Difference

Republished from Tuesday, 9 March 2010

What A Mind !!!! Gilles Deleuze

What A Mind !!!! Gilles Deleuze - The "source-" father of "Complexity theory".

*
Deleuze Guattari A Thousand Plateaus.pdf. ... 

http://books.google.de/books/about/EPZ_Thousand_Plateaus.html?id=B9xLrS6mpGoC&redir_esc=y

http://danm.ucsc.edu/~dustin/library/deleuzeguattarirhizome.pdf

A Thousand Plateaus, Chapter Eight: Lines and Segmentarity

http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/guattaris-schizoanalytic-prag...

*
It is not far fetched to reflect on our "Ethiopian Problems" in the context of "Complexity theory". All the variables, the parameters and above all the differentials seem to be available and apparent, influencing the "social and political game", how complex or simple it may be, taking some sort of form in and around our regions. May be, we are just lacking or handicapped by the factor of the human/elite agency playing its role of consciously facilitating the emergence of a creative "cultural and technological pattern" towards the formation of a healthy "political physiology" where all sections could relatively be happy and sound to accept the challenge of Life full of struggle. - Life, in which all of them could have been the beneficaries of the global "non-zero-sum" product...... at "the end of the day".

MORE on understanding Deleuze:

*
DELEUZE, GUATTARI AND EMERGENCE
John Protevi
Department of French Studies
Louisiana State University
protevi@lsu.edu
DRAFT: 19 February 2005. Please cite as “Deleuze, Guattari, and Emergence,”
Paragraph: A Journal of Modern Critical Theory, 29.2 (July 2006): 19-39.
*
http://www.protevi.com/john/Emergence.pdf
.
.
>>>>>>>>>from ...DELEUZE, GUATTARI AND EMERGENCE.....

CONCLUSION: TOWARD A DISCUSSION OF THE SUBJECT AND EMERGENCE.
Using this article as a basis, in another context I hope to discuss the way DG’s notions

of emergence can help us to see that a discussion of the genesis of agents, rational

and otherwise, can help in many of the debates in social science on methodological
individualism, sociological realism, Rational Choice Theory, the structure / agency
dilemma, and other problematic areas. In doing so we will have to take account of

the difference between the synchronic emergence of stable systems, with their

equilibrium focus, and the ability to sustain creativity in what DG call consistencies

or war machines (‘the nomad reterritorializes on deterritorialization itself’

(DG 1980: 381).

Such absolutely deterritorializing assemblages are not simply resilient and creative,

but are so precisely in ways that maintain the conditions for future creativity;

they find ways to stay in their crisis zones, they feel at home while on the move –

even if they don’t move relative to their position in a GPS system. In other words,

their pattern allows them to change their pattern. We can thereby dissolve the

false dichotomy between social holism (oriented to homeostatic stability) and

methodological individualism (which denies ontological emergence), as well as

evade the antinomies of the structure / agency debate, by showing that agency,

when conceived as creativity in changing the patterns and thresholds of social systems, can only appear in far-from-equilibrium crisis situations.21

*

On Difference:

http://www.protevi.com/john/LearnDR.pdf

 

On Philosophy of Becoming:

http://pcp.vub.ac.be/ECCO/ECCO-Papers/Weaver-ComplexityPhilosophy.pdf

Print this post