TRANSCENDENTAL EMPIRICISM
by Beth Metcalf
In grounding the form of truth, we try to rise from the
conditioned to find the condition. But Deleuze asks how we can do
this without tracing the condition from that which is
conditioned. How do we avoid tracing the transcendental condition
from the possibility of that which is conditioned by our
concepts? How do we proceed without tracing causes from the very
effects we are trying to ground? How do we escape the conceptual
conditions that mediate the possible? How do we avoid tracing the
transcendental from the empirical?
Deleuze presents his Transcendental Empiricism as this
unconditioned condition. It is that by which the given is given.
But what is meant by the given? Representational
thought sees the given as the immediacy of that which
is given to our senses. It is the immanence of the empirically
given prior to any mediation of conceptual thought of the
perceiving subject. Or, perhaps given immediacy is thought to be
immanent to a transcendental subjectivity, or
to an Absolute Concept. However, Deleuze is telling
us that this Representational given is still
transcendence. This empirically given is still
mediated by spatialized time as the form of the conceptually
possible. This given, Deleuze is telling us, is NOT
REAL. It is NOT IMMEDIACY. It is NOT IMMANENCE. In Difference
& Repeitition, Deleuze tells us that empiricism becomes
transcendental only when it becomes the being of the sensible. It
is that which can only be sensed. This unconditioned cannot be
remembered, imagined, or thought. It is only with the shock of
encounter that the faculties are unhinged, the representational
schemas of our faculties dissolve, and we reach a
sub-representative domain of the real, unconditioned difference
of the being of the sensible. Therefore, we see that what Deleuze
means by immanence is not at all what that term means
in the context of Representational thought. For Representation,
immanence is the supposed immediacy of the here and now. It is
supposedly given to the senses. However, Deleuze is saying that
the supposed given of Representation is already
mediated. It is mediated by the possibilities of the concept.
That which Representation calls immanence is still
transcendence which keeps us from reaching the being of the
sensible and the unhinging of the faculties. Representation never
escapes the tracing of the empirical from the identity of the
concept in general, or the tracing of the transcendental from the
empirical. Deleuze is telling us that the given is
not the sensory given. Nor is it the presupposed concept. Rather,
the given is given as expressed.
With Kants Representational transcendentalism, that by
which the given is given is still included in the given concept
of spatialized time. It is a schema. It merely traces the
transcendental from the empirical. DR218, A schema is
indeed a rule of determination for time and of construction for
space, but it is conceived and put to work in relation to
concepts understood in terms of logical possibility: this is so
much part of its nature that it does no more than convert logical
possibility into transcendental possibility. It brings
spatio-temporal relations into correspondence with the logical
relations of the concept. However, since it remains external to
the concept, it is not clear how it can ensure the harmony of the
understanding and sensibility, since it does not even have the
means to ensure its own harmony with the understanding without
appeal to a miracle.
Kant introduced the empty, pure form of time into thought.
However, Kant saved the world of Representation with a
practical resurrection. Deleuze takes up Kants
aborted initiative of the transcendental while avoiding any
tracing of the transcendental from the empirical. DR218,
Everything changes when the dynamisms are posited no longer
as schemata of concepts but as dramas of Ideas. For if the
dynamism is external to concepts and, as such, a schema
it is internal to Ideas and, as such, a drama or
dream. Ideas are not to be confused with schemata of
concepts. Dynamisms dramatize Ideas in an actualization that does
not resemble what is actualized. That is, the given does not
resemble that by which the given is given. The conditioned does
not resemble that by which the conditioned is conditioned.
In A Thousand Plateaus p.265-6 and p.280-2, Deleuze and
Guattari say that on the plane of transcendence, the principle of
the plane is hidden. The principle of the plane is not given. We
find that it is on the plane of transcendence, the plane of
development of form, where movement is imperceptible. We merely
assume the principle of this plane without being able to perceive
it. This plane renders forms perceptible, but the principle of
the plane cannot be perceived. Movement itself continues to occur
elsewhere. It is on the sub-representative plane of immanence or
composition where the hidden principle is perceived.
However, we see from Deleuzes Spinozism that
perception has a new sense on the plane of immanence.
It is that which understanding perceives as necessary. Therefore,
this perception is not sensory perception which is
conditioned by the concept of a spatialized time. Rather, it is a
perception of an understanding as unhinged faculty. Likewise
sense is the being of the sensible. It is not common
sense hinged to the faculties in the identity of the concept.
Therefore, Deleuze uses the terms sense,
perception, and understanding in a manner
that does not depend on any prior possible conditions of our
sensory perceptions or our faculties. Perception is
not sensory perception. Understanding (or
comprehension) is not conditioned by the concept.
Sense is not the common sense or
good sense of the hinged faculties. Rather, these
terms refer to that unconditioned ground from which both our
sensory perceptions and concepts are conditioned. With
Transcendental Empiricism, understanding is a perception. It is
not the sensory perception of representational empiricism. Nor is
understanding a conceptual comprehension. Rather, it
is the being of the sensible. It is that by which the given of
perceptions (in extension) and concepts (of comprehension) are
given as expressed. It is that which can only be sensed. Because
attributes are expressions, they have an understanding that
perceives what is expressed. (Spinoza: Practical
Philosophy p.51) If the attribute necessarily relates to
the intellect, this is not because it resides in the intellect,
but because it is expressive and because what it expresses
necessarily implies an intellect that perceives
it. Each attribute expresses a certain essence, and what
the attribute expresses necessarily implies an intellect that
perceives it. Comprehension demonstrates the
properties of a thing at the same time it becomes a perception.
Expressionism in Philosophy p.61-2, It is because
attributes are themselves expressions that they are necessarily
referred to the understanding as to the only capacity for
perceiving what is expressed.
As perception takes on this new sense on the plane of
immanence, the principle of composition (which was hidden on the
plane of transcendence) is perceived as it composes. It is,
therefore, that by which the principle is given as transcendental
condition of both the empirical and the conceptual. This
perception, then, is Spinozas Idea
(not to be confused with the schemas of the concept). The
Idea is the basis for Deleuzes dramatization of
spatio-temporal dynamisms in his attempt to revive the Kantian
initiative.
It is on the representational plane of extensity that
sub-representative intensity is covered by formed qualities and
cancelled in extension. If the forms of this plane become cut off
from the intensity of the sub-representative plane, the concepts
close into blockages. In Representational thought, the relations
internal to the generality of the concept (comprehension) are
inversely related to extension. But no matter how far
comprehension of the concept is pushed, there are always
conceptual blockages, so that the concept never can say what
constitutes the singularity of the individual.
It is only with Deleuzes Spinozist Univocity that we find a
new sub-representative domain that conditions both our
perceptions and our concepts---a Transcendental-Empirical field
of real-virtual forces. Here, comprehension is not to be confused
with psychological forms of consciousness. Nor is extension to be
confused with any representative contents designating objects of
our sensory perceptions. Rather, this transcendental field
consists of the being of the sensible. Comprehension and
extension (which take on this new sense) are now directly, not
inversely, related in this sub-representative domain internal to
the Idea. (DR176) Ideas are concrete [singular] universals
in which extension and comprehension go togethernot only
because they include variety or multiplicity in themselves, but
because they include singularity in all its varieties. This
means that there is no longer any Representational generality of
the universal. There is an infinity of varieties of
singular-universals. (DR1) Generality, as generality of the
particular, stands opposed to repetition as universality of the
singular. Each singular-universal is an entire world as an
egg (DR216). Each singularity is an individual embryo containing
the entire universe. This embryo is what is actualized each
time--- the whole of chance each time. It is modal singularity
that each time is actualized into a plurality of modal
significations constituting a world. The Transcendental field of
pure immanence composes singularities which are themselves
universal. Therefore, with Univocity, we see that extension and
comprehension are directly related. (DR173) The idea as
concrete universal stands opposed to the concepts of the
understanding, and possesses a comprehension all the more vast as
its extension is great.
Therefore, we see that with Univocity everything changes. With
the Transcendental Empirical field of intensity, comprehension
and extension (which take on a new sense due to the unhinging of
the faculties) are directly, not inversely, related on the plane
of immanence. Now, thought (comprehension) and extension are the
attributes and powers in heterogeneous parallelism. Now the
universal as singular, is no longer abstract universal
generality. There are multiplicities of singular-universal
varieties. And, there are individuations in degrees of
singularity. Therefore, there are no eternal principles of
generality. It is the intensities (singular-universals) that are
actualized. Comprehension and extension are composed together
with real difference each time.
Deleuzes forces are those of a sub-representative field of
intensity where comprehension and extension are constructed
together in a prior, pre-individual singularity. This field
conditions each singular use of representation. It is the
condition for both our perceptions and our concepts. Sense
perceptions are no longer seen to be immediate. They are
constructed from a prior field of immanence. Immediacy is
sub-representative. The identity of the concept is no longer
presupposed. Concepts are created from a prior sub-representative
intensity. There is no general conceptual identity. There is REAL
difference of Univocity.
Return to Home Page