber ein durchaus unselbstndier$ >ein esse besteht ausschlieTlichin seinem 4"erci"i! @ nur daT dieser >atz nichtsenier als im Berkeleyschen >inne ilt+ da das"erci"i das esse hier 8a nicht als reelles -estandst3c$ enth'lt$%5D,he noema is an obect only in aloical sense%. it is an obect only in bein:reflected:u"on ithin transcendental reflection underthe o"erator of the reduction$ In the natural attitude+ consciousness is directed toards the obectitself (the tree)+ not to the noema+ even thouh the ays in hich the obect is iven+ or a""ears+are inscribed ithin a noematic s"ace of sense$ It is only ithin the field of transcendental

e0"erience+ as a reduced "henomenon% (i$e$+ a "henomenon "roduced in reflection)+ that e cansee and s"eak of the noema$ ,he "eculiarity of the noema as the loical obect% of reflection+ andhence not as a real (wir$liche) obect+ is that des"ite bein an obect of reflection+ the noema isnot contained ithin this act of reflection$ 3s -usserl stresses by drain a contrast ithBerkeley!s famous statement+ the esse% of the noema is not its "erci"i$ In the case of a tree+ fore0am"le+ it is both 2ua obect not a real% (reell) "art of "erce"tion as ell as an obect that e0istsinde"endently of "erce"tion$ By contrast+ the "erce"tual noema of the tree as obect+ ithouthich no obect is "erceivable as such and such+ is not a real% (reell) "art of consciousness andyet it is also not an inde"endent obect$ ,he tree can be burned+ its noematic sense cannot$ ,henoema is thus a kind of virtuality% and invisible dimension of sense ithin the natural attitudewithouthich actual (wir$lich) obects cannot be e0"erienced$ ,he transcendence of the noemaithin the immanence of consciousness is an ontoloically ambiuous transcendence that disru"ts

ontoloy itself$ In 'eleuze!s manner of e0"ression+ -usserl has effectively discovered theontoloical "arado0 of sense+ and this "arado0 can only be formulated ithin a frameork oftranscendental thinkin$

5A>ee!deen !+ 67 ff$

5D!deen !+ -ua IIISI+ "$ ??6:?JC (my em"hasis)$ Kersten!s Enlish translation ("$ ?A5) has botched this decisive statement. Its esse

consists e0clusively of its 4percipi!&e0ce"t that this "ro"osition does not have the Berkeleyian sense because here the esse does notinclude the "erci"i as a really inherent com"onent "iece% (my em"hasis)$ 3 correct translation+ hoever+ for this clause should read.the percipe does not include the esse as its real part* Kersten+ in other ords+ has reversed the order&an unconscious resistance to thenovelty of -usserl!s vie of the noemaV

9


7/14

,he transcendental intriue of the noema is hoever double$ 3s 'eleuze reconizes. Inthis nucleus of noematic sense+ there a""ears somethin even more intimate+ a 4su"remely! ortranscendentally intimate 4center! hich is nothin other than the relation beteen sense itselfand the obect in its reality$ Relation and realitymust no be enendered or constituted in atranscendental manner% ('eleuze 566C+ "$ 55C)$ 'eleuze here follos Faul icoeur (ho in turn

follos Euen Gink) in callin attention to the double transcendence ithin the -usserlianstructure of intentionality (and not+ as all too commonly understood+ merely transcendence inimmanence%)$ 3s icoeur observes at the beinnin of his commentary to >ection Gour 2ernunftund 1ir$lich$eitof !deen !. La!2e Sectionfait #clater le cadre des analyses ant#rieures$ 1elles:ci avaient "our thme le 4sens! du nome et les multi"les 4caractres! 2ui les modifient+ au"remier ran des2uels on a "lac# les caractres do0i2ues$ =n a n#li# un trait fondamental dussens ("erHu+ imain#+ u#+ d#sir#+ voulu+ etc$). X savoir 2u!il se rapporte 9 un ob8et$%59

1onsciousness is transcended by a noematic sense/ yet+ noematic sense is itself transcended ithits relation to (its) obect$ 3s -usserl rites in!deen !. edes Noema hat einen 4!nhalt+! nmlichseinen 4>inn! und bezieht sich durch ihn auf 4seinen! (egenstand$%58 ,he structure ofintentionality is thus three:fold. noesis (and non:intentional hyletic content)+ noema+ and obect$In !deen !+ this dual com"lication ithin the conce"t of noema is reflected in the distribution of

-usserl!s "resentation of the noema. it is first introduced as noematic sense in relation to noeticacts in the ,hird >ection+ 78:66+ and taken u" a second time in the Gourth >ection+ 5?7:5JDin terms of the noematic sense and its relation to the obect$ ,his distribution reflects to conte0tsin hich the noema o"erates$57 ,he "arado0 of the noema can thus be formulated. thetranscendence of noematic sense ithin immanence of consciousness (the intentional e0"erienceor "henomenon%) is punctured or transcended (icoeur s"eaks of an absolutely noveldimension%) by a relation to the real$ Every obect is iven ith a sense (as such and such)+ yetsense is not an obect/ moreover+ the obect itself&the real&can only be related throuh a sensethat is itself ontoloically ambiuous$ >ense is neither obective% nor subective+ yet ithoutsense the distance beteen subective and obect can neither be measured nor traversed$ ,heambiuity of the noema consists in the difficulty of distinuishin beteen the noematic nucleusas the subect of "redication (as the ideal of sense ithin the noematic obect) or as the subect of

the actual obect$% ,his difficulty can e2ually be e0"ressed as the challene of distinuishinbeteen the "roblem of sense ithin a conte0t of sinification (loic of udment and semanticmeanin) and ithin a conte0t of reason (loic of truth and evidence)+ but also+ of relatin the"roblem of the noema ithin each conte0t to the other$

,he entire "roblem of the noema in its double sinificance is contracted ithin 'eleuze!sGourteenth >eries inLogic of Sense$ 'eleuze im"licitly construesthe ambiuity of the noema interms of an o""osition beteen formal loic% and transcendental loic$% ,he first moment ofthe noema (noesis and noematic sense) is understood as statin the im"assibility of sense/ thesecond moment of the noema (noematic sense and obect) is understood as statin thetranscendental "roblem of enesis. relation and reality must no be enendered or constituted ina transcendental manner$% ee most recently+ Ytienne Bimbenet+ La double th#orie du nome. sur le "ers"ectivisme husserlien+% in. %usserl* La science des

phnomnes+ eds$ 3$ *randean and L$ Ferreau (Faris. 1N> Yditions. ?C5?). 578:?55$

8


8/14

,his obect is an identity and "ole of unification+ the obect ;$ ,he first conse2uence of this-usserlian conce"tion of the noema is that sense is not an event% or verb% but a conce"t$ ,his isreflected in 'eleuze!s de"iction of noematic sense as a "redicate of the obect and hence+ asdefined by the form of udment$ 'eleuze here clearly reads the noematic sense ithin theframeork of -usserl!s theory of sinification and thus in terms of the ideal sense of udments(hat can be said of an obect)$ ,he second conse2uence is that the relation beteen sense and

obect is the natural result of the relation beteen noematic "redicates&a somethin Z 0 hich isca"able of functionin as their su""ort or "rinci"le of unification% ('eleuze 566C+ "$ 555)$ -ere+'eleuze reads the noematic nucleus throuh the lens of -usserl!s theory of knolede or+ in otherords+ in terms of the noematic sense as intuitively iven ithin e0"erience (hat can be seen ofthe obect)$56 In the first case+ the noema functions ithin a theory of sinification(-edeutungslehre) or hat 'eleuze calls formal loic$% In the second case+ the noema functionsithin a theory of reason (or truth) or hat 'eleuze calls transcendental loic$% ?C


9/14

other hand+ reardless of hether 'eleuze!s readin of the noema is "lausible+ his obectionmotivates a transcendental desiderata that sha"es his "rinci"al hy"othesis. instead of the obect asan identity+ or "ole of unification of sense+ 'eleuze "ro"oses to colla"se+ as it ere+ the eal(obect) into an internal andindeterminate (non:identifiable) instance ithin sense$ ,his instanceof non:sense ithin sense ould effectively "uncture sense from ithin throuh an outside(dehors) that ould not hoever have the form of transcendence ithin immanence$

,his 'eleuzian criti2ue of -usserl!s conce"tion of the relation beteen noematic senseand obect as conformin to an ontoloical structure of "redication and udment (and hence+ aform of direct discourse) is su""lemented by a second obection that brins more clearly intovie 'eleuze!s basic criti2ue of -usserl!s transcendental thinkin$ ,he notion of the noematicsense as a conce"tual "redicate of the obect is taken as evidence for the claim that -usserl isunable to differentiate beteen the (constitutin) transcendental field of enesis and (constituted)em"irical structures$ In the case of the noema+ the formal loic% of sinification is structurallyindiscernible and hence isomor"hic to the transcendental loic% of enesis/ or+ in other ords+the to functions of the noema+ on this 'eleuzian readin+ "artake of the same em"irical%structure of conce"tual (i$e$+ "redicative) thinkin$ 'eleuze finds additional arrant for thiscriti2ue ith the chare that -usserl ultimately conceives of the transcendental field on the basis

of common sense$% ,he reduction in -usserl is not radical enouh$ ,he enuine field of thetranscendental has not been discovered by the reduction of !deen !+ hich+ instead+ remainsca"tive to a natural% manner of thinkin or+ accordin to the conce"t of 'eleuze!s Differenceand Repetition+ an imae of thouht$??

InLogic of Sense+ 'eleuze sketches in one ra"id motion the thouht that. in conformityith the re2uirements of the "henomenoloical methods of reduction+ -usserl clearly indicatedthe inde"endence of sense from a certain number of these modes or "oints of vie Pempiricalperception) imagination) memory) understanding) #olitionR$ But hat "revents him fromconceivin sense as a full (im"enetrable) neutrality is his concern ith retainin in sense therational mode of a ood sense and a common sense+ as he "resents incorrectly the latter as amatri0 or a 4non:modalized root:form! (=rdo>a)$ It is this same concern hich makes him

conserve the form of consciousness ithin the transcendental% ('eleuze 566C+ "$ 558)$ With thisstatement+ one reconizes more clearly the sense iven to the im"assibility of sense in thenoematic nucleus for 'eleuze$ ,he various characterizations of noetic consciousness ("erce"tion+imaination+ etc$)+ the noematic sense:"redicates of the obect (red+ blue+ round+ etc$)+ andnoematic characteristics (the obect in its a""earance as bein desirably+% bein:ishful+% etc)are taken here as "oints of vie% that ather around a nucleus of sense that itself remainsim"assible and neutral toards subective% and obective% alinments+ includin+ mostsinificantly+ any measure (or ratio) s"annin both alinments+ as ith the -usserliantranscendental structure of intentionality$ ,he nucleus of sense is for 'eleuze to be thouht as anevent%prior to the crystallizations of noetic% and noematic% dimensions of intentionality$ Infact+ takin a cue from 'errida!s insiht that the difficult but decisive theme of the non:real(reell) inclusion of the noema% o"ens u" the "ossibility that within consciousness% there is an

aency hich does not reallybelon to it+% e can reconize ho 'eleuze seeks to liberate theimplied aency of the noema ithin consciousness from the form of consciousness$?J

-usserl+ hoever+ is "revented from this emanci"ation of the transcendental event due tohis rationalization% of enesis+ by hich is meant+ his fi0in the nucleus of sense to an identity

??3 more com"lete reflection on 'eleuze!s criti2ue of -usserl!s commitment to =rdo>aould have to turn in reater detail to the

discussion of 1ha"ter III ,he Imae of ,houht$%?J

ac2ues 'errida+ 4*enesis and >tructure! and Fhenomenoloy+% "$ 59J$

6


10/14

that in turn reflects a com"licity ith the "rimacy of =rdo>a as an unmodified core of do>icbelief$ 'eleuze sus"icion aainst -usserl!s transcendental "roram tarets in "articular -usserl!smetaphorof the nucleus. Nucleus:meta"hors are dis2uietin/ they envelo" the very thin hichis in 2uestion% ('eleuze 566C+ "$ 55?)$?AWhat is in ?uestionfor 'eleuze is the event of sense orhat he also calls the bestoal of sense% or enesis$% ,he transcendental event of sense cannotbe thouht in the form of consciousness/ liberatin the event of sense from its noematic conce"t

as ell as from common sense% ould emanci"ate the transcendental field from the form ofconsciousness$ ,he s"ecific meanin of this de:"ersonalization% or asubective% conce"tion ofthe transcendental field is a""arent from 'eleuze!s claim+ directed aainst Kant as ell as-usserl+ that the transcendental syntheses are deduced from corres"ondin "sycholoicalsyntheses+% and this+ so 'eleuze+ is no less evident in -usserl hen he deduces an oriinary andtranscendental 4>eein! from "erce"tual vision% ('eleuze 566C+ "$ 55?)$ ,his structuralisomor"hism beteen the em"irical and the transcendental stems from an adherence to commonsense% or+ in other ords+ the failure to institute a radical and enuine break ith the naturalattitude% and its imae of thouht (thinkin as re"resentation+ knoin as based on identity+ etc)$In the conce"t of the noema+ the forceof the 2uestion of sense traverses -usserl!s thinkin so asto leave it "oerless to realize its on transcendental "romise$ ,his "oerlessness% ithin-usserl!s transcendental "henomenoloy structures the entire dimension of manifestation+ in the

"osition of a transcendental subect+ hich retains the form of the "erson+ of "ersonalconsciousness+ and of subectivity identity+ and hich is satisfied ith creatin the transcendentalout of the characteristics of the em"irical% ('eleuze 566C+ "$ 555:55?)$

-usserl succumbs to a conflation+ or lack of "ro"er differentiation+ beteen thetranscendental% and the em"irical+% the foundation and the founded+ the constitutin and theconstituted$ ,ranscendental enesis is dcal?ufrom the em"irical ith the conse2uence that thedifference beteen the transcendental and the em"irical colla"ses$ ,his colla"se of the distinctionbeteen the transcendental and the em"irical is itnesses in the determination of thetranscendental field as a form of consciousness$ and develo"s in its "lace and as its dis"lacement a loic of 3N' in the tem"orality of Aion$ Bycontrast+ 'eleuze sees in -usserl a rationalized caricature% of the true enesis+ or transcendentaltem"orality. It seems that -usserl does not think about enesis on the basis of a necessarily4"arado0ical! instance+ hich+ "ro"erly s"eakin+ ould be 4non:identifiable! (lackin its onidentity and its on oriin)% ('eleuze 566C+ "$ 555)$ ,he bestoal of sense% (or event of sense)+as 'eleuze further s"ecifies+ may occur only ithin a transcendental field hich ouldcorres"ond to the conditions "osed by >artre in his decisive article of 56J8. an im"ersonal

transcendental field+ not havin the form of a synthetic "ersonal consciousness or a subectiveidentity&ith the subect+ on the contrary+ bein alays constituted% ('eleuze 566C+ "$ 55?)$,his criti2ue of -usserl leads to the formulation of the critical hy"othesis motivatin 'eleuze!stranscendental em"iricism and the subse2uent series of "arado0es in Logic of Sense. ,he idea of

?A=nce aain+ 'errida!s discussion of the noema is 2uietly "resent in 'eleuze!s thinkin$ 3s 'errida observes. 'oubtless it P the

noemaR can rihtfully be laid bare only on the basis of intentional consciousness+ but it does not borro from intentionalconsciousness hat meta"horically e miht call+ by avoidin the realization of consciousness+ its 4material!$% 'eleuze!s onsus"icion aainst the meta"hor of nucleus calls attention to the ay in hich this meta"hor re"resents a borroin+% as it ere+ of thenoema!s material% from the materiality of consciousness (the nucleus of its =rdo>aand identity)$

5C


11/14

sinularities+ and thus of anti:eneralities+ hich are hoever im"ersonal and "re:individual+must no serve as our hy"othesis for the determination of this domain and its enetic "oer%('eleuze 566C+ "$ 55J)$ What remains unthinkable in -usserl is an im"ersonal transcendentalfield and transcendental enesis based on the conce"ts of intensity+% sinularity+% and the non:identifiable% zero:deree of an instant "resu""osin nothin of hat it enenders&an instant"er"etually out of oint ith time itself$

III

I ould like to conclude ith a hy"othesis of my on+ in fact+ a hy"othesis insertedinto'eleuze!s on hy"othesis. the s"lendor of the "ronoun one+% by hich 'eleuze s"eaks of theevent of im"ersonal individuations% and "re:individual sinularities% ithin the transcendentalfield of enesis+ is already on dis"lay in -usserl!s reflections on time:consciousness in the Bernaumanuscri"ts$ 'eleuze is indeed onto somethin in -usserl!s thinkin+ somethin anarchic+ but infact somethin elsein -usserl is already onto 'eleuze!s thinkin$ ,here is a force common to-usserl and 'eleuze/ each "ursues the "roblem of sense into the im"ersonal domain oftranscendental enesis that reverses ontoloy% throuh a loic of time based on the oriinaldifferentiation of "ast and future$ ,his is not to claim that the "roects of -usserl and 'eleuze are

identical$ It is+ hoever+ to further com"licate the conce"tions of time and sense in -usserl and'eleuze by im"licatin each other$

Written in the fall of 5658 and the s"rin of 5657+ -usserl "roduced a remarkable set ofresearch manuscri"ts around as series "arado0es that animated the "henomenoloical "roblem ofinner time:consciousness/ by -usserl!s on admission+ the most difficult of all "roblems for"henomenoloy$% When seen throuh the lens of 'eleuze!s transcendental desiderata for anim"ersonal transcendental field of enesis+ the Bernau manuscri"ts emere in their onim"ersonal s"lendor$

,he Bernau manuscri"ts are characterized by an unrelentin dedication to a "uree0"erience of thinkin$ Written durin the a"ocaly"tic years of 5658 and 5657+ these ritins

bear no trace of the orld in hich they are ritten+ in both its historical and biora"hical forms.the final days of Euro"ean humanity in the *reat War and the loss of -usserl!s son Wolfan+killed at erdun in 5659$ =ne is here reminded of the reflections on time set a"art from the orldand history in the >iss sanatorium of ,homas Mann!s ,agic ,ountain$ In the Bernaumanuscri"ts+ it is as if -usserl created his on sanatorium% in hich he turned to the "roblem oftime:consciousness ust as the end of time a""eared ever so near$ ,hese ritins+ es"ecially hencontrasted ith -usserl!s ar:time lectures on Gichte in 5658 and his Kaizo articles on reneal%after the ar+ e0hibit a total sus"ension of the mobilization of the intellect that as the firstcausality of the ar and to hich -usserl himself succumbed$ ,hese manuscri"ts are entirelyiven over to a descri"tion of the thin itself+% the transcendental stream of time:consciousness+and to nothin else+ as if historical and biora"hical time have been immobilized and sus"endedin order for time itself to a""ear in its transcendental field of enesis$

,here is a more eneral feature of -usserl!s thinkin that becomes e0"ressed in aconcentrated form in these manuscri"ts+ namely+ ritin as the "oer of re"etition$ ,hise0"erience of thinkin as inse"arable from its materialization in ritin$


12/14

hat it is hen seen in contrast to "ublications+ lecture courses and other "ublic:orientedritins$ ,he Bernau manuscri"ts are moreover not a cohesive body of ritins/ they are anassemblae of "atchork investiations+ ith not every series of reflections in alinment ith theothers$ Within these ritins+ e e0"erience a com"licated form of re"etition and simultaneity+ asif all of these series of reflections eresimultaneouslythouht toether ithout thereby formina coherent or unitary hole$ ,he em"ty s"aces or silences betweenthe manuscri"ts are often as

meaninful as the materialized thouhts themselves$ -usserl re"eats the same% insihts andcontinuously returns to the same% formulations+ drain and re:drain over and over aain thesame distinctions and returnin+ time and aain+ to the same% conce"tual landsca"e$ Ferha"s+indeed+ the purest e0"ression of thinkin for -usserl+ on dis"lay in these ritins (but alsoelsehere in his rhizomic cor"us)+ is to brin into "lay simultaneously% different re"etitions ofthinkin+ ith their differences in kind and rhythm+ their res"ective dis"lacements and disuises+their diverences and decenterins/ to embed them in one another and to envelo" one or the otherin illusions of 4effect! of hich varies in each case$%?D

-usserl develo"s in these ritins a "henomenoloical analysis of the enesis of thetranscendental field of consciousness as initially "re"ared or discovered throuh the reduction of!deen !$ If!deen !o"ened a field of transcendental e0"erience oranized by the noetic:noematic

structure of intentionality+ this absolute dimension of transcendental consciousness is nonetheless"erforated by a hole$ ,his hole ithin!deen !is marked by the e0clusion of the "roblem of time:consciousness+ as -usserl readily acknoledes in 75. ,he transcendentally 4absolute! hiche have brouht about by the reduction is+ in truth+ not hat is ultimate/ it is somethin hichconstitutes itself in a certain "rofound and com"letely "eculiar sense of its on and hich has its"rimal source in hat is ultimately and truly absolute$%?9,he ritins on time:consciousness inthe Bernau manuscri"ts are inserted into this hole ithin the field of transcendental subectivity insearch of hat is ultimately and truly absolute+ namely+ absolute time:consciousness$ 3s -usserlsloly came to reconize+ the 2uestion of the self:constitution of absolute time:consciousness isnot "osed at the level of transcendence in immanence+% but at the dee"er% level of "re:immanence% or+ in other ords+ the genesis or stream% of an oriinal time:consciousness inwhichthe noetic:noematic structure of intentionality (and hence the eo:"ole and obect:"ole) are

situated and constituted$

3lthouh the e0"erience of thinkin in the Bernau manuscri"ts is centered on the"roblem of time:consciousness or+ in other ords+ the stream+ or enesis+ of the transcendentalfield+ there is in fact no one"roblem that directs -usserl!s thinkin$ In fact+ these ritins are asmuch orkins on a set of "roblems as they are orked throuh a set of "roblems that remainindeterminate and thus o"en as "roblems$ Most of all+ these ritins are a veritable laboratory forcreation or birth of ne "roblems$ -ere+ I ant to suest that one of the "rinci"le "roblems thattraverse these ritins is hat -usserl comes to understand and formulate as "arado0 ofsubectivity$% 3s -usserl ould more fully confront in his 1:Manuscri"ts on time:consciousnessand in Crisis of the +uropean Sciences+ the "arado0 of human subectivity% (die Parado>ie dermenschlichen Sub8e$ti#it't) centers on the 2uestion of the unity and identity of em"irical eo and

transcendental eo$ 3s -usserl rites in DJ of the Crisis. But no a truly serious difficultyarises hich assails our hole undertakin and the sense of its results and indeed necessitates aresha"in of both%. ho is transcendental subectivity botha orld:constitutin subectivity andincor"orated in the orld itself as somethin constitutedV?8,his "arado0 of subectivity e0"resses

?D,o inect 'eleuze!s descri"tion of the hihest obect of art% from Difference and Repetition+ "$ ?6J$?9-ua IIISI+ "$ 59JS"$ 56J$?8

-usserl+ The Crisis of the +uropean Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology+ trans$ '$ 1arr (Evanston. NorthesternUniversity Fress+ 568C)+ "$ 587 ff$

5?


13/14

the "arado0 of the transcendental field as not bein:identical or resemblin ith hat it oriinatesor constitutes$ ,he domain of the transcendental field and the "oer of transcendental enesis is"arado0ical in this sense that it differentiates and dis"laces itself from the "lane of its onconstitution$ ,he stream of transcendental tem"orality has a different form of bein% than hatis founded or constituted ithin it$ Indeed+ as -usserl seeks to e0"ress ith his "referredterminoloy of the stream% and "rocess+% the transcendental field of time:consciousness is abecomingthat cannot be thouht in terms of bein$% ,ranscendental tem"orality is therefore notthe self:constitution the bein of transcendental subectivity% (as -eideer claimed) that ouldbesto sense on the orld+ but the enesis or becomin of a orld% (hat -usserl later calls2erweltlichung)fora consciousness itself in becomin$

In the Bernau manuscri"ts+ e itness a first becomin of this "roblem ith thea""earance of the conce"t of =r:!ch*?7,he streamin of hyletic data (or "oints of intensities) is"olarized around one sinular =r:!ch$%?63lthouh -usserl s"eaks of the =r:!chas a subective"ole+ the =r:!chis ithin the conte0t of the Bernau reflections not identical ith the eo:"ole ofthe noetic:noematic intentionality of!deen !or the eo:"erson of habits in !deen !!$ ,he =r:!chcorrelates to oriinal affections% or the intensities of hyletic affections+ yet as -usserl furthers"ecifies+ the =r:!chis the enesis of the eo$ -usserl even s"eaks of a "re:eo% (2or:!ch) or+ in

other ords+ a nascent or larval eo that is not yet individuated in the form of a constituted eoand "erson$ ,he =r:!chis "re:individual and im"ersonal yet "arado0ically sinular in bein:eo:less% (its essential lack of bein) in the sense of a tendencytoards becomin an eo or subect$Nothin+ of course+ in the Bernau manuscri"ts "rovides the final ord on these and other"roblems$ But+ indeed+ as 'eleuze remarks. -o else can one rite but of those thins hichone doesn!t kno+ or knos badlyV%JC

Bibliora"hy

Beaulieu 3$ (?CC6)$ Edmund -usserl+% in. Deleue"s Philosophical Lineage$ Edinburh.Edinburh University Fress+ ?CC6$

Bernet $ (566A)$La #ie du su8et$ Faris. FUG$

Bimbenet E$ (?C5?)+ La double th#orie du nome. sur le "ers"ectivisme husserlien+% in. %usserl*La science des phnomnes$ Faris. 1N> Yditions . 578:?55$

'eleuze *$ and *uattari+ G$ (5678)$A Thousand Plateaus$ Minnea"olis . University of MinnesotaFress$

'eleuze *$ (566C)$ The Logic of Sense$ London . 1ontinuum Fress$

'eleuze *$ (566A)$Difference and Repetition$ Ne


14/14

-usserl E$ (568C)$ The Crisis of the +uropean Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology $Evanston. Northestern University Fress$

-usserl E$ (5689)$!deen u einer reinen Ph'nomenologie und ph'nomenologischen Philosophie$'en -aa. Martinus Nihoff$ -ua III+ 5$

-usserl E$ (?CC5)$ Die -ernauer ,anus$ripte 3ber das 0eitbewu.tsein @454B4547$ 'ordrecht.Kluer 3cademic Fublishers$ -ua ;;;III$

Lalor L$ (?C5?)$ Fhenomenoloy and meta"hysics+ and chaos. on the fraility of the event in'eleuze+% in. The Cambridge Companion to Deleue$ 1ambride. 1ambride University Fress.5CJ:5?D$

Michalski K$ (5675)$ >inn und ,atsache$ Ober -usserls 3useinandersetzun mit demFsycholoismus+% in. /ffene Systeme !!* Logi$ und 0eit$ >tuttart. Klett:1otta+ 5675. J?6:J8C$

Michalski K$ (5668)+ Logic and Time* An +ssay on %usserl"s Theory of ,eaning$ 'ordrecht.Kluer 3cademic Fublishers+ 5668$

ourabichvili G$ (556A)$La philosophie de Deleue$ Faris . FUG$

5A

de warren, n., paradigmi-dewarren

Documents