Tag Cloud
Achilles Affect Affects affectuum imitatio Antigone a thousand plateaus Augustine Autopoiesis Badiou Being Campanella capitalism Causation Cause Christiaan Huygens Davidson Death Deleuze Descartes Epistemology Ethics Freud Graham Harman Guattari Harman Hegel Heidegger Huygens Idea Imagination Immanence Information Johannes Hudde Kant Lacan Language Game Larval Subjects lathe Latour Lenses lens grinding Letter 39 Letter 40 Levi Bryant Massumi Metaphor Metaphysics microscope Negation Nietzsche object Object-Oriented Philosophy Ontology OOP Optics panpsychism Parables of the Virtual Philosophical Investigations Philosophy Plato Plotinus Poetry power Rorty Sophocles Spinoza Subject Substance Telescope Triangulation Truth Van Leeuwenhoek Vico Wim Klever Wittgenstein2001: a space odyssey Achilles Alan Gabbey Antigone Antonio Negri Arne Naess Art Criticism Augustine Avatar Badiou biosemiotics Bousquet Brian Massumi Caliban Campanella Chalmers Christiaan Huygens Colerus Conjoined Semiosis Critical Theory cybernetics Dante David Graeber David Skrbina Davidson Deleuze Della Rocca Derrida Descartes Duns Scotus Epistemology Ethics Euripedes Exowelt Felix Guattari Foucault Graham Harman Greek Tragedy Guattari Heidegger Helvetica Hevelius Hockney-Falco Thesis Hume Huygens Information John Donne Kepler Kubrick L'occhiale all'occhio Latour Leibniz Letter 39 Letter to Peter Balling Literary Theory Martha Nussbaum Marx Metaphor Micrographia Milton Morality Nicola Masciandaro Nietzsche Optica Promota Ovid Painting panpsychism Parables of the Virtual Patricia Collins Philosophy Philosophy of Mind Photosynth Plato Plotinus Politics Rhetoric Rilke Robert Hooke Rorty Sappho Simulated Annealing Skepticism Slavoj Zizek Sloterdijk Specilla circularia Spinoza Spinoza's Foci St. Paul The Buttle Principle Three Varieties of Knowledge Tommaso Campanella Uncategorized Van Leeuwenhoek Vico Walter Benjamin William of Auvergne Wittgenstein Zizek zombies Zuggtmoy
Recent Comments
Day One of Bullshit!… on Cookery, Cuisine and the Truth… | |
Dana on Conjoined Semiosis: A “N… | |
Kevin von Duuglas-It… on Conjoined Semiosis: A “N… | |
Dana on Conjoined Semiosis: A “N… | |
Prof. Brian J Ford on The 1661 Technique of “G… | |
Charles M. Saunders on As Lensmaker: A Quick Ove… | |
Kevin von Duuglas-It… on Spinoza Doubt? The Sephardim,… | |
George W. Singleton… on Spinoza Doubt? The Sephardim,… | |
Dean on The Objective truth of Ro… | |
Billy McMurtrie on A Book that Explodes All Books… |
Recent Posts
- Mitochondrial Vertigo: The New Blog
- Going Dark
- The Becoming-woman of Machine in Avatar
- The Difference Between a Description and an Explanation: Deficits in Latour
- Peking Opera and the Aesthetic Freedoms of Avatar
- Transcendence or Immanence: Cake-and-eat-it-too-ism
- From Affect to Mutuality, Openness to Rational Co-expression: Massumi to Spinoza
- Is the Medium the Message? Avatar’s Avatar
- Massumi’s Cognitive Doubling, Spinoza’s Numerical Affectivity
- Two Vectors of Avatar’s Cinematic Achievement: Affect and Space Interface
Blogroll
- Accursed Share
- alex-reid.net
- An und für sich
- Anodyne Lite
- Click Opera
- Critical Animal
- Dead Voles
- Deontologistics
- Ecology Without Nature
- Eliminative Culinarism
- Fido the Yak
- Grundlegung
- Immanence
- In the Middle
- Loxogonospherical Moods
- Lumpen Orientalism
- Metastable Equilibrium
- Methods of Projection
- Naught Thought
- Necessarily Eternal
- Para(s/c)ite
- Perverse Egalitarianism
- Pinocchio Theory
- Pirates and Revolutionaries
- Planomenology
- Prōlogus
- Quiet Sun
- Shaviro's Workblog
- Slawkenbergius’s Tales
- Speculative Heresy
- spinoza research network
- spinoza.blogse.nl
- Splintering Bone Ashes
- The Whim
- Utopian Realism
- Varieties of Unreligious Experience
- Velvet Howler
- Violent Signs
- Working Notes
Spinoza Primary Sources
- Ethics, Emendation, Tractatus and Letters, in Latin
- F. van den Enden website
- Hyperlinked Ethics, Emmendation, Tractatus and Letters
- Nicholas De Cusa’s “De Visione Dei”, English Translation
- Selected Letters, Elwes Translation
- Spinoza’s Complete Works, Shirley Translation
- Spinoza’s Works in Latin
- Spinozahuis
- The Life of Spinoza, by Johannes Colerus (1705)
Archive
- April 2010 (1)
- January 2010 (2)
- December 2009 (26)
- November 2009 (21)
- October 2009 (21)
- September 2009 (15)
- August 2009 (8)
- July 2009 (18)
- June 2009 (23)
- May 2009 (21)
- April 2009 (20)
- March 2009 (26)
- February 2009 (24)
- January 2009 (28)
- December 2008 (16)
- November 2008 (17)
- October 2008 (12)
- September 2008 (23)
- August 2008 (26)
- July 2008 (40)
- June 2008 (40)
- May 2008 (54)
Ode to Man
Tho’ many are the terrors,
not one more terrible than man goes.
This one beyond the grizzled sea
in winter storming to the south
He crosses, all-engulfed,
cutting through, up from under swells.
& of the gods She the Eldest, Earth
un-withering, un-toiling, is worn down,
As the Twisting Plough’s year
into Twisting Plough’s year,
Through the breeding of horse, he turns.
& the lighthearted race of birds
all-snaring he drives them
& savage beasts, their clan, & of the sea,
marine in kind
With tightly-wound meshes spun
from all-seeing is Man.
Yet too, he masters by means of pastoral
beast, mountain-trodding,
The unruly-maned horse holding fast,
‘round the neck yoked,
& the mountain’s
ceaseless bull.
& the voice & wind-fast thought
& the passion for civic ways
He has taught, so from crag’s poor court
from under the ether’s hard-tossed arrows
To flee, this all-crossing one. Blocked, he comes
upon nothing so fated.
From Hades alone escape he’ll not bring.
Tho’ from sickness impossible
Flight he has pondered.
A skilled one, devising of arts beyond hope,
Holding at times an evil,
But then to the noble he crawls,
honoring the laws of the Earth, &
Of gods the oath so just,
high-citied.
Citiless is the one who with the un-beautiful
dwells, boldly in grace.
Never for me a hearth-mate
may he have been, never equal in mind
He who offers this.
Ode to Man
A BwO is made in such a way that it can be occupied, populated only by intensities. Only intensities pass and circulate. Still, the BwO is not a scene, a place, or even a support upon which something comes to pass. It has nothing to do with phantasy, there is nothing to interpret. The BwO causes intensities to pass; it produces and distributes them in a spatium that is itself intensive, lacking extension. It is not space, nor is it in space; it is matter that occupies space to a given degree—to the degree corresponding to
the intensities produced. It is nonstratified, unformed, intense matter, the matrix of intensity, intensity = 0; but there is nothing negative about that zero, there are no negative or opposite intensities. Matter equals energy. Production of the real as an intensive magnitude starting at zero. That is why we treat the BwO as the full egg before the extension of the organism and the organization of the organs, before the formation of the strata; as the intense egg defined by axes and vectors, gradients and thresholds, by dynamic tendencies involving energy transformation and kinematic movements involving group displacement, by migrations: all independent
of accessory forms because the organs appear and function here only as pure intensities. The organ changes when it crosses a threshold, when it
changes gradient. "No organ is constant as regards either function or position, . . . sex organs sprout anywhere,... rectums open, defecate and close, . . . the entire organism changes color and consistency in split-second adjustments." The tantric egg. After all, is not Spinoza's Ethics the great book of the BwO?
Ode to Man
But human power is extremely limited, and is infinitely surpassed by the power of external causes; we have not, therefore, an absolute power of shaping to our use those things which are without us. Nevertheless, we shall bear with an equal mind all that happens to us in contravention to the claims of our own advantage, so long as we are conscious, that we have done our duty, and that the power which we possess is not sufficient to enable us to protect ourselves completely; remembering that we are a part of universal nature, and that we follow her order. If we have a clear and distinct understanding of this, that part of our nature which is defined by intelligence, in other words the better part of ourselves, will assuredly acquiesce in what befalls us, and in such acquiescence will endeavour to persist. For, in so far as we are intelligent beings, we cannot desire anything save that which is necessary, nor yield absolute acquiescence to anything, save to that which is true: wherefore, in so far as we have a right understanding of these things, the endeavour of the better part of ourselves is in harmony with the order of nature as a whole.
Thank you for your precisions about Gabbey’s comments.
I wouls like to give you an alternative answer to the question of a possible source of Spinoza’s conception of “cones of rays” and also anti cartesian point of view aout spherical lenses.
Just see Thomas Hobbes Elementa philosophiae pars II de Homine 1658, chap. 8. and 9.
Thank you for reading closely josé. I am somewhat removed from this study of mine by time, but still am interested. I don’t have the Hobbes source at hand. My two questions would be:
1. Could Hobbes have had Kepler as a source as well?
2. Does Hobbes have reference to the imperfect construction of the human eye as Kepler does?
As Descartes says that in optics, Kepler has been his master, i think that all “modern” thinkers in the early XVIIth have approved the keplerian idea that vision is made on the very retina and not on the pupill?. The cone of ray is an ancient idea from Euclid. The real novelty is the retinal role in vision. Then Two possibilities: either the cartesian thesis : the soul sees. either the hobbesian the body sees. that is in this context thatHobbes tried to explain the phenomenon of vision without idealistic dualism.
What I wanted to suggest is that when Ferrier recognised his failure in performing the anaclastic lens, the problem was : is optics a pure mathematical science or a physical one? and Hobbes suggest that spherical lenses are anyway better than an impossible hyperbolial one because the focus is a physical point not a mathematical one.
By the way, Hobbes has read Kepler and discussed his thesis in an optical latin manuscript (Harl 6796) an another english manuscript harl 3360)recently visible on the British Library digitalzed manuscript.
Very interesting José. Then both Spinoza and Hudde – a Spinoza collaborator I discuss who uses the term “mechanical point” for the point of focus (is this a Hobbesian term?) are following Hobbes. Though it still seems that Spinoza has in mind Kepler when speaking about how imperfect the eye is, unless this is Hobbes notion as well.
High
It is precisely because Kepler corrects the form of the eye and thinks ti an hyperbola that Hobbes in his manuscript says: as there is some discussions about the form of the eye and nothing is too sure without adequete means of observation, I shall continue supposing the eye circular but I know that many people have different configutations. So Evidently, Kepler remains the Reference read by bith Spinoza and Hobbes.
By the way, note tha it is the same Jarig Jelles who asks Spinoza the difference between Hobbes and Spinoza. ( letter 50) we are on a political matter but the idea to compare Hobbes with Spinoza shows that ther is a connexion in the Jelles/ Spinoza discussion.
Best regards
José
Great references José. I do think it adds a lot to bring Hobbes into the Spinoza optical discussion, thank you for that. As to the braiding of the political and the optical I have seen that Leibniz himself seemed to make an rather curious “optical” reply to Spinoza’s TPT: https://kvond.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/leibniz-optical-response-to-the-theological-political-treatise/ . It appears that all authors were struggling with the power of the spherical trope. There was a sense in the era by which clarity and confusion were reigning analogies. That is one reason why I find Spinoza’s resistance to optical metaphors in non-optical topics so notable. Perhaps this was do to the fact that he made lenses and instruments and did not just theorize about them. Thank you also for returning me to these earlier thoughts I had.
we are now returning to the importance in Spinoza’s thought of the imagination./ vision;
i dont know whether you understand french, but this link might interest you.
http://philosophique.revues.org/271.
let me know,
kind regards
José
p.s. not sure if you found it, but this was my full treatment of these two letters, with some reference to Kepler: https://kvond.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/deciphering-spinozas-optical-letters/
Alas José, I do not read French (!), but it sounds like an essay topic i would enjoy. I have always thought that Spinoza’s critique (as well as much less acknowledged “praise”) of the imagination is one of the most neglected parts of his Philosophy. After all he called mathematics (“number”) merely an “aid to the imagination”. He was able to both embrace imagination but also also critique it, and I wonder if his work in optics gave him a unique vantage point (to use an optical metaphor) to do so.
Cone of ray as i told you is a common place of classical greek optics. the problem is how ti interpret it. Medieval optics neglect totally oblique rays as the only one non refracted is the axe perpendicular. Kepler returns on the argument and notes that all the points send a cone of ray in order to make an image corresponding point by point on the bottom of the retina. Te revolution is double: to see is to see a picture inverted on the retina as in acamera obscura, and what we see is an image imago that Kepler leaves to physicians because to complicated. he then study geometrically the pictures at the bottom on the retina.
Hobbes is a bit apart. and singular;
Returning on the old medieval classical optics, he recuperates the idea of the prevalence of the perpendicular ray. on the other way, he accepts the keplerian invention of the retina picture. He then make a mixture of his own and sustains that we see by a rebound from the retina towards the object through a visusal line passing through the center of the eye, ( whence the importance that it souhl be a circle). In doing so, Hobbes succeed in non accepting the idealistic dualism of Descartes who says that it is the soul that sees and not our body. hobbes ‘s materialism gives a different explaination: it is our imaginations that sees. but the optical illusions are mathematically determined. nothing then arbitrary or free.
Evidently hobbesian thesis is too odd and nobody retained it. Spinoza has a keplerian and cartesian standard abour the cone refracted in the eye tii the bottom of the retina.
if you give me a e-mail adress ‘ll send you images.
sure. My email is kevin.vonduuglasittu AT gmail.com
Mostly I was concerned with appreciating just what Spinoza was describing his his two optical letters which either have been completely ignored or when considered deeply criticized: https://kvond.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/deciphering-spinozas-optical-letters/ . This lead me to an investigation of the actual lenses and methods of grinding (and even instruments) Spinoza may have used, as it struck me that his techniques – given that they made up much of his daily activity – indeed may have influenced or informed his philosophy, for better or worse.