“According to Simondon, the dimension of the emergent—which he terms the “preindividual”—cannot be understood in terms of form, even if it infolds forms in a germinal state. It can only be analyzed as a continuous but highly differentiated field that is “out of phase” with formed entities (has a different topology and causal order from the “individuals” which arise from it and whose forms return” (95). ***At this point, thinking about affect dives lower than the thinking of Berthoff in terms of thirdness. The phase of potentiality, the fields of potentiality, discussed here are “about” the body. And yet, these fields are inevitably shaped by the socio-lingual, right? I mean, they are not soci0-lingual. But wait… How can a field of potential avoid being understood in terms of form? A field is a form. It’s just not a purely human form? This is sub-epistemic and yet shaped by meaning on some level>?
You are here: Home / Archives for gesit