For those that have some basic calculus knowledge, Todd's missing a key insight that he didn't go through in this crash course. If you don't have calc knowledge skip a paragraph: Todd starts from f(x) and goes to f'(x) -- which is differentiation -- and then explains actualization as f'(x) to f(x) via some specific c = n. What he did here was committing his explanation to a definite integral, when he should have just explained what an indefinite integral was. In that cases you get the integral(f'(x)) + c, and via the extra c, which can be any real number, gives you something akin to a field of infinite choices. Then from this you can argue we get an infinite number of actualities because we can move the re-integrated curve to anywhere on the plane. In non-math terms: Todd committed himself to a limited explanation by anchoring your imagination to *that specific curve* on the board. What would be evident to any math user looking at Todd's example is that when you go from, using Deleuzian terms, the virtual / field of difference into the actual, you actually __FIRST get back an infinite numbers of curves__ that __looks like that specific curve__. How this plays out in math is that you first get back the __shape__ of the curve Todd drew. Then, you are mathematically allowed to place it __anywhere above or below__ the location Todd fixed it on his own Cartesian plane. In another word, the overall shape of the curve is the "meat" but you can hang the meat anywhere you want. To elucidate Deleuzian metaphor the infinity/infinitude of the virtual arises from the insight that there are infinite number of places you can hang this "meat" that you just reconstituted. To belabor the point: to fix the curve to a specific location, like to get back to where Todd exactly drew it, you have to tell the curve where to go a by specifying a parameter, in order to constrain it to that exact height where it was. Now as I'm typing this, it's interesting to think that a differential equation is not fully actualized via simple integration: the indefinite integral still seems metaphorically to be a virtual field and you don't get to pin it down until you add another parameter. Somehow I feel that Todd should've committed to maybe 2 minutes more of explication and go from both f to f' and then f to integral(f). But hey when you try to do philosophy via math you get to "encounter" an infinite virtual field :) Anyway I typed this around minute 20 so perhaps this was addressed later. Was typing similar notes for myself thought I might put my thoughts here see if it helps anyone.
Tanzil Shafique thanks, I was definitely thinking about singularities in the same manner as the questioner. Seems like an easy pitfall for those reading Deleuze.
We can sense it (virtual field), but we cann't bring it in front of us. We cann't investigate it the way as we investigate what is actual----can this structure also been used to describe the meta-communication?
After considering the counter-examples I agree with the person (dind't catch his name) who felt the changes in the Virtual must always come from the Actual. In the case of temperature changing, that is an Actual, measurable thing. In the case of emotions ebbing over time, that is a change in synaptic connections and habits of thought. In the case of moods changing over time, that is a chemical alteration within the brain. Love? Same. All of these are Actual.
I appreciate the opportunity to listen in. Todd may be somewhat an expert in Delleuze but in several areas he speaks of what he clearly doesn’t know. His understanding of neuronal functioning is completely off base. He totally misuses the term’ habituation’. He lacks any clear understanding of narrative theory. Furthermore, although Freud is the most cited person in history he describes psychoanalysis as “shit” and more precisely describes Lucanian psychoanalysis as “ bullshit”. And to finish off he considers his colleagues as boring and sleepwalking. The lecture could have been completed in an hour or two if not for his neurotic pacing and stammering.
yeh dude everyone in these comment sections falling all over themselves with gratitudes and platitudes for this guy's glitchy and tedious stretching thin of these ideas is ridiculous. it's like a teenagers book report, which is why he delivers it with a teenager's self consciousness. so,meone tell me where to find videos with the vocabulary. ive got anti oedipus, i understand the concepts, everyone just reexplains the concepts. i need to know what deleuze means... well... when he says words. lol. yeah i can grasp the concepts everyone claims are so hard. i need to know which of these are referred to specifically by the keywords in the book so i can... read it.
For those that have some basic calculus knowledge, Todd's missing a key insight that he didn't go through in this crash course. If you don't have calc knowledge skip a paragraph:
Todd starts from f(x) and goes to f'(x) -- which is differentiation -- and then explains actualization as f'(x) to f(x) via some specific c = n. What he did here was committing his explanation to a definite integral, when he should have just explained what an indefinite integral was. In that cases you get the integral(f'(x)) + c, and via the extra c, which can be any real number, gives you something akin to a field of infinite choices. Then from this you can argue we get an infinite number of actualities because we can move the re-integrated curve to anywhere on the plane.
In non-math terms: Todd committed himself to a limited explanation by anchoring your imagination to *that specific curve* on the board. What would be evident to any math user looking at Todd's example is that when you go from, using Deleuzian terms, the virtual / field of difference into the actual, you actually __FIRST get back an infinite numbers of curves__ that __looks like that specific curve__. How this plays out in math is that you first get back the __shape__ of the curve Todd drew. Then, you are mathematically allowed to place it __anywhere above or below__ the location Todd fixed it on his own Cartesian plane.
In another word, the overall shape of the curve is the "meat" but you can hang the meat anywhere you want. To elucidate Deleuzian metaphor the infinity/infinitude of the virtual arises from the insight that there are infinite number of places you can hang this "meat" that you just reconstituted. To belabor the point: to fix the curve to a specific location, like to get back to where Todd exactly drew it, you have to tell the curve where to go a by specifying a parameter, in order to constrain it to that exact height where it was.
Now as I'm typing this, it's interesting to think that a differential equation is not fully actualized via simple integration: the indefinite integral still seems metaphorically to be a virtual field and you don't get to pin it down until you add another parameter. Somehow I feel that Todd should've committed to maybe 2 minutes more of explication and go from both f to f' and then f to integral(f). But hey when you try to do philosophy via math you get to "encounter" an infinite virtual field :)
Anyway I typed this around minute 20 so perhaps this was addressed later. Was typing similar notes for myself thought I might put my thoughts here see if it helps anyone.
Thank you.
Thanks for that comment, the lack of distinction between definite and indefinite integrals was bugging me too.
The math part is eye opening for all the other concepts layed out in the previous classes. Amazing.
These are wonderful, but I do wish the audio was a little bit louder.
⁰
to understand singularities, better to watch Delanda's EGS lectures
Tanzil Shafique thanks, I was definitely thinking about singularities in the same manner as the questioner. Seems like an easy pitfall for those reading Deleuze.
@Haunted Marxist it's available in RUclips.
what is the meaning of relation in the context of "the realm of relation as the virtual field"
We can sense it (virtual field), but we cann't bring it in front of us. We cann't investigate it the way as we investigate what is actual----can this structure also been used to describe the meta-communication?
This at times sounds quite conservative and 'meta'. 'This is how it works, virtualization and actualization', quite harmonious!
After considering the counter-examples I agree with the person (dind't catch his name) who felt the changes in the Virtual must always come from the Actual. In the case of temperature changing, that is an Actual, measurable thing. In the case of emotions ebbing over time, that is a change in synaptic connections and habits of thought. In the case of moods changing over time, that is a chemical alteration within the brain. Love? Same. All of these are Actual.
Insert 'dramatization'...
Slope equals gradient for gods sake
I don't understand why actual/virtual model is better than real/possible. Probably I wasn't attentive enough :(
The virtual/actual has unlimited creative possibilities while the real/possible only has a finite amount
or rather, no real creative potential. Just discovery potential.
@@thetinycupboard that makes sense, thank you!
I appreciate the opportunity to listen in. Todd may be somewhat an expert in Delleuze but in several areas he speaks of what he clearly doesn’t know. His understanding of neuronal functioning is completely off base. He totally misuses the term’ habituation’. He lacks any clear understanding of narrative theory. Furthermore, although Freud is the most cited person in history he describes psychoanalysis as “shit” and more precisely describes Lucanian psychoanalysis as “ bullshit”. And to finish off he considers his colleagues as boring and sleepwalking. The lecture could have been completed in an hour or two if not for his neurotic pacing and stammering.
yeh dude everyone in these comment sections falling all over themselves with gratitudes and platitudes for this guy's glitchy and tedious stretching thin of these ideas is ridiculous. it's like a teenagers book report, which is why he delivers it with a teenager's self consciousness. so,meone tell me where to find videos with the vocabulary. ive got anti oedipus, i understand the concepts, everyone just reexplains the concepts. i need to know what deleuze means... well... when he says words. lol. yeah i can grasp the concepts everyone claims are so hard. i need to know which of these are referred to specifically by the keywords in the book so i can... read it.