Reading Peter Hallward’s ‘Out of this World’ on Deleuze. I’ll post a few quotes and notes in this area as I read the work.
“But as we shall see, the affirmation of an expressive or creative immanence does not so much eliminate the question of transcendence as distribute it throughout creation as a whole: rather than reserved for that which exceeds creation or orients it towards its limit, an immanent conception of creativity will assign the task of self-transcendence to its every creature. Every actual creature will have as its particular task the development of its own counter- . actualisation or self-transcendence, the process whereby it may become an adequate vehicle for the creating which sustains and transforms it.”
– Peter Hallward, Out of this World
Sometimes when I read Deleuze I think not of Spinoza but of Schopenhauer’s Will-to-life – this dark vitalism of the daimonic ‘blind idiot god’ etc. More from the Gnostic overturning and reversal of Neo-Platonic thought shaping an absolute immanence. The Gnostics of course sought a literal escape from the evil material creation, whereas Deleuze seems to see creation more under the Greek light of harmony and pure creativity. Only suggesting that we are trapped in a metaphysical prison of our own making rather than some literal realm of material enslavement. There are always nuances to any reading of Deleuze. There’s always a lot to agree and disagree with Deleuze, he was a complex thinker and well versed in the traditions so that any discussion of his work will always remain open to interpretation and variation. That’s the mark of genius that we can read and reread his works and change our views as we change.
“Deleuze equates being with unlimited creativity. This means that all actual beings exist as facets of a single productive energy or force. An infinitely creative force expresses itself through an infinitely differentiated creation.”
–Peter Hallward, Out of this World
Here is Schopenhauer:
“Will is the thing–in– itself, the inner content, the essence of the world. Life, the visible world, the phenomenon, is only the mirror of the will. Therefore life accompanies the will as inseparably as the shadow accompanies the body ; and if will exists, so will life, the world, exist. Life is, therefore, assured to the will to live ; and so long as we are filled with the will to live we need have no fear for our existence, even in the presence of death.”
It seems both thinkers have a monistic system in which a singular force manifests itself through all creation. There are plenty of differences, and yet this very notion of an abiding impersonal force of creativity is there in each.
Deleuze will lean on Spinoza and Bergson rather than Schopenhauer-Kant for his influencers.
Speaking of Deleuze’s fusion of Spinoza/Bergson substance and time:
“All existent individuals are simply so many divergent facets of one and the same creative force, variously termed desire or desiring-production, life, elan vital, power. Since nothing can transcend it, creative ‘immanence is immanent only to itself and consequently captures everything, absorbs All-One, and leaves nothing remaining to which it could be immanent’ (WP, 45).”
–Peter Hallward, Out of this World
This sense of the dynamism of this Will-to-creativity much like all the variations of the voluntarist tradition from Augustine onward is this unique immanent power at the core of being which following Parmenides unites ‘being and thinking’ not in some static or frozen field but in a dynamic ongoing processual creation without end.
“Properly understood, all of reality is precisely act rather than thing, production rather than product. Reality is the deployment of movings rather than a collection of moved things. What we choose to perceive and then represent of such a movement, however, is precisely a matter of our representation and not of reality itself.”
— Peter Hallward, Out of this World
I remember reading in Harold Bloom’s Agon: “As a mythological comparison, rather than a scientific analogy, the Gnostic contrast between psyche and pneuma lends itself to Jonas’s Heideggerian distinction between an orthodox or Platonic concept of being, the psyche, and a Gnostic concept of happening, the pneuma. Being is static; happening, or movement, leads to a difference: “ The knowledge is of a history, in which it is itself a critical event” (Jonas).”
This notion can as well be found in Lucretius’s ‘swerve’ which as well is a “movement that produces difference” as compared to Heraclitus static concept of Being.
“After experience had taught me the hollowness and futility of everything that is ordinarily encountered in daily life, and I realised that all the things which were the source and object of my anxiety held nothing of good or evil in themselves save insofar as the mind was influenced by them, I resolved at length to enquire whether there existed a true good, one which was capable of communicating itself and could alone affect the mind to the exclusion of all else, whether, in fact, there was something whose discovery and acquisition would afford me a continuous and supreme joy to all eternity.’
–Spinoza, Treatise on the Emmendation of the Intellect
Hallward on Deleuze’s thoughts concerning the ‘human condition’ or our flight from reality into delusion-illusion:
“This is the whole drama of the human condition (and it is why philosophy must adopt, as its essential task, the orientation .of thought beyond this condition). But although it is a mistake and an illusion, this condition is a supremely well-founded illusion. Our tendency to misunderstand ourselves and the nature of reality, for instance to treat as divisible that which is in reality indivisible, is not the result of a simple oversight or laziness. This tendency is built into the way we have evolved, the way we habitually are, the way we have adapted to the material pressures of life. The way we live obscures the reality of life. We are a facet of reality that is organised in such a way as to be ignorant of what it is. And most philosophy is doomed to incoherence because it seeks to ground an understanding of reality upon this very ignorance, i.e. upon the conditions of our habitual experience. As Deleuze will conclude, ‘all our false problems derive from the fact that we do not know how to go beyond experience toward the conditions of experience, toward the articulations of the real [du reeW (B, 26).”
— Peter Hallward, Out of this World
After rereading Earnest Becker began reading Peter Hallward on Deleuze confirming this basic ploy of humans in their ‘escape from reality’, along with his acknowledgment that ‘all our false problems derive from the fact that we do not know how to go beyond experience toward the conditions of experience, toward the articulations of the real [du reeW (B, 26) seems apropos.
Obviously, I don’t buy into Hallward’s notion that philosophy – and, by extension, Deleuze’s thought – is some kind of mystic path out of time and matter. But this seems to be his reading of Deleuze as Mystic Philosopher:
“Philosophy will thus complete the human adventure by escaping it, and in the process it will offer creative spirit a way out of its material exile. Philosophy will be the discipline that creativity requires, and invents, so as to continue along its most intensive (most creative, most spiritual or immaterial) path. Philosophy is the vehicle through which spirit can escape its necessary confinement in matter.”
(Out of this World, p. 20).
This is to turn Deleuze’s Philosophy of Pure Immanence into a mystic soup of transcendence which is something almost opposite of my own thought on Deleuze. Matter is not some static thing, this is the mechanist view of matter as dead, etc. Matter is dynamic and energetic and is in essence absolute energy as Einstein surmised and Quantum Physics has shown over and over. Our universe is a dynamism of chaotica, particles emerging and fading back into nothingness (but even this nothingness is a figure of something we as yet do not know or understand – a boundary zone wherein our tools ands sciences cannot delve). To me this whole notion of ‘spirit’ against matter spells dualistic nonsense. It’s the old two-world metaphysics of Plato not Deleuze’s notions of pure immanence. Hallward’s reading seems ludicrous so far… he is turning Deleuze into an inheritor of Plato rather than his enemy. In my reading Deleuze’s main enemy was Plato, and his philosophy is above all monist and seeks against Plato to stick with this world rather than escape it in some mystic flight out of reality and the Real. There is no ‘other’ world, only this one made whole. We as humans sought to escape reality and developed a system of defenses against the terror of the Real. As T.S. Eliot suggested: “Humans cannot bear too much reality!” As my recent reading of Earnest Becker demonstrates, the central insight into the ‘human condition’ by the tradition psychoanalyses is the human inability to face the world as it ‘is’ which forced them into deception, self-deception, and flight into illusion-delusion. Our culture(s) and civilization(s) across the planet were developed as systems of safety and security against the terror of the world.
We know that those who we term insane are those who were unable to develop the socialization processes that parental and cultural inculcation and education demand as normalcy. The madness of these individuals is that they know and see the world as it is, living in psychosis of various stages unable to cope with its intensity. Normality is the development of ‘character armor’ that protects the psyche and mind from the blast furnace of the Real. What Deleuze and others have sought is not a flight out of the Real but a more vulnerable opening into its realms. How to break away from the false world of the ‘Human Security System’ developed in collusion with evolution against reality and the Real. How to develop a path forward rather than a return to pre-Critical thought on madness and the truth of our psychotic reality. How to break with the metaphysics that binds us in deception and become a part of the dynamism of the universe ‘as it is’, this is the central problem to which Deleuze searched the varied sources of our philosophies for an answer. His philosophy is a part of this journey.
Let’s face it most of my own thought grew out of my conflicts with my early right-wing culture of the Bible Belt Christian evangelical worldview. My entry into the secular-atheist humanism of my twenties came out of my confrontation with war in Viet Nam and the breakup at the age of thirteen of my parents’ divorce. My own reality suddenly awakened to the nightmare of existence that our culture has created in its socialization processes to the point that we are now in a civil war of the mind in the West. At the core of it is this battle for thousands of years between various forms of transcendence vs. immanence.
The history of this conflict has barely been scratched, and only its formulation in philosophical speculation attempted so far. But that truly is part of this Time War vector to which Nick Land’s mad musing led as well. Sure, he pushed into the psychotic realm and brought back some interesting tidbits, but he did not go far enough. He like many before him broke down rather than had a breakthrough, his physical life deteriorating through the very ‘amphetamine gods’ he imaginatively wrote about. His use of abstraction and drugs led not to a healthy break with our socialization but into the dark side of the psychotic illness we see in so many creative individuals.
I know this because I went through all this sixty years ago, a long process of what the ancients termed “healer, heal thyself!”. Once the process stops one either pushes through it completely and comes out the other side or one fails. Most fail, but we can learn from their failures and like Zizek – himself a depressive psychotic – have the ‘courage of our hopelessness’ and push through into a greater sense of our world. Against Becker there is nothing heroic about this, there is no grand self-purging or cathartic enmeshing and release from the affective terror; there is just the quite truth of reality and the Real, and our awakening to its full intensity with an openness and vulnerability. To be free is to live in the chaosmos of full-blown psychosis. But this is not a simple thing to do, and there is no simple path into it.
But like anyone this is only a partial triumph, none of us can live this continually, we all return to this other domain of normalcy otherwise we could not communicate our travels and journeys into the Real. Nothing new here that the ancients did not already know. We are only updating the same knowledge and experience in the metaphors and concepts of our age. Nothing more.
Here is Hallward waxing on about Bergson’s influence on Deleuze,
“This is why the philosopher and the mystic occupy such a privileged place at the summit of Bergson’s hierarchical cosmology. Material obstacles have forced the evolution of spiritual life into myriad divergent channels, and in most of these channels living creativity has eventually run dry. But if the story of evolution as Bergson tells it is the story of compromises life has been forced to make with and in matter, the climax of that story is precisely the moment when, with humanity, conscious life invents a form that is finally capable of bypassing all material, organic, social or intellectual obstruction – a form through which it might advance on a purely spiritual plane.”
Reading that I want to say bullshit. Again, this conception of material and organic existence as suffering, pain, and something to be overcome, transcended through some mystic realization and nirvana like transcension. Bunk. We live in an energetic cosmos from which we constructed a safe haven and security system to protect us from its intensive powers. We do not need to escape into some ‘elsewhere’ some beatific realm or dimension or heaven of Transcendence. No. We need to break down the walls we’ve built against reality, the repressive mechanisms so well documented by Freud and his pupils. The reentry into the Real is the journey into a full blow psychosis of health rather than fear and terror. It’s not some simple journey but a long and arduous undertaking, undermining all the threads of enculturation we’ve undergone for thousands of years in this two-world mythology of Transcendence.
I know I wasn’t going to speak of the Indic Civilization not being born, raised, and nourished in its culture and religious worlds I can only speak of it as an outsider. Even though I was immersed in the Hinayana (Lesser Vehicle or Modest Vehicle) and Mahayana (Greater Vehicle or Vast Vehicle) originating in The Prajnaparamita Sutras through my Martial Arts Master back in my twenties, and after a lifetime of study in both the Chinese and Korean variants of the Norther Shaolin Mantis forms etc. under that master for fifteen years I have as most Westerners a bare minimal understanding of the complexities of that social, psychological, and powerful tradition(s).
But I do know they are far ahead of us in their understanding of this dilemma of the dualism/monism of our metaphysical quandaries on Transcendence vs. Immanence. Even the notions of Samsara and Nirvana deal with the ‘impure mind’ vs. ‘pure mind’ that sees this world in both its corrupted version of our ‘escaping reality’ and our unfolding and awakening into the Real (a Western term I use instead of Nirvana). I can’t begin to explicate all these ideas, concepts, affective relations that have for centuries been handed down from Buddha his disciples, pupils, and the various schools. Much less speak of Bodhidharma, Milarepa, and so many others… But just to say they do know.
Even in martial arts one is taught by demonstration rather than mind, one is fully immersed in the physical forms, the motions and movements of the various styles of the Shaolin schools of the natural animal and insectoid worlds they studied so carefully. One becomes animal once again… but this is not a return but a movement in as it were to the core of one’s own animalness. It’s not about control, but freedom; the movement of this force of ‘chi’ (i.e., this vital force, Will-to-life, elan vital, etc.) that is impersonal and works through all things organic and anorganic. It’s not some form of mysticism or metaphysical path, but a very real physical process of coming to know the world-as-it-is through the study of these forms developed over centuries of mastery.
In ancient China the masters of these various forms would yearly come together and fight to the death to show forth their mastery of the inner core of their physical and mental disciplines. The natural order is not kind, but full of conflict, struggle, and suffering. Most seek to deny it, escape it, fly from its dark powers of fear and terror. It will not go away. It is. These masters knew all too well what existence is. Lived it, forming powerful tools to free mind and body to allow the Outside in – let the force of ‘chi’ center them in the current of this energetic cosmos.
“Although it can never be given or presented, since the virtual (idea, problem, event, statement, concept … ) is what accounts for the individuation of a given entity or situation, adequately to know this entity or situation is to know it in its virtual dimension alone. The actual per se just gets in the way of such knowledge. To know reality is thus to see through actuality. To know reality is to intuit what cannot be given, presented or represented.”
— Peter Hallward, Out of this World
Even with all these various nuances of Stoic Time and Bergsonian Time, along with the notion of the Event/event, Virtual/Actual… and all the variations of concepts that are aligned either with the virtual or actual one feels that Deleuze is ever only displacing and substituting terms for all those he’s inherited from Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Bergson, etc. Hallward makes it seem the Virtual is none other than the Noumenal realm of Kant displaced into Spinozian metaphysics combined with Bergsonian virtual metaphysics. My difficulty with Deleuze has always been his debt to the whole Rationalist metaphysics. His thought is couched in the rationalist ethos and linguistic habits of overdetermination (Freud). It’s like reading a rationalist dream book (i.e., the whole of Deleuze’s Ouvre is one book which is not a product but a manifestation of the virtual creativity he so cherishes…).
Deleuze’s variation on Platonic metaphysics…
When pressed on this point, Deleuze is quite happy to accept the essentialist or Platonic implications of his position (so long as we remember that this Plato doesn’t think essences as identity-bound or created forms, but as dynamic creatings or multiplicities). This is the position he adopts, for instance, in a 1967 debate with a specialist in German Idealism,
Deleuze: It seems to me we have the means to penetrate the subrepresentational, to reach all the way to the roots of spatio-temporal dynamisms, and all the way to the Ideas actualised in them: the elements and ideal events, the relations and singularities are perfectly determinable. illus!on only comes afterward, from the direction of constituted extensions and the qualities that fill out these extensions.
Philonenko: So illusion appears only in what is constituted.
Deleuze: That’s right [ … ].
Philonenko: [ … ] If you push illusion over to the side of what is constituted, without accepting illusion in genesis, in constitution, are you not in the end just coming back to Plato (when in fact you would like to avoid such a thing), for whom precisely constitution, understood as proceeding from the Idea, in as much as it can be understood, is always veracious, truthful?
Deleuze: Yes, perhaps (DI, l l 5-l 6tm).
— Peter Hallward, Out of this World
The stickler of course is in that “perhaps”. What to make of this? Is Deleuze an ephebe of Plato’s Idealism after all, displacing Plato’s thought through Spinoza-Leibniz-Bergson into postmodern vocabulary? Is he in Iain Hamilton Grant’s sense a ‘realist of Ideas’ and therefore an Idealist after all?
As if to explicate this quandary Hallward himself seems puzzled:
“…does the fact that Deleuze applauds the death of God mean that he is also willing to bury the classical idea of an infmitely perfect essence or all-powerful creative force? Not at all: as Deleuze understands it, the death of God simply means.the death of transcendence, i.e. the death of an uncreative or finitely creative God, a God that remains at a distance from creation. The death of God signals ‘the abolition of the cosmological distinction between two worlds, the metaphysical distinction between essence and appearance’ (DI, 74). Needless to say, Deleuze adamantly rejects any notion of God linked to the static stability of the world, to the consolidation of personal or organic identity, to the transcendence of ideal forms – in short to notions incompatible with the – affirmation of a properly unlimited creative power. But when it comes to explaining the individuation of virtual creatings he relies, no less than Spinoza and Leibniz, upon an intensive form of power whose primary medium is spiritual and whose paradigmatic vehicle is divine.”
It seems a fine line between his notion of Immanence vs. Transcendence once again plays the defining role in the distinction between his views on Plato and its underpinning two-world theoretic rather than on the Ideas-Forms themselves. But is he still a ‘realist of Ideas’ in Grant’s sense or not? If so, he’s still an Idealist at heart rather than part of any materialist-empirical-naturalist philosophy no matter how anti-Platonic he might appear.
One imagines Earnest Becker reading Hallward and nodding his head…
“From a Deleuzian perspective, the one real philosophical problem is simply this: although there are only creatings, these can give rise to creatures which then get in the way of creation. There are only creatings, but some of these creatings give rise to the unavoidable illusion of creatural independence. … Our only problem, in other words – but there is no greater problem – is that we generally live in ignorance or denial of what we are. Although only the virtual determines the real, we assume instead that the actual offers the most reliable basis for reality. In reality, active becoming or transformation is a matter of composing forces and not composed forms, but unfortunately we begin precisely as composed forms, as actual creatures, trapped in ignorance, impotence and slavery.1 We are born to inherit delusions of ontological equivocity or dualism – in particular, the belief that we are subjects as distinct from objects, and thus subjects who must represent and interpret objects. All creatures capable of thought need to escape their ignorance and become thoughtful. A creature will actively express creation only by becoming, in the most active and literal sense, creative.”
This “creatural independence” is none other than “actualization” – being in the world of illusion-delusion harkening back to Platon, etc. This division between Virtual/Actual seems a variation on an old them no matter how Deleuze strives to wipe out the dualist frame with pure immanence. The whole crux of his thought centers of the concept of “creativity” and its failure to absolve the actual of its actualism or mode of being distinct-separate et. al.
And, yet, Hallward as well sees a Deleuze struggling with this need in him to discover an escape from the ‘human condition’ that is not based on Trancendence:
“In each case, what Deleuze is looking for is an account of the human and of the creatural more generally that both acknowledges its unreal or illusory status and yet doesn’t fall back into the well-worn patterns of transcendence, i.e., that doesn’t simply condemn, from a higher or more eminent perspective, the creatural as fundamentally inferior or unsalvageable. Deleuze’s philosophy is redemptive, not pessimistic. In other words, Deleuze needs an account of how creative desire might be led to desire its own repression – an account of why people ‘fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though it were their salvation’. This remains ‘the fundamental problem of political philosophy’, if not of philosophy altogether, and the basis for its properly clinical or symptomalogical function. Such an account must remain consistent with the imperative · of creative univocity, to the exclusion of any judgmental equivocity or transcendence.”( 56).
So here is the crux of Hallward’s notion of ‘out of this world’ as pure immanence in Deleuze’s system:
“The philosophical project is one of developing, with and within the materials generated by actualisation, a mechanism of counter-actualisation. Philosophy will lead from actual to virtual; from the world, it must lead out of the world. Does this mean a return to transcendence, a leap into an otherworldly beyond? Not at all: ‘out’ doesn’t mean ‘beyond’. Extra-worldly doesn’t mean other-worldly. To move virtlially out – to out – involves neither actual externality nor a transcendent ideal; the outing that is a line of flight or deterritorialisation need not move through actual space. All that will ever actually be presented along the path from actual to virtual will be actual as a matter of course; all the same, it must serve to orient those who are exposed to it outside itself, towards the virtual that is alone creative of the world.” (57).
This notion of ‘counter-actualisation’ as Deleuze’s path out of our ‘human condition’ and entrapment in the false-deluded forms of life, etc. for Deleuze, but a path that remains immanent to creativity and the virtual.
“Deleuze and Guattari will never stop inventing new mechanisms to undo or dis-organise the organism, to evacuate worlds, environments, territories, species, and individuals of their actual or molar identity. The general goal is always a variation of the same effort – to make Nature operate in the only way it should: ‘against itself’ (TP, 242).”
(Peter Hallward, Out of this World: 62).
For Hallward the message is clear: what Deleuze seeks is a way back into the virtual world of pure immanence and creativity. We’ve fallen from that world into the actual organic world of pure actualization in which we objectify everything, live in a dualistic realm based on a false Transcendence locked into and entrapped in the given and representational thought.
As if he’d read Becker on Freud and appled it to Deleuze Hallward says:
“Moreover, Oedipus is what protects anti-creation from creative counter-attack. Oedipus offers a defence against both the psychological reversal of transcendence (namely the raw, immediate experience of immanent creation: schizophrenia) and the socio-economic evacuation of transcendence (namely capitalism’s abstraction, decoding, de-actualisation or de-territorialisation of all values in the indifferent medium of exchange value). Both capitalism’s relative de-actualisation and schizophrenia’s absolute de-actualisation are controlled and managed by Oedipus. If ‘what all societies dread absolutely as their most profound negative [are] the decoded flows of desire’, i.e. the deactualised flows of virtual creation, then Oedipus guards against this limit of social coherence (AO, 1 77). ‘Oedipus displaces the limit, it internalises the limit. Rather a society of Uabouring] neurotics than one successful schizophrenic who has not been made autistic’ (AO, 102). Confronted with the risk of capitalism’s anarchic commodification and detoxification, i.e. with the abstraction of all values, Oedipus manages to shift the danger of an uncontrollable political or ‘public’ de-actualisation onto an eminently controllable, ‘private’ re-stabilisation of the actual or the molar. Oedipus reinforces the political work of exploitation or surplus extraction by internalising it (via the metaphorical mediation of the family) in the very configuration of consciousness and identity. The politics of exploitation and security plays ou! in a world populated by ‘Mister Capital, Madame Earth and their child the Worker’ (AO, 264). The first and most fundamental modern form of surplus extraction is simply the reproduction of the subject as such, the subject as dutiful worker and son, as docile labour.”
(Peter Hallward, Out of this World: 69).
One thinks of Nick Land’s infusion of Deleuze-Guattari in his focus on the ‘Human Security System’ that’s core enslavement and enshrinement of the ‘subject’ both private and public controlled by Big Daddy State (i.e., Super-ego).
The “experience of immanent creation” as psychosis, as the unrepressed life lived as schizophrenic or as I like to term it schizorealist whose escape from the ‘character armor’ of socialization opens us to the fullness and pleroma of the Real surround of existence (i.e., what Deleuze terms the Virtual ongoing creativity of the cosmos).
Hallward sees Deleuze’s redemptive message as the unrepressed life of the schizorealist:
“As you might expect, recovery of the real must therefore begin with the dissolution of both the private and public forms of transcendent subjection, and the subsequent elaboration of a desire without person or state. Recovery proceeds through the dissolution of the psychoanalytic theatre of interpretation (the theatre in which desire is staged or ‘represented’ [representeJ at a distance from itself) in favour of the workshop or factory of immediate and thus automatic or mechanical desire. Recovery involves dismantling the theatrical representation of desire…”
(Peter Hallward, Out of this World: 69).
One might read Wouter Kusters Philosophy of Madness along with such a program offering a way into psychoses not as illness but as freedom and the immanent life fully lived. The main difference in this is Deleuze couches all of this in Western philosophical discourse and discursive practices rather than some more popular form but the message though technical and more elaborate in conceptuality is rooted in the same pragmatics.
Peter Hallward sees Deleuze’s anti-representationalism as a return to pre-Critical thought against Kant and his inheritors:
He aligns himself with Leibniz or Spinoza precisely because their affrrmative naturalism undoes, in advance, Kant’s critical attribution of immanence to a subject which then transcends it. In defiance of the rules of Kantian perception, the great rationalists hurl us immediately into the raw intensity of nature’s own creativity. They rather than Kant are the true ancestors of Artaud’s schizophrenic, it is they who inspire us to ‘experience pure forces, dynamic lines in space that act without intermediary upon the spirit and link it directly with nature and history’ (DR, 10). “(74).
“Whenever Deleuze himself uses the term ‘transcendental’, consequently, it doesn’t refer to what Kant described as those contj.itions of possibility which shape our subjective experience, the conditions that guarantee the reliability of our representations of objects in the world. It simply refers to the way we intuit or think (rather than represent) the very being or creation of the world as such, and of ourselves along with it. When Deleuze uses the term transcendental it is to describe creativity as such, creativity subtracted from the constraints of the actual or individual. ‘Transcendental’ is then just a description of pre-individual reality as it is in itself, in the immanence of its creation and ‘underneath’ its consolidation in the creature.” (74-75)
–Peter Hallward, Out of this World
It’s the raw experience of psychosis without the fractured illness of self/world dualism, much more the full-blown psychosis of the schizorealist unburdened by the subject-object split or gap living in the stream of creativity at the heart of our energetic cosmos.
more notes to come…