[Frameworks] Deleuze and Husserl

[Bernard Roddy]

Greetings, Michael.

There was ambiguity in my sentence regarding Pip. When I wrote that I think
"he" sees himself as doing philosophy, I am referring to Deleuze.

There is way too much to try to address in your post. But whenever you
introduce audiences, I think you are off track. Or, you are not talking
about philosophical questions, whatever people teaching film studies might
happen to say.

There is a priority on narrative in Delueze. This I see as distracting
given my priorities. And all these questions about language derive from
literary cases of narrative. Remember Pasolini and the "cinema of poetry,"
which was supposed to conceive of cinema as unlike the written story?

Of your quotations, the one from pp. 26 - 27 bears on narration. Deleuze
seems to be asking what explains the appearance of narration when it
appears. And he seems to be less inclined to adopt the terms from
linguistics that were so common in discussion of cinema during the heyday
of Barthes and semiotics.

Only at the end do you take up what I find a manageable question, and the
one at stake for me here. I wouldn't say the question concerns Deleuze
exegesis. It was, rather, in what way are we going to think about
animation?

And yet, given the right focus, I would like to enjoy Deleuze's work. I
just opened to p. 56, where he mentions Bergson and Husserl, and where this
term "movement-image" seems to receive a definition. Think of movement as
non-mental and image as mental. The long history of discussion around how
the mind and body could interact comes back to the surface, but where
"mind" is now "image" and the "external world" is represented by "movement."

That's a history making its way into what we would probably appreciate more
if it presupposed a little less. These are extremely attenuated summaries
of chunks from modern philosophy. And with them Deleuze spins his own
equally abbreviated thinking.

For me, it was about the appearance of movement in cinema and how it is to
be explained. But the cinema has offered a model for explaining the same
appearance in everyday perception. So, what we have is a history of
philosophy that has thought in terms like film strips offer (and long
before cinema, as it happens).

My reference to Husserl presents the alternative. You may want to think
about differences between past and future frames, but you'll end up with
nonexistent parts of something that is supposed to be presently observed
(what is past is gone). So in Husserl we have an incredibly developed
alternative nobody bothers with. (And who is really going to know what
Derrida's thinking about Husserl involved? I mean, seriously.)

Option 1: You understand time as if it is made up of moments that can be
divided. The model is space. Option 2: You realize that you only perceive
what is present. And you also realize that doing geometry isn't the same as
drawing conclusions from your little sketches. In geometry, Husserl says,
you work with essences. There is a point of contact with your sketch, but
your basis for thinking is not empirical.

And so we have Ariadne and the construction of space without temporal
parts. We have geometry done on a grand scale. And we have an alternative
for the person who shoots frame by frame her drawings of figures - or the
navigation of her architectural designs.

Bernie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20200825/0aa9afb8/attachment.html>