[FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here

[jon zingale]

Nick,

Is there a technical word for an essay one writes in preparation for another
essay? I have been struggling over the last several weeks to write two
essays, one preparatory on Euclid's second proposition (choices and
misdirections) and the other on Chris Marker's *Le Jetee*. The role of
Euclid's second will be to aid in an explication of Marker's conception of
time travel and causality. This connection is perhaps what got me so
entranced by the discussion of Bayesian networks. Did you ever clarify for
yourself what *screening-off* is? I continue to hope that my contributions
to that discussion will inspire you to tell me more about the connection you
see to *variation partitioning*, an idea I wish to understand better and
that you seem to understand well.

Some time ago, you mentioned the role of *seduction* in conversation. I am
listening to a series of interviews with Giles Deleuze and he mentions the
disdain he has for talking, and from what I can tell it is this quality,
that of seduction that makes talking dirty in comparison to writing. Would
you write more on seduction?

Also along the trajectory of a Deleuzian dive, I am working through his text
*Difference and Repetition*. He writes about an extensional-intensional
distinction in the concept of repetition that I find fascinating,
*repetition* is in relation to something unique or singular having no equal
or equivalent. He writes:

"""
But in any case, generality expresses a point of view according to which one
term may be exchanged or substituted for another. The exchange or
substitution of particulars defines our conduct in relation to
generality...By contrast, we can see that repetition is a necessary and
justified conduct only in relation to that which cannot be replaced.
"""

He gives an example that I can relate with, poetry:

"""
It is not by chance that a poem must be learned by heart. The head is the
organ of exchange, but the heart is the amorous organ of repetition. Pius
Servien rightly distinguished two languages: the language of science,
dominated by the symbol of equality, in which each term may be replaced by
others; and lyrical language, in which every term is irreplaceable and can
only be repeated.
"""

Of course, now I have to remember why I felt it important to share this with
you. Maybe it was this... Seduction can only repeat. Recently, you mentioned
a modality that I sympathize with, going to speak and finding yourself
developing an argument. There is the desire to develop, clarify and share a
concept. On philosophy, Deleuze mentions the posing of problems and the
creation of concepts. He speaks about their relation, that with Leibniz,
say, he presents the *monad* and this *concept* is found necessary or is
somehow manifest, from an underlying *problem*.

To read philosophy is to suss out those *unenunciated* (latent?) problems
philosophers aim at with their concepts. Is it fair to say that concepts
belong to the world of generality and exist to clarify and facilitate the
exploration of problems, problems that belong to the world of repetition?
You appear to have a certain fondness for philosophy, and even if only
through Peirce, I invite your reflections.

Jon



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/