Шалагинов Денис_RESUME_04052018 (Проблемы имманентизма в нестабильных онтологиях), страница 7

Theconnection of the subject, structure and becoming is demonstrated. For this, Ireconstruct and comment on the Deleuzian criteria of structuralist thought, whichin his own philosophy is enriched by bergsonist intuitions, that as a result leads toconceptualization of the structure as a system of transformations, anyrepresentation of which is included in it. The structure has an internal time – thetime of actualization. This rhizomatic conceptualization of structure as a dynamicopen system allows to eliminate dualism of structure and operation, i.

e. thestructure is not opposite to becoming, but, on the contrary, assumesconceptualization of becoming as actualization of the virtual. At the same time, theonly Deleuzian subject is structure itself: any structure is a virtual infrastructurehidden by its actualizations, i. e. the structure is the basis, the “foundation”, or“that-which-lies-before”, which, according to Heidegger, is the subject. I alsoappeal to the motive of the production of subjectivity, analyzing the concept of the“pliable subject”, i.

e. one which changes constantly in the course of interactionwith external forces, and then I consider the interpretations of the subject inPostDeleuzian philosophy of Sloterdijk and postoperaists – Virno, Negri, Hardt, –who continue to hold the line, outlined in the early works of Deleuze, on the basisof which the question of the subject is inseparable from questions of becoming,newness, future.In Chapter II.

“The problem of the one and the multiple in unstableontologies” I analyze a number of immanentist conceptions which arecharacterized by the usage of the conceptual pair virtual/actual, and I demonstratethe specific refraction of the problem of the one and the multiple that takes place inthese conceptions.Paragraph 1. “The postpluralist theory of multiplicities” is devoted tothe problem of the one and the multiple in Deleuze/Guattari’s ontology ofbecoming and in conceptions of their followers. One of the defining features ofunstable ontologies is the elimination of the unity of the foundation, which isreplaced by the “initial plurality”64. But here, in my opinion, we are faced with theimplicit difficulty: the characteristics of plurality as “initial” rehabilitates themetaphysical logic of the ultimate foundation: a plurality of elements in thephilosophy of Anaxagoras is not a guarantee of its “classification” as an unstableontology.

The challenge, therefore, is not in the multiplication of the elements,which do not lose the characteristics of simplicity, but in changing the perspective:simple elements – in the singular or in the plural – are impossible in the ontology,where the opposition simplicity/complexity is canceled: in post-metaphysicalphilosophy of Deleuze there is nothing simple65, which is why the establishment ofthe opposition simplicity-complexity is incorrect. The situation in which the appealto the beginning is forbidden, pushes to develop a different way of thinking.Moreover, if you consistently pursue a post-metaphysical line, the opposition ofthe single/multiple is also beginning to be questioned, hence the need for thereconceptualizationofmultiplicityin“postpluralistic”key.Theterm“postpluralism”66 refers to an ontological approach in which the one is not thoughtof in opposition to the multiple, and refers to the formula of Deleuze/Guattari:“PLURALISM = MONISM”67.

This decision is directly related to the immanentistcharacter of the post/Deleuzian philosophy: the history of continental philosophycan be divided into two main directions – line of the immanent, which includesSpinoza and Nietzsche, and then Deleuze, and the line of the transcendent, where                                                            64Zhereblin S. Nestabilnyje ontologii v sovremennoj filosofii. SPb., 2013. P. 28.Aronson O. V., Arshinov V. I., Budanov V. G., Kuznetsov V. Y., Knyazeva E. N., Lepskij V. E., Plahov A. S., Rozin V.M., Svirskiy Y. I., Shulepov E. M.

Paradigma slozhnosti v perspective filosofskoy strategii Zhilja Deljoza. Materialy“kruglogo stola” // Filosofiya nauki I tehniki. 2016. T. 21. # 2. P. 176.66Viveiros de Castro E. Kannibalskiye metafiziki. M., 2017. P. 79.67Deleuze G., Guattari F. Tysyacha plato: Kapitalizm I shizofreniya.

Ekaterinburg; M., 2010. P. 37.65we find the names of Kant, Husserl, Levinas and Derrida68. The one in the firsttradition, of course, can not be conceived as something transcendent – indeed,some slogans of Deleuze/Guattari can give the impression that their task is to"subtract" the one from philosophical thought69. At first glance, this is nothing butcall for the elimination of unity, however, the gesture of negation of unity can beinterpreted as a performative contradiction, that is rightly pointed out by VasilyKuznetsov: the fact that the rejection of unity, oddly enough, leaves us with a fullopportunity to speak about the world in general – albeit in the mode of the denialof his unity70. The problem of unity/multiplicity in unstable ontologies, thedefining feature of which is strict immanentism (i.

e. in ontologies of abundance),should be formulated in the form of the question of how to conceive of unity not inopposition to multiplicity. So, within the framework of the Deleuze/Guattari’sproject, we meet with such a solution as postpluralism. This solution is related toquasi-dualistic separation of two types of multiplicities (virtual/actual). In thecontext of the paragraph I traced this decision not only in the works ofDeleuze/Guattari, but also in the texts of other theorists such as Castoriadis,DeLanda, etc. In addition, I pointed out the direct connection of postpluralism withthe ideas of Leibniz.

I compare Deleuze/Guattari’s project with the conception ofLatour, whose “actant-rhizome ontology” is presumably one of the closest“relatives” of Deleuzianism. In addition, in paragraph I reconstruct the positionalBadiou-Deleuze “conflict” which allows us to better articulate the conceptions ofboth theorists. Badiou’s intuition seems right: Deleuze does not eliminate the One,but this “One” is “dynamic and constantly varying”71; it does not necessarily haveto be viewed in opposition with multiple – because it turns out to be much moreflexible, not bringing its elements under common features.In paragraph 2.

“The concept of multitude in postoperaism” I analyzethe postoperaist conceptualization of the multitude. The multitude in this context                                                            68Agamben G. Absolute Immanence // Potentialities. Collected Essays in Philosophy.http://cscs.res.in/dataarchive/textfiles/textfile.2010-11-02.8261782670/file69Deleuze G., Guattari F. Tysyacha plato: Kapitalizm I shizofreniya. Ekaterinburg; M., 2010. P. 11.70Кuznetsov V. Vzaimosvjaz edinstva mira i edinstva kultury.

М., 2013. P. 14. 71Ibid. P. 111.URL:refers to the collective subject of late capitalism: “this category is designed tocombine under the sign of the exploited class of worker – the «physical» and«immaterial» labor, production and non-production sphere”72. Thus, multitude insome way comes to replace the proletariat in conditions of the new spirit ofcapitalism, which is inseparable from project thinking and immaterial labor, andtherefore associated with the mobilization of such resources as language,imagination, information, creativity. The work of Deleuze/Guattari has, of course,had a decisive influence on the development of this concept within the postoperaist framework.Multitude is a rhizomatic, self-organizing system, hence its fundamentaldifference from “people” and “crowd”.

If the people consist of heterogeneousindividuals whose social differences are synthesized and reduced to a state ofuniformity, then the multitude is deprived of the quality of internal unity. This,however, does not mean that it is fragmented and anarchic. The multitude differsfrom the crowd because the singularities that make up the latter do not showthemselves as individuals, so they are extremely prone to manipulation from theoutside, whereas the multitude is defined as a complex, internally diverse, activesocial entity whose structure and activities are based not on identity, but on thatwhich it has in common, i. e.

on the “life of the mind”, shared linguistic abilities,everything that passes under the rubric of general intellect73. I demonstrate that themultitude does not eliminate the unity but redefines it: the “general intellect”,which means the shared linguistic abilities, the common abilities to affirmativeaction, becomes the One for the multitude. It is shown that here we also encounterthe conceptual pair virtual/actual, because in postoperaist philosophy the infraindividual is a kind of analogue to the virtual and is used for the conceptualizationof the process of individuation of the multitude, i. e., ultimately, becoming asactualization.                                                            72Chizhova T. Grammatika mnozhestva Paolo Virno: k problem subjekta politicheskogo deistviya v epohupostfordizma // Topos.