Espace lisse et espace strié. On dirait du Francis Ponge appliqué à la philosophie. Fin c'est quand même beau à écouter et une chance d'avoir cela à notre portée.
Merci énormément d'avoir gardé ainsi que d'avoir pris le temps de diffuser ces audios et de les diffuser gratuitement. Son approche vis à vis des rôles de la machine de guerre et de l'appareil d'état à trois têtes sont réellements intéressantes et pédagogiques. Après vis à vis de l'origine de la création monétaire, je pense que l'impôt ne me semble pas être la réponse. Je pencherai plus sur le fait que l'appareil d'état a utilisé un système de la machine de guerre.
Год назад
génialissime Deleuze , merci pour ces cours dont on profite aussi ^^
Merci infiniment pour le partage ... Adherer ou pas aux pensées , réflexions et idées de ce grand monsieur , n'empeche pas d'apprecier la profondeur de son analyse ... J'ai mal au cerveau , au cœur et à tout mon corps ! , quand je vois le nombre de visualisations : la culture fastfood ambiante lobotomise le cerveau , à tel point , qu'il se trouve dans l'incapacité d'écouter 2h 30mn d'un travail d'asseduité intellectuelle ... Patience , patience , patience ... Et encore une fois : Merci infiniment pour le partage ...
"This year, I've got several things to propose you. First for today, we will end anormally early. I need to stop at noon, beacause at 2pm there is an important meeting, to wich anyone can come, especially foreigners.The University of Vincennes won't stop to function as it works now, but the philosophical department has a singular functionning... This meeting will take place at 2pm, staircase E, room 210. It could work, and if it does it will be very important to us, for Vincennes. This year I propose you to continue what we began last year, that is a certain conception of the State Apparatus (l'Appareil d'Etat) ; once said that, this analysis won't be reduced to what is happening now but will lead us to the actuality, wich begins quite dark this year. Then I hope themes will come from you. State Appartus will take us maximum 1 semester. So we can do the rest of the year on authors you need. I would like also to talk about Beckett. But I need you, even for State Apparatus. And last year many of you brought me a lot of things. So today I just want to recall you what we did last year and explain why State Apparatus fits in it. I want to reassure those who were not here last year, there is no need to know what we did to follow this year. Therefore you need the basical principles of our hypothesis. Last year we didn't give any solution but we posed a certain problem, wich was the problem of State. We can pose this problem in a lot of differents ways, naturally. We started from an abstract opposition - of course "abstract" doesn't mean it's split from "concrete", it's obviously mixed with it -between what we called "War Machine" and the "State Apparatus" or more explicitly the "Catching Apparatus". And we said that this "War Machine" was totally different from this "State" or "Catching Appartus". Our hypothesis was that "War Machine" was historicaly invented by the nomadic organisation. It doesn't mean that nomads have invented the army. The army is certainly linked with the War Machine, but it's not the same thing. Nomads have invented War Wachines in particular places directed against the State Apparatus. It was some kind of a counter attack, a parry to the State (or Catching) Apparatus, even if both are mixed in very complicated relations. Because, for example, War Machine have sometimes created States, or sometimes States appropriated War Machines. There are very concrete relations to analyse, but it's not our topic. From the point of view of polars relations, there is this abstract opposition. We said last year that there is no need to define the War Machine in terms of "violence" because there is violence in both sides. Our goal will be more to define types, forms of violences. Example: police violence isn't the same as army violence. State violence, isn't the same as War violence. Of course they can be mixed. Our polar oppositions consist in saying that the nomad War Machine is being developped in a very peculiar type of space, a smooth space. Last year we passed a lot of time on the definition of a "smooth space", while we said on the other extremity that State Apparatus organise a "striated space". To streak spaces is a major occupation of States, and first when it starts to organise agriculture. In fact, we'll see later that States have invented agriculture. So we have a first polar opposition between smooth and striated spaces. For the moment I do not rebuke it. It's no coincidence that War Machine is being develloped in deserts, steppes, seas, that are different types of smooth spaces. Meanwhile State Apparatus, wich is sedentary, spends its time on streaking spaces what involves very violent operations, but not any kind of violence, a State violence. One could object that striated or smooth, spaces are always mixed. Naturally, there is a way of streaking seas even if it's a smooth space, and striated spaces can become smoothed. Ok, but those are concrete mixtures, and each of them needs to be analysed in details. Because it's in the same way that a striated space becomes a smooth space, or that a smooth space becomes striated.
The all story of navigation is a way of streaking maritime space, but only when it became a firm way to navigate with astronomic navigation [that is to say a State form of navigation]. Second point, not anymore from the point of view of space, but on the point of view of the composition. It's well known that State Apparatus proceeds by a territorial organisation. But it means that State is really easy to deterritorialize. Because man territorial organisation, that is State organisation, takes the Earth as an object of organisation, thereby it proceeds to a deterritorialization . The Earth has stopped to be an active agent and thereby became an object of the production of the limits of territories and boundaries. Hence when we say State is fundamentaly territorial it means at the same time that it is very easily deterritorializable. So the composition of State is over all territorial. On the opposite, War Machines have a very different composition. In the smooth space, War Machine is nomad, it spends all its time strolling, and it organises men aritmetically. Aritmetical organisation is very easy to understand. Last year we had found the source of this type of organisation in a point wich seemed very insignificant, wich is the necessity of order of steps and movements when walking in the desert. The Bible gave us a hundred examples of this. Moses, in the famous "Book of Numbers", inherits nomads the numerical organisation of men when he wants to move in the desert. And thus, by chance, without wanted it, he builds a War Machine. So we need to take care of concrete mixtures because, again, one can object States also give importance to aritmetical organisation, and nomads also builds territories. Naturally ! But it's not the important. What is important is to extricate polars abstract oppositions: the primacy of an aritmetical organisation of men for nomads war machines, and the primacy of a territorial composition of men for State Apparatus. Of course, mixed consequences will be many. It was our Second point of view, the polar opposition between compositions, after a polar opposition between spaces. Our third point of view concerned the activity. The State Apparatus invented a very curious activity wich is absolutly not self-evident: work. Work is a very peculiar kind of activty which can only come up in States. Maybe some of you know the marxist opposition between work and overwork [unpayed work wich goes over necessary]. In fact overwork is constitutive of work. That is to say, overwork makes work of a common activity, it submits activities to the rule of work. Hence, work fundamentaly belongs to the State Apparatus. State Apparatus makes people work, and there is no work out of it. It appears to me to be the major input by italian autonomists (who are now mosttly in jail), especially Toni Negri, who pushed very far a new interpretation of Marx's concept of work.
Activity becomes work when appropriate by State Apparatus. There is a complementarity between worker and statesman. What kind of activity is work ? Work cannot be defined by tools, it's work that defines tools. It's when there is "work" that what you need for an activity becomes a "tool". Tool is nothing but what activity uses when it's defined by work. But what is work ? Last year, we defined work as "center of gravity", a linear movement of forces. Everything processes from this definition. It's here a very profund way of streaking of space. Work is irreducibly a social and physic concept. There is no coincidence if in XIX's century physic we invented this concept of "work" for objects. This concept has been elaborated at the same time in physic and sociology, by the same persons. XIX's century engineers invented at the same time the physic and the sociological concept of work. Of course we also work in the War Machine, we cannot say the contrary, but it's again only in terms of a concrete mixture wich doesn't help us to extricate polars oppositions, prevailing potentialities, primates. In War Machines activity isn't defined in a constitutive way by work. Why ? Because it doesn't set activity on the way of work, it's way more set up by a "free action" - as we used to say for objects in XVII's and XVIII's centuries physic. Here "free" doesn't have a democratic meaning, but a physical one. That is to say: a vortex movement who simultaneously occupies several points in space. War Machines movement is always of that kind. From nomad tribe's vortex, to the vortex movement of ancient greeks War Machines as described by Democrite or Archimedes. To have a space where a vortex movement is occupying simultaneously several points, you need a smooth space. Vortex movement traces a smooth space, while center of gravity and linear movement of forces traces a striated space. Fourth point: polar opposition on the point of view of the expression. State Apparatus fundamental ways of expression are "tools" and "signs". First that means that there is a fundamental relation between tools and signs. There is no State Apparatus without apparatus of writing. And when you organise work there is an all bureaucracy. There is no work without bureaucracy. And bureaucracy involves an all accounting, wich is a system of writing. Hence it's a whole couple of notions: "tools" and "signs" are linked on the standart of State Apparatus. It's even the strongest unity between worker and statesman. Statesman transmit signs, while worker uses tools. The necessity of writing is included in work, as the necessity of tools is included in semiological systems. The first signs ever invented are of the knd of "Go !", "if you are ready, go !", "go to work !". The core of language are watchwords. Concerning War Machine, again naturally they have "signs" and "tools", but it's not the cornerstone. Moreover, War Machines oftenly borrow writing from a neighbouring country. Mongol borrowed writing from chinese, or sometimes used very strange kind of signs retranscribing phoneticaly their language in chenese typefaces. They don't feel the need of it. Also they use tools, but they are not defined by those.
Creo que el seminario esta dictado en Paris VIII y no en paris VII, supongo que se trata del curso del 11 de marzo de 1980, que publica gallica BNF aun no lo escucho pero al parecer es el mismo. Gracias por difundirlo. Hay frases que no se alcanzana a escuchar bien si alguien sabe de algun documentp escrito de este seminario haganlo conocer, les recomiendo el sitio:la voix de gilles deleuze en ligne.
Je pense que le séminaire est donné à Paris VIII et pas á Paris VII, je suppose que c'est le cours du 11 Mars 1980, meme cours publié á gallica BNF, je ne l'écoute pas encore, mais apparemment c'est la même. Merci de le diffuser. Il ya de phrases que on entendent pas, si quelqu'un sait de un document écrit sur ce séminaire, je vous remmerciere de me reinsegner, et d'un autre cote je vous aconseil de visiter le site: Deleuze Gilles La voix en ligne.
![DELEUZE ET GUATTARI - Les Vendredis de la philosophie [2007]](/img/1.gif)
-- La pensée de Deleuze est d'une valeur inestimable. Merci beaucoup de nous la transmettre. Je m'en vais la partager bien sûr. --
Splendide. L’actualité de ces concepts opératoires applicables à tant d’époque et de lieux. Concepts clés fonctionnalistes absolument fondamentaux.
Merci beaucoup d avoir mis tout ça sur RUclips je commence a ecrire une these sur Spinoza et Marx et ça m aide
Espace lisse et espace strié. On dirait du Francis Ponge appliqué à la philosophie. Fin c'est quand même beau à écouter et une chance d'avoir cela à notre portée.
Merci énormément d'avoir gardé ainsi que d'avoir pris le temps de diffuser ces audios et de les diffuser gratuitement.
Son approche vis à vis des rôles de la machine de guerre et de l'appareil d'état à trois têtes sont réellements intéressantes et pédagogiques. Après vis à vis de l'origine de la création monétaire, je pense que l'impôt ne me semble pas être la réponse. Je pencherai plus sur le fait que l'appareil d'état a utilisé un système de la machine de guerre.
génialissime Deleuze , merci pour ces cours dont on profite aussi ^^
Moi aussi...je etude "media studies" a new york city et dans cet cours de DeLeuze il y a des choses trop utiles pour moi! merci beaucoup!
Merci infiniment pour le partage ...
Adherer ou pas aux pensées , réflexions et idées de ce grand monsieur , n'empeche pas d'apprecier la profondeur de son analyse ...
J'ai mal au cerveau , au cœur et à tout mon corps ! , quand je vois le nombre de visualisations : la culture fastfood ambiante lobotomise le cerveau , à tel point , qu'il se trouve dans l'incapacité d'écouter
2h 30mn d'un travail d'asseduité intellectuelle ...
Patience , patience , patience ...
Et encore une fois : Merci infiniment pour le partage ...
t gênant mec, faut vraiment pas connaître le ridicule pour écrire ça, tkt tout le monde pense que tu es intelligent tout va bien aller
For humanity, translate this!!!!!!
+Konoyaro Bakayaro still nothing?
I'd be happy to translate at least the first video if it allowed me to...
"This year, I've got several things to propose you. First for today, we will end anormally early. I need to stop at noon, beacause at 2pm there is an important meeting, to wich anyone can come, especially foreigners.The University of Vincennes won't stop to function as it works now, but the philosophical department has a singular functionning... This meeting will take place at 2pm, staircase E, room 210. It could work, and if it does it will be very important to us, for Vincennes. This year I propose you to continue what we began last year, that is a certain conception of the State Apparatus (l'Appareil d'Etat) ; once said that, this analysis won't be reduced to what is happening now but will lead us to the actuality, wich begins quite dark this year. Then I hope themes will come from you. State Appartus will take us maximum 1 semester. So we can do the rest of the year on authors you need. I would like also to talk about Beckett. But I need you, even for State Apparatus. And last year many of you brought me a lot of things. So today I just want to recall you what we did last year and explain why State Apparatus fits in it. I want to reassure those who were not here last year, there is no need to know what we did to follow this year. Therefore you need the basical principles of our hypothesis. Last year we didn't give any solution but we posed a certain problem, wich was the problem of State. We can pose this problem in a lot of differents ways, naturally. We started from an abstract opposition - of course "abstract" doesn't mean it's split from "concrete", it's obviously mixed with it -between what we called "War Machine" and the "State Apparatus" or more explicitly the "Catching Apparatus". And we said that this "War Machine" was totally different from this "State" or "Catching Appartus". Our hypothesis was that "War Machine" was historicaly invented by the nomadic organisation. It doesn't mean that nomads have invented the army. The army is certainly linked with the War Machine, but it's not the same thing. Nomads have invented War Wachines in particular places directed against the State Apparatus. It was some kind of a counter attack, a parry to the State (or Catching) Apparatus, even if both are mixed in very complicated relations. Because, for example, War Machine have sometimes created States, or sometimes States appropriated War Machines. There are very concrete relations to analyse, but it's not our topic. From the point of view of polars relations, there is this abstract opposition. We said last year that there is no need to define the War Machine in terms of "violence" because there is violence in both sides. Our goal will be more to define types, forms of violences. Example: police violence isn't the same as army violence. State violence, isn't the same as War violence. Of course they can be mixed. Our polar oppositions consist in saying that the nomad War Machine is being developped in a very peculiar type of space, a smooth space. Last year we passed a lot of time on the definition of a "smooth space", while we said on the other extremity that State Apparatus organise a "striated space". To streak spaces is a major occupation of States, and first when it starts to organise agriculture. In fact, we'll see later that States have invented agriculture. So we have a first polar opposition between smooth and striated spaces. For the moment I do not rebuke it. It's no coincidence that War Machine is being develloped in deserts, steppes, seas, that are different types of smooth spaces. Meanwhile State Apparatus, wich is sedentary, spends its time on streaking spaces what involves very violent operations, but not any kind of violence, a State violence. One could object that striated or smooth, spaces are always mixed. Naturally, there is a way of streaking seas even if it's a smooth space, and striated spaces can become smoothed. Ok, but those are concrete mixtures, and each of them needs to be analysed in details. Because it's in the same way that a striated space becomes a smooth space, or that a smooth space becomes striated.
The all story of navigation is a way of streaking maritime space, but only when it became a firm way to navigate with astronomic navigation [that is to say a State form of navigation]. Second point, not anymore from the point of view of space, but on the point of view of the composition. It's well known that State Apparatus proceeds by a territorial organisation. But it means that State is really easy to deterritorialize. Because man territorial organisation, that is State organisation, takes the Earth as an object of organisation, thereby it proceeds to a deterritorialization . The Earth has stopped to be an active agent and thereby became an object of the production of the limits of territories and boundaries. Hence when we say State is fundamentaly territorial it means at the same time that it is very easily deterritorializable. So the composition of State is over all territorial. On the opposite, War Machines have a very different composition. In the smooth space, War Machine is nomad, it spends all its time strolling, and it organises men aritmetically. Aritmetical organisation is very easy to understand. Last year we had found the source of this type of organisation in a point wich seemed very insignificant, wich is the necessity of order of steps and movements when walking in the desert. The Bible gave us a hundred examples of this. Moses, in the famous "Book of Numbers", inherits nomads the numerical organisation of men when he wants to move in the desert. And thus, by chance, without wanted it, he builds a War Machine. So we need to take care of concrete mixtures because, again, one can object States also give importance to aritmetical organisation, and nomads also builds territories. Naturally ! But it's not the important. What is important is to extricate polars abstract oppositions: the primacy of an aritmetical organisation of men for nomads war machines, and the primacy of a territorial composition of men for State Apparatus. Of course, mixed consequences will be many. It was our Second point of view, the polar opposition between compositions, after a polar opposition between spaces. Our third point of view concerned the activity. The State Apparatus invented a very curious activity wich is absolutly not self-evident: work. Work is a very peculiar kind of activty which can only come up in States. Maybe some of you know the marxist opposition between work and overwork [unpayed work wich goes over necessary]. In fact overwork is constitutive of work. That is to say, overwork makes work of a common activity, it submits activities to the rule of work. Hence, work fundamentaly belongs to the State Apparatus. State Apparatus makes people work, and there is no work out of it. It appears to me to be the major input by italian autonomists (who are now mosttly in jail), especially Toni Negri, who pushed very far a new interpretation of Marx's concept of work.
Activity becomes work when appropriate by State Apparatus. There is a complementarity between worker and statesman. What kind of activity is work ? Work cannot be defined by tools, it's work that defines tools. It's when there is "work" that what you need for an activity becomes a "tool". Tool is nothing but what activity uses when it's defined by work. But what is work ? Last year, we defined work as "center of gravity", a linear movement of forces. Everything processes from this definition. It's here a very profund way of streaking of space. Work is irreducibly a social and physic concept. There is no coincidence if in XIX's century physic we invented this concept of "work" for objects. This concept has been elaborated at the same time in physic and sociology, by the same persons. XIX's century engineers invented at the same time the physic and the sociological concept of work. Of course we also work in the War Machine, we cannot say the contrary, but it's again only in terms of a concrete mixture wich doesn't help us to extricate polars oppositions, prevailing potentialities, primates. In War Machines activity isn't defined in a constitutive way by work. Why ? Because it doesn't set activity on the way of work, it's way more set up by a "free action" - as we used to say for objects in XVII's and XVIII's centuries physic. Here "free" doesn't have a democratic meaning, but a physical one. That is to say: a vortex movement who simultaneously occupies several points in space. War Machines movement is always of that kind. From nomad tribe's vortex, to the vortex movement of ancient greeks War Machines as described by Democrite or Archimedes. To have a space where a vortex movement is occupying simultaneously several points, you need a smooth space. Vortex movement traces a smooth space, while center of gravity and linear movement of forces traces a striated space. Fourth point: polar opposition on the point of view of the expression. State Apparatus fundamental ways of expression are "tools" and "signs". First that means that there is a fundamental relation between tools and signs. There is no State Apparatus without apparatus of writing. And when you organise work there is an all bureaucracy. There is no work without bureaucracy. And bureaucracy involves an all accounting, wich is a system of writing. Hence it's a whole couple of notions: "tools" and "signs" are linked on the standart of State Apparatus. It's even the strongest unity between worker and statesman. Statesman transmit signs, while worker uses tools. The necessity of writing is included in work, as the necessity of tools is included in semiological systems. The first signs ever invented are of the knd of "Go !", "if you are ready, go !", "go to work !". The core of language are watchwords. Concerning War Machine, again naturally they have "signs" and "tools", but it's not the cornerstone. Moreover, War Machines oftenly borrow writing from a neighbouring country. Mongol borrowed writing from chinese, or sometimes used very strange kind of signs retranscribing phoneticaly their language in chenese typefaces. They don't feel the need of it. Also they use tools, but they are not defined by those.
Creo que el seminario esta dictado en Paris VIII y no en paris VII, supongo que se trata del curso del 11 de marzo de 1980, que publica gallica BNF aun no lo escucho pero al parecer es el mismo. Gracias por difundirlo. Hay frases que no se alcanzana a escuchar bien si alguien sabe de algun documentp escrito de este seminario haganlo conocer, les recomiendo el sitio:la voix de gilles deleuze en ligne.
It would be great if you could have some subtitles in other languages! :-)
На русском
Il est écrit Paris VII sur la page de la playlist, c'est une erreur, il s'agit de Paris VIII
Deleuse amour, intervenant de l'escenciel, je suis ce que je deviens pour l'éternité, conscience mon amour
Je pense que le séminaire est donné à Paris VIII et pas á Paris VII, je suppose que c'est le cours du 11 Mars 1980, meme cours publié á gallica BNF, je ne l'écoute pas encore, mais apparemment c'est la même. Merci de le diffuser. Il ya de phrases que on entendent pas, si quelqu'un sait de un document écrit sur ce séminaire, je vous remmerciere de me reinsegner, et d'un autre cote je vous aconseil de visiter le site: Deleuze Gilles La voix en ligne.
;_: wish I knew french
quelle année?
traduzam,, por favor!
y'a vraiment un emmerdeur qui tousse dans le micro au début!!!
sortez le!
c'est sûrement celui qui enregistre ahaha
,,,,,,
delleuze gilles michale foucaua e gua3karo sap da esada
Sérieusement ? Qu'es-ce qu'on en a à faire ?
de quoi?
explique toi stp
quel baratineur !