Difference and Repetition
I am reading this, these, books again and to aid memory, (short circuit thinking?) I am throwing a few notes out here, below.
“repetition is not generality” Introduction, page 1, line 1
an interesting negative start. an inverted heideggerian beginning? rather than following a path only to say ‘ah, but we know better…’ deleuze gives it all away up front. this is work of/on specificity. Singularity.
“to repeat is to behave in a certain manner, but in relation to something unique or singular which has no equal or equivalent.” Introduction, page 1
whether this book is about the business of undoing umbrella terminology in its most insipid appearances or otherwise, whatever was at stake for deleuze, the text makes at least one thing clear: repetition is not generality. what it is, what it might be is a behavior. a certain behavior. and not inconsequentially, repetition is a relation. we can think this relation in human terms, mathematical terms or via language… this is only a start to suggestions, certainly not a sufficient list. difference and repetition moves straight away to poetry:
“the repetition of a work of art is like a singularity without concept, and 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” Introduction, pages 1-2
singularity without concept. behavior with-out habit. recognition without resemblance. as jouissance for no one, each movement, each repetition is the appearing of something different. point being: there is no big Other, no entitler of meaning here. repetition is the appearing of the impossible in that no two things, outside of representation (or rather beneath it’s heavy burden) are ever truly repeated.
how (or rather when) to say that we are treading shared and un-common turf? clearly we are in the domain of derrida’s work on iterability, on differance, yet as difference makes clear we are never in a recurrence of the same. Something shifts. More on this to come…
for now, then, on to law. if generality ‘belongs to the order of the law’ and “Law unites the change of the water with the permanence of the river”… law, meaning, signification are always blanket terms. false in their generalizing blindness, but true in their adopted effects. law, whatever definition you give to it, requires the illusion of constancy. it requires times and places of equivalence wherein dictums can be applied and reapplied across circumstances, spectrums and specificities.
“if repetition is possible it is due to miracle, not to law” introduction, page 2
how to think the miracle and why to think miracle when thinking repetition?
if miracles are ever the question or the problem, they are so in their understood nomination as law breakers. outlaws. that or those that do not abide by the laws of the land. is repetition then, on the side of the outlaws, as that which broaches and breaks the boundaries instilled by law? yet the quote above does not draw an equivalence between repetition and miracle, it implies, instead something like debt: “if repetition is possible it is due to miracle”. what evolves in thinking repetition as indebted, (due to), miracle when thinking miracle as rigorously out-law?
or rather, what devolves? from lacan’s master signifier to althusser and judith butler on the interpellated subject (see past post), what the miracle undresses and will not underwrite is the subject derived by law – paternal, moral or natural.
“if repetition is possible, it is as much opposed to moral law as it is to natural law.” page 5
law as stabilizer, law as guarantor on the debt imbued subject, none of these make their appearance in the court(ing) of repetition. because equality loses its terms, its definition, when no two things are equal. when difference is and is all there is. which is not to say that deleuze’s worlds are entirely groundless. he is a structuralist, after (and in it) all.
 Given by Sagi Cohen, read with John Cochran: the title belongs to all and none.