intensity(ies)

[seasontoseason]

can we talk about intensities for a moment? I have a rusty memory, so if I once had a good idea, today when I picked up AO after a rest, I wasn't too clear on what is meant by "intensity." There is often talk of "zones" or "fields" of intensity, or of flows of various intensities

Comments

[sodapopinski51]

I've always had a hard time figuring out what they mean by "univocal" and "biunivocal". Perhaps that is the best place to start. Uni-vocal = one voice? bi-uni-vocal = two voices pulled in different directions that are expressed as one voice?
Intensities, in my opinion, are linked to desiring-production. In the individual its the connection between flows of labor-power, production, and libidinal desire creates zones of intensity in the self.
Sexual desire might leave different body parts - breast, mouth, or anus, and invest in different territories - the desire for sounds, for color, movements, etc. Disjunction is the anti-binary. Life should never be reduced to the logic of contradiction. Either you're with us or against us, as our great president once said about the War on Terror. Intensities are a way of navigating between the gray area in between vast polarizations.

[seasontoseason]

deleuze i think 'stole' the univocity of being thing from duns scotus & spinoza is mixed in somewhere too. The general idea being that there is only one "thing", and it has many forms and undergoes constant change. still, being is said of one thing in the same way as of another thing--> "all things ARE in the same sense." I take it to be an ontological proposition. I guess in my mind it is a bit fuzzy as to where the line is between "all things are in the same sense" and "there is only one thing". Or if there is a line at all.
I know Deleuze cautions (in the logic of sense) against reading the univocity of being as being about identity, which would mean that it isn't saying "there is one thing = the one thing there is) but i think maybe it is also about identity... the very idea of the identity of being being altered by deleuze. my idea i nmy first comment was that maybe intensities were a way to navigate this area of simultaneous oneness & multiplicity.

deleuze in the logic of sense

[seasontoseason]

"the univocity of Being does not mean that there is one and the same being; on the contrary, beings are multiple and different, they are alway sproduced by disjunctive synthesis, adn the themselves are disjointed and divergent, member disjuncta. The univocity of Being signifies that Being is Voice that it is said, and that it is said in one and the same "sense" of everything about which it is said. That of which it is said is not at all the same, but Being is th same for everything which it is said."

Re: deleuze in the logic of sense

[sodapopinski51]

the key is, "Being is the same for everything which it is said" the speaking, giving voice, articulating, IS uni-vocal (one voice). In this quotation there is a repetition of the phrase, "Which it is said"... finding a voice within a given language.

[sodapopinski51]

or being-animal and being-mechanical! Becoming two different beings simultaneously. Perhaps even producing a "split" within the psyche (Which Kraepelin described as the psychic quality of schizophrenia)