No description available.

No / The rise of networked social movements contesting neo-liberal globalization and protesting the summits of global finance and governance organizations has posed an analytical challenge to social movement theorists and called into question the applicability to this global milieu of the familiar concepts and heuristics utilized in social movement studies. In this article, we argue that the self-defining alter-globalization movement(s) might instead be engaged with as an expression and effect of global complexity, and we draw upon a `minor¿ literature in social movement studies that includes Gregory Bateson, Gilles Deleuze and Alberto Melucci to illustrate our claims. This article uses a Deleuzian reading of complexity to describe the phase space of the `movement of movements¿, and its perturbation of global civil society through the iteration of sense-making processes (reflexive framing) and the exploration of singularities inhering in social movement `plateaux¿. Those transnational gatherings, protests and social forums facilitated by computer-mediated communications and the advent of unprecedented mobility which constitute a `shadow realm¿ that remains largely invisible to political exchange theories operating within the conceptual confines of the nation-state.

Critics of Virginia Woolf's fiction have tended to focus their arguments on one of the following five cruxes: Woolf's personal biography, the role of art, the nature of reality, the structure of her novels, or they focus their arguments on gender-based criticism. Often, when critics attempt to explain Woolf through any of these categories, they succeed in constructing borders around her writing that minimize the multiplicities outside them. Post-structuralist theory helps to open up difference in Woolf's writing, specifically, the theories of Giles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. Their book, A Thousand Plateaus, allows readers of Woolf's novel, To the Lighthouse, outside the confines some past critics have put around it. I apply select Deleuze and Guattarian metaphors to Woolf's To the Lighthouse in order that multiplicities of the novel stand out. The Deleuze and Guattarian metaphors that are most successful in opening up difference in To the Lighthouse are strata; the Body without Organs; becoming; milieu and rhythm; and smooth and striated spaces. / Master of Arts

La notion de « dramatisation » a été formulée par Gilles Deleuze en 1967 dans Différence et répétition pour être délaissée ensuite. Cette recherche tâche de clarifier le sens de ce concept en distinguant une acception « dramatique » d’une acception « scénique ». Deleuze n’ayant cependant pas énoncé explicitement de théorie de la scène, une partie de l’entreprise vise à déduire, des textes de Deleuze et des auteurs qui lui servent de référence, l’hypothèse de cette définition. La formulation de cette hypothèse s’inscrit dans un environnement problématique déterminé par les ouvrages de Denis Guénoun et Esa Kirkkopelto. La notion prend son sens dans le cadre d’une critique de « la représentation », dont seraient captifs Platon, Aristote, Kant et Hegel, et d’une élaboration du concept de répétition à partir de Kierkegaard et Nietzsche. Une interprétation de la méthode de division platonicienne, de la méthode transcendantale kantienne et de l’éternel retour nietzschéen contribue ainsi à énoncer l’agencement conceptuel du drame, de la scène et de la répétition / The notion of “dramatisation” was formulated by Gilles Deleuze in his 1967 text Difference and Repetition, only later to be abandoned. This piece of research sets out to clarify the meaning of this concept by distinguishing its “dramatic” acceptance from its “scenic” one. Since Deleuze never explicitly expressed his theory of the stage this thesis project intends to determine from Deleuze’s texts, as well as from the authors to whom he himself referred, the hypothesis at work within the philosopher’s definition of this term. The statement of this hypothesis takes place in a problematic conceptual environment, as described in the works of Denis Guénoun and Esa Kirkkopelto. The notion of “dramatisation” derives its meaning through a critique of a particular understanding of “representation” within which Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Hegel are held captive, as well as through a certain construal of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche’s concept of repetition. Interpretations of Plato’s method of dichotomous division, Kant’s transcendental method and Nietzsche’s eternal return contribute in this thesis to articulating the way in which drama, the stage and repetition combine.

L'idée de transcendantal, selon son inventeur E. Kant, doit être conçue comme la condition pure et préalable de toute expérience possible. Mais, pour G. Deleuze, une telle idée de transcendantal implique deux défauts fondamentaux : d'une part, elle n'est pas susceptible de rendre compte de la singularité de l'expérience réelle et sensible ; d'autre part, elle présuppose illégitimement qu'il existe un rapport de ressemblance entre le transcendantal qui est la condition et l'empirique qui est le conditionné. Ayant l'ambition de renouveler l'idée de transcendantal en dépassant ces deux limites foncières du transcendantalisme kantien, Deleuze élabore son propre empirisme transcendantal qui détermine le principe générateur du sensible singulier comme la différence d'intensité et définit la condition transcendantale non-semblable comme la différence de virtualité. La différence d'intensité et la différence de virtualité sont respectivement les objets des deux parties de l'empirisme transcendantal qui sont l'esthétique impliquante et la dialectique problématique. De plus, la différence d'intensité et la différence de virtualité, toutes les deux sont les multiplicités qui s'opposent à la simplicité de l'essence de la métaphysique traditionnelle. Et la théorie deleuzienne de la multiplicité complètement différenciée et absolument infinie trouve son origine de la philosophie de Spinoza qui se déploie à travers trois moments qui sont la substance en tant que Multiplicité suprême, l'attribut en tant que multiplicité intensive, et le mode existant en tant que multiplicité extensive. / The idea of transcendental, according to its inventor I. Kant, should be conceived as the pure and priori condition of any possible experience. However, for G. Deleuze, such an idea of transcendental involves two fundamental flaws: on the one hand, it cannot explain the singularity of the real and sensible experience; on the other hand, it presupposes illegitimately that there exists a relation of resemblance between the transcendental qua condition and the empirical qua conditioned. Having the ambition of renewing the idea of transcendental by surpassing these two limits of the Kantian transcendentalism, Deleuze elaborates his own transcendental empiricism which determines the generic principal of singular sensible as the difference of intensity and defines the non-ressemblable transcendental condition as the difference of virtuality. The difference of intensity and the difference of virtuality are respectively the objects of the two parts of the transcendental empiricism that are the implicating aesthetics and the problematic dialectics. Furthermore, both the difference of intensity and the difference of virtuality are the multiplicities which oppose to the simplicity of the essence of the traditional metaphysics. And the Deleuzian theory of the completely differentiated and absolutely infinite multiplicity finds its origin in Spinoza's philosophy which extends itself through three moments that are the substance qua supreme Multiplicity, the attribute qua intensive multiplicity, and the existing mode qua extensive multiplicity.

Le projet le plus général de Deleuze consiste en ceci : penser les conditions de l’expérience réelle, expérimenter les conditions de la pensée pure. Ce projet ne sera pleinement accompli qu’au début des années 1990, hors du cadre chronologique de notre étude (1953-1970). Nous soutenons la thèse que ce projet général non seulement repose sur un système philosophique précis, mais aussi qu’il se confond avec lui. Ce système se présente chez Deleuze sous différents noms : empirisme transcendantal, philosophie de l’expression, philosophie de la différence et de la répétition, logique du sens ou encore philosophie critique. Sous ces noms, nous croyons que c’est la philosophie comme système de l’expérience qui est en jeu. Deleuze n’oppose pas le système et l’expérience. Si la philosophie de Spinoza a longtemps été lue comme un système sans empirie, celle de Deleuze a surtout été interprétée comme un empirisme sans système. Certaines de ses déclarations nous invitent pourtant à penser autrement : le système n’est pas plus une construction logique abstraite que l’expérience n’est une réalité irréductible au système. La philosophie ne s’oppose donc pas à l’expérience chez Deleuze, elle en pense les conditions systématiques et elle est elle-même une expérience. C’est la genèse et la structure de cette philosophie que nous avons tenté de dégager dans cette recherche. Nous avons cru pouvoir montrer, non pas que le système et l’expérience sont une seule et même chose chez Deleuze, mais que la philosophie prétend atteindre au point où ils passent l’un dans l’autre. / The most general project of Deleuze consists in thinking the conditions of real experience, experimenting the conditions of pure thought. This project will only be eventually accomplished at the beginning of the nineties, that is to say after the period set for of our study (1953-1970). We defend the thesis that this general project is based upon a precise philosophical system, and above all, that it merges with it. This system, in Deleuze’s work, appears under different names: transcendental empiricism, philosophy of expression, philosophy of difference and repetition, logic of sense, or also critical philosophy. Under those names, we believe that philosophy as a system of experience is what is at stake. Indeed, Deleuze doesn’t oppose system and experience. If Spinoza’s philosophy has long been read as a system without an empiric dimension, that of Deleuze has mostly been interpreted as a non systematic empiricism. Yet some of his assertions lead us to think differently: the system is no more an abstract logical construction than experience is a reality irreducible to a system. Deleuze’s philosophy isn’t opposed to experience, it sets its systematic conditions and it is an experience in itself. It is the genesis and the structure of this philosophy that we have tried to expose in this research. Through this work, we believe we’ve managed to show that system and experience are not one and the same thing for Deleuze, but that philosophy claims it reaches the point where they become indiscernible.

A relação dos sujeitos com a saúde, em seus variados sentidos, não é uma dinâmica somente dos tempos atuais; é um processo histórico, atravessado por múltiplas forças que se tensionam continuamente, produzindo diferentes saberes e práticas no campo da saúde em contínua operação. Na contemporaneidade, esta relação é também composta por um outro elemento, caracterizado por um conjunto de movimentos frenéticos em direção a um ideal previdenciário de saúde, que envolve uma combinatória de cálculos, ações e intenções no presente, somado à produtividade do passado. Um empreendimento que está comumente atrelado aos saberes científicos que atualizam continuamente os saberes e práticas do campo da saúde com suas incessantes \'descobertas\', ou seja, um movimento espaço-temporal de produção de saúde que se direciona e se conecta aos preceitos de uma determinada forma de existência - ser saudável. Este empreendimento atual é o que podemos chamar de uma \'nova saúde\' - que não visa substituir nenhuma outra concepção de saúde - à qual, efeito de uma sociedade capitalista atravessada por um biopoder atualizado, produz, a partir de um plano comum e naturalizado de hiperprodutividade, não somente as antigas estruturas subjetivas, como também modulações contínuas de subjetivação. Contudo, ao passo que esta \'nova saúde\' é sustentada por promessas tecnocientíficas de ampliação temporal no espaço vital, é justamente pela produtividade incessante no espaço-tempo presente que poderíamos adquirir uma mais-valia de vida futura. Tal paradoxo nos lança a problematizar o caráter naturalizado e \'positivo\' que este plano comum de produção adquire: onde estão os outros tantos elementos e movimentos que não estão dados de antemão naquele plano naturalizado e que podemos, sim, lançar mão para operar e construirmos uma outra saúde, singular; uma saúde. / The relationship of the subject with health, in your different senses, is not only a dynamic of the present days; is a historic process, crossed by multiplied forces that continuously tensioned, producing different knowledge and practices in the health field in continually operation. Nowadays, this relationship is composed of another element, characterized by a set of frenetic movements toward a welfare concept of health, involving a sum of calculations, actions and intentions these days, in addition the productivity of the past. An enterprise that is commonly linked to scientific knowledge that continuously update the knowledge and the field of health practices with their incessant discoveries, that is, a health production spatio-temporal motion that drives and connects to the precepts of a particular form of existence - be healthy. This current enterprise is what we call \'new health\' -which aims not replace any other conception of health - effect of a capitalist society crossed by an updated biopower, can produce, from a common plan of naturalized hiperproductivity, more than subjective old molds, but also continuous modulations subjectivation. However, while this \'new health\' is supported by technoscientific promises of temporal expansion in the living space, it is precisely the incessant productivity in the current space-time that we could acquire an improvement for future life. This paradox in launches to question the character naturalized and \' positive \' that this common plan gets: where are so many elements and movements that are not given beforehand that plan and that we can resort to operate and build another health , singular; a health.

Este trabalho tem como fonte de estudo os filmes do diretor húngaro Béla Tarr, começando com Ninho Familiar, de 1977, e encerrando com O Cavalo de Turim, de 2011. Neste período o cineasta realizou, além de outros trabalhos, nove longasmetragens, alguns dos quais em parceria com o escritor húngaro László Krasznahorkai. Entretanto, esta pesquisa não tratou de suas obras como unidades separadas e/ou totalizáveis, mas como blocos de imagens em permanente contato com um plano de questionamentos a respeito da experiência estética do pensamento. Deste modo, o trabalho com os filmes teve como foco a análise fragmentos, continuidades e descontinuidades, por meio dos quais procurou traçar uma linha relacional entre o estilo das imagens e o problema do pensamento. Do ponto de vista da problematização do pensamento, esta pesquisa esteve ancorada no solo teórico-metodológico desenvolvido por Gilles Deleuze e Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari, do qual partiu o desenvolvimento de um estudo a respeito de quais os procedimentos audiovisuais criados nos filmes e de como eles possibilitam uma experiência radicalmente imanente do pensamento e, portanto, essencialmente intensiva. Ou seja, esta dissertação se voltou para um estudo dos procedimentos de criação audiovisual, entendendo-os como modos intensivos por meio dos quais se torna possível sentir o aparecimento deste espaço vazio que constitui a experiência do próprio pensamento não-subjetivo ou, dito em outras palavras, como vivência do tempo em sua multiplicidade intensiva. Portanto, foi no interior deste campo de questionamento que perspectivamos o cinema de Béla Tarr, tratando de desenvolver uma visão analítica que não partisse das premissas de uma divisão simplesmente formal dos procedimentos cinematográficos e que tampouco partisse da crença a respeito de um possível lugar exterior e desinteressado em relação às obras, o qual possibilitaria, por exemplo, uma leitura verídica a respeito das intencionalidades mais ou menos ocultas em cada um dos filmes. Ao invés destes modos analíticos, esta dissertação tentou se endereçar às obras procurando compreender como elas articulam injunções e/ou desvios de forças, criando, por meio de afecções e afectos, um procedimento imanente, no sentido do próprio encontro entre o olhar e a tela. Deste modo, cada capítulo desta dissertação desenvolve, a partir de um conjunto determinado de filmes do diretor, uma compreensão a respeito das forças, as quais, por vezes, exigiram a entrada de leituras transversais, advindas tanto do conjunto da obra do diretor, como de pensadores do campo filosofia, e também da literatura e do próprio cinema. É neste sentido que o cinema de Béla Tarr se converte em um teorema, ou em um nó, que solicita um diálogo orgânico tanto com teóricos que escreveram a respeito dos filmes, mas também com outros pensadores, como é o caso notório de Friedrich Nietzsche. / This research is grounded in the films of the Hungarian director Béla Tarr, the first of which is Family Nest (1977) and the last is Turin\'s Horse (2011). Through this period, the filmmaker made, among other works, nine feature films, some of which in partnership with the writer László Krasznahorkai. Nevertheless, this research did not deal with their works as separable and/or inseparable units, but as blocs of images in constant contact with a surface of questions regarding the aesthetic experience of thought. By analyzing the films through fragments, continuities, ruptures and discontinuities we were able to draw a relational line between the style of the images and the problem of thought. Regarding the problem of though, this study is anchored to the theses and methodologies developed by Gilles Deleuze and Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari. From that, we investigated which audiovisual procedures created on the films could make us think of a radically immanent experience of thought and, therefore, an essentially intensive one. Therefore, this academic work looked for audiovisual creations understood as intensive modes to seize the emergence of this empty space that constitutes the experience of non-subjective thought in other words, time as intensive multiplicity. Therefore, we conceive an analytic view that neither stems from a formal division of film procedures nor from the belief on a possible place of detachment apart from the films or a place that could permit, for instance, a truthful reading on the more or less hidden intentions behind each film. What this research aimed for was to understand how the films of Béla Tarr articulate injunctions and detours of forces that allow us, by affections and affects, to think of them as purely immanent procedures. Moreover, each chapter, based on a determined set of Tarr\'s films, developed a comprehension of the encounters between forces, which, at times, requested transversal readings, coming from thinkers of Philosophy, Literature and Cinema itself, including works on the ouevre of the director. It is in this sense that Béla Tarr\'s cinema appears as a theorem, or a knot, that invites us to an organic dialogue not only with theorists that wrote about his films, but also with other thinkers, such as Friedrich Nietzsche.

A argumentação da presente tese parte do New Journalism como plataforma para discussões sobre a linguagem jornalística. A Contracultura enquanto fenômeno político serve de enquadramento histórico sobre o qual se trabalha a noção de uma política antidisciplinar como recurso de enfrentamento às inscrições da imprensa sobre o plano da reprodução das ideologias hegemônicas. / The following thesis is an argumentation about the New Journalism as a plataform for the discutions envolving the ordinary journalistic language. The Counterculture is taken as a politic event featuring the historic plan wich is discussed by the anti-disciplinary protest. This notion is taken as a estrategy to resist against the passive hegemonic ideological reproduction.

Arsenal é um depósito de ideias advindas da sala de aula, da arte dita contemporânea e da filosofia de Deleuze e Guattari. Composto como um abecedário, trata-se de um dicionário nascido do embate entre o campo da arte-educação, aquilo que dizem os alunos e alguns artistas, misturado e transformado à moda da filosofia da diferença. A arte contemporânea interessa a esta pesquisa pelo embaralhamento que ela causa nas formas canonizadas e estáveis de se entender e receber arte, por intuir que tais operações artísticas podem contribuir para inserções da arte no ambiente escolar por meio da invenção e da potência. As experiências de mergulho na vida-aula, mais do que relatos do bem-sucedido, operam como disparos daquilo que gera o desconforto e o desentendimento, por entender com Barthes que a escritura começa onde a fala torna-se impossível. É, portanto, na negociação entre-margens da pesquisa e da prática que se situa este trabalho, acondicionando uma necessidade de encontros: arte, educação, filosofia e os tantos atravessamentos trazidos pela sala de aula. Com este Arsenal busca-se identificar uma suposta cultura escolar em torno da arte, tensionando a posição por ela ocupada na educação, ao mesmo tempo que propondo-se a inscrevê-la no cotidiano escolar, para além do binômio metodologia-conhecimento. Arsenal apresenta em vinte e três verbetes maneiras de encarar a sala de aula, a arte, os alunos e a escola como raridades, ao modo de Foucault, para que as coisas e as palavras não estejam diretamente relacionadas a verdades inquestionáveis, travando um embate por uma educação com mais vitalidade, onde a diferença e a criação possam brotar naquele espaço tão árido e pisoteado chamado escola. / Arsenal is a repository of ideas collected from the classroom, from so called contemporary art and from Deleuze and Guattaris philosophy. Compiled as an alphabet, it is a dictionary born of the clash between the field of art education and what students and some artists say, mixed and transformed in the fashion of the philosophy of difference. Contemporary art is of interest to this research because of the scrambling it causes to the canonized and stable ways of understanding and receiving art, in the belief that such operations can contribute to art inserts in the school environment through invention and power. Life experiences gathered in the classroom, rather than stories of success, operate as shots of what generates discomfort and misunderstanding, understanding with Barthes that writing begins where speech becomes impossible. It is therefore in the negotiation between the margins of research and practice that this work is situated, accomodating a need for a place where art, education, philosophy and so many crossings brought to the classroom meet. Arsenal seeks to identify an alleged school culture around the arts, tensing the position this culture holds in education, while proposing to inscribe it into everyday school life, to a point beyond the methodology-knowledge binomial. Arsenal presents through twenty-three entries ways to see the classroom, art, students and the school as rarities, in the Foucault mode, so that things and words are not directly related to unquestionable truths, waging a struggle for an education with more vitality and allowing difference and creation to spring up in that arid and trampled place called school.