The problem with friction;
1)The problem with the mutual is not the problem of begin, as one never really star. It is rather the problem of realizing where who already are in these times of ours.
2)At any one time there are loads mutuality’s everywhere, and all over the place, but the problem is there is no reasons to suppose these elements, bouncing off one another as they are, are remotely compatible. They might not be.
3)Or worse they possibly are at various levels or in odd ways. And move will therefore enter into sequences of exchanges and complexity.
4)Here deleuze is utterly right to talk of the plane of immanence have this is not really a plane. It is rather a non distinct bloc, were oozing maggotery elements cold lead anywhere, and word at levels of saying
5) The impasse is that what is mutual is what s already shared. What is therefore in me and you. The problem is that being within us, is really defined in an action that occurs to us both. In something we are experiencing. We feel.
6) This element is essential a sense in which how are both passively acting. Spinoza suggests therefore that two individuals, if their bodies are moved in the same manner will feel the same.
7) However there are four deep drawbacks to such a feeling.
8)A) It is passive . You and I are affected n the same way. But only as we are effecting ourselves. I forecast you, and feel it with you, and you do the same for m, both of us face the what then problem.
9)b) It is limited to the event or occasion of sympathy. We are bound together therefore though our relating to another, and through being for and with that othering.
10)c) It has no clear links or loops or limits. We can never quite sure of all we are feeling for one another, as we feel with each other. How much do we share, and what will follow on from it are therefore utterly unclear.
11)Finally in sharing we might highlight difference. Web will come up against how we differ, and resent it I the other. Sympathy might therefore lead one to conflict.
12)To pool identity, to pretend that you and I are one and the same is problematic therefore. It is to open up a mind o the idea that when we pull apart thee will be problems.
13) Worse than this, as this knowledge is thus far inadequate, we have no real ability to hold lines here. We mere, and start assuming things about the other. We become presumptuous, and start to assume that the mutuality runs deeper than it des. We become bound up in conflicts and problems.
14) And yet this odd sympathy, this sharing or pooling of bodies in action, is the key stone of the eternal. If we are together in the universe, if we understand where and what we are instinctively, and intuitively, if we can forecast each others action, and understand why and were it is, then we are bound by God, and bound in the third form of thinking.
15)The sense therefore that we do no draw a line, and that we place our own ability to be ourselves in suspension is important as something far greater than us lies in the fold of the idea we usually occupy.
16) Sharing what we are, being an essence and therefore being open to other humans, always us to understand how God grasps us. It allows us to grasp at the spinning wheel of a mind.
17)Here then is a real problem: Something which ought to reveal deep dimension to our minds, and yet which can only be known initial passively, through a way we are apparently responding to the world, and which ought to not be simply assumed (it might only be the work of the other, the work in the event): And yet of coursed it is can be assumed, if a paradigm for assumption is defined, then it will be carried over into understand how one exist within the light o f God.
18) It is perhaps this last point that ought t serve as the real starting point.
19) To create a universe, to conjure up a mind is to inject a passion or a sequence of relation to it. In this creation I am treating a universe now as a thing which might also be a mine.
20) The universe becomes then the element I add to a world. The elements I make in it and for it. What I am really sharing with others is therefore a once a power an ability to be responding (this is half way to being an adequate idea – to be adequate I would need to seize control of this shared.
21) But also I share a feeling, and therefore look to the other to also respond for that feeling. We are in a thing together, as a together.
22)At which point the element which make us both start of course to Ricochet around. W are in a feeling together, and we respond both eh same but different. We are caught in each others (and our owns) galaxy of differing responses to the same affair.
23) This difference is very textured. Our own respond is itself complex. I includes other feelings and feelings based on yet other otherings.
24) These complexities we share with others, who have similar but only similar textures.
25) The pallet of response is therefore depend. We together or you or I add to t, and great new ones. Be bounce into sharing oddities and new creations.
26)Here we faced two deep dangers.
27)A) To resolve too quickly is to be driven necessarily into the spinozian dilemma of only being passive. What we actually share, what alone we have is the response to the single point or even or history. This is always done with and over. It makes he ending point of the exchange just as much as the beginning. A mutual relationship is therefore always open to the problem that it might be taken for granted or dismissed not history. Is easy to devalue or revalue this way.
28)On the other hand is jus as easy never to resolve the issue. On might feel hat one understand someone, and never actually exchange, never risk anything. One might assume that it is simply there, simply given simply thought. One might just take it as red.
29) Even worse in this, one might hen mistake the sharing the sympathy for a fantasy. One can always share feelings in fantasy it is easy. To might therefore great a magic kingdom of sharing which is pointless sin itself and powerless for anything else.
30) To really share is to be in an active and rather risky exchange. In offering elements one is open the idea that he other might respond wrong headed or weirdly or just not at all.
31)Moreover as each such exchange involve challenge it requires a lot of good will, and thought. It is very easy to become flanked b others moves and others problem. It is very easy to render the entire affair too tricky or too problematic.
32) Fantasies are of course also sharing. The problem is not that there are not, but rather that they are easy. They can very readily take the turn of actual productive action therefore. They become a castrating hope.
33)All the more so as real pooling is likely to be tricky, and complex, and even rather uncomfortable.
34)To take another experience up into ones mind and allow it to be another’s, is to another oneself. on challenges (and not merely imagines), one responds. One risks.
35) One is caught therefore in the oddity of often making mistakes, and mistake that involve others, ad yet keeping the feeling going, keeping the resentment out.
36) A nice trick if one can do it.
37) The problem is of course that is next to impossible in large communities.
38) The result is that societies devolve another elements and only dream of mutuality’s
39)it is hard enough to do with friends. The problem is that they will start immediately to feel as a famly. But worse that a family, as at least in a family one had the past t draw on as a toxic bank for conflict.
40)In the past the role is defined in authority (master-servant, parent—child). No we hope the past is enough (brother fight whatever the age). It does not world so well, but it does (although it leads to a high divorce rate).
41) Te point is tat such relations serve as dumping grounds which allow a mutuality to continue. Conflict becomes routinized and acceptable It looses the edge to it.
42)The problem is however if one attempts to move this structure beyond the family in which it currently resolves.
43)One needs to create new means to hold conflicts elsewhere. New ways also to allow for the grumbles and problems of too much shared living or too much life brings.
44) A yet with appears quite beyond us all present.
45)The problem with the mutual is not then how to begin but how not to end.
46) But this problem is then caught up in a second one. We are surrounded by an exchange. They are everywhere, carry us of at all kinds of levels and in differing ways. W therefore it we are thinking of exchange are blinded in possibility.
47)There are too many options. It is hard o know where to start.
48) Hence the Spinoza gambit, we start where circumstance opens us up to a sharing.
49) The problem here is that this is fine, but it means the world gets the sharing it gets. That is the ones an event provokes or produces. It does not have anymore than that which are creating and created in circumstance.
50) Each sharing is haunted therefore by other ones some underdeveloped, many disruptive. They could only be and be true is what was their was unpicked or reduced or destroyed.
51)A fantasy of other sharing and opened possible (many never realized) surround the mind and drive into it
52)One relation to the sharing one is not yet or will never be only once could be but not now, at least not in that way, becomes one of the more complex games f living.
53) Most complex is how not to allow this to slip either into nostalgia or divinity.
54) The former accepts the limit and then makes the limit itself the story. I share because I am lost, and that is neat.
55)The other denies the power of the limit and looks rather to the powers of one fees one also is. It becomes hopelessly muddled up with a self that needles not be their, and which can always invent a world.
56)One needs rather perhaps to treat this hidden mutuality’s as spare parts or opportunities to follow at need or if one must.
57)One need therefore to keep then as the echoes of children to possibility be had (what is a child but a mutualities Spinoza at one point asks).
58)Thoughts one might well in the interests of what one can do leave aside.
59)Or might developed otherwise or differently.
60)At those point a third problems creeps in. The hidden ghosts of motilities need not be that passive 9thsi is why one needs to start at the body and with or though it).
61) The might therefore ac to assume or resume or consume ones mind. They might come back from nowhere as a violent shock, a lost love an echo of a youth and destroy what one has.
62)The problem is that this might be a joyous if blind destruction.
63) The mutual that awaited became in, and destroy what is their.
64) But the question is necessarily to ask what then? What need to be left in the running. What ought to be saved?
And why and when.
Ghosts have a habit of repeating themselves from distant tenses(pass and futures), and came life unquiet and tricky.
Mutuality is therefore bound up in a three old set of problem, there are too any, they are too violent and it is too hard keep then alive.
Which is no wonder why all things are excellent as they are rare: we simply have o hope the third form of knowledge is there awaiting for us at this point.