The Relationship Between Deleuze and Guattari's 'Plane of Immanence' and Spinoza's 'Intellect'—Reading Kazunori Kondo's 'A Close Reading of Deleuze and Guattari's What is Philosophy?: An Essay on the Philosophy of Immanence'
Let us first confirm Spinoza's schema of immanence. On the vertical axis, we place substance and its modifications, the modes. For the modes, substance is the 'cause of existence' and, at the same time, the 'productive cause' of their various essences. Both the essence by which substance exists and the countless other infinite and eternal essences are the modes of substance. In contrast, on the horizontal axis, the various attributes that express the countless essences of substance are arranged in parallel. The essence of these attributes becomes the 'directly infinite mode,' from which the entirety of the attributes becomes the 'indirectly infinite mode.' ... And the realization of each essence is driven by the 'conatus,' which is the 'actual essence' of that individual thing.
In contrast to this, in Deleuze and Guattari's philosophy of immanence, the clear distinction between attributes is no longer emphasized (though the 'plane of immanence' itself is distinguished into front and back, i.e., the 'potentiality of existence' and the 'potentiality of thought,' and each plane is also distinguished as one of the three 'great forms' of thought). On a single 'plane of immanence,' the 'potentiality of existence' (cause of existence) and the 'power of modification' (that is, each essence) of the modes are allocated. And it is said that this plane, instead of 'substance,' confronts 'chaos' and draws in the power of 'chaos.' Furthermore, this 'plane of immanence,' in addition to being a multiplicity itself, contains within each of its parts 'philosophical concepts' as finite parts, and is depicted by 'conceptual personae.' Moreover, it is said that it is not only the 'plane of immanence' that confronts 'chaos' and draws power from it, but also the 'plane of reference' in science and the 'plane of composition' in art. In addition, each 'plane' has its own lines of flight, or contains the movement of 'deterritorialization' specific to each plane, and movement is constantly occurring from one plane to another. In this diagram of immanence that has become gigantic, what was once in the position of 'substance' becomes 'chaos,' and what was in the position of the modified modes of substance becomes a singular 'subject-brain' that contains 'chaos' within it.
The author, Kazunori Kondo, is a philosopher born in 1979, specializing in contemporary French philosophy.He completed the doctoral program at the Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University, without receiving a degree. He holds a Ph.D. in Human Sciences from Osaka University. He is currently an associate professor in the Faculty of Law, Letters and Education at Kagoshima University. His major works include 'Toward a Philosophy of Immanence: Cavaillès, Deleuze, Spinoza' (Seidosha).
Deleuze and Guattari's co-authored 'What is Philosophy?' (1991)is a book from Deleuze's later years and can be called the final accounting of his philosophy. In it,understanding the concept of the 'plane of immanence' is at the core, but this is not easy to understand. This book, 'A Close Reading of Deleuze and Guattari's What is Philosophy?: An Essay on the Philosophy of Immanence', is a full-scale volume that carefully examines the concept of 'immanence' or the 'plane of immanence' from the perspective of the history of philosophy and carefully explains Deleuze and Guattari's way of thinking about the 'plane of immanence'.
The preface begins with a question about'haecceity'. Kondo says that the question he wants to know, and for which he has not yet been able to find an answer, isthe question of 'what on earth is this'. 'What is given to me is neither the external world nor what is called subjectivity or mind. Or rather, I could try to theorize it by calling it that, but that would cause it to be missed. ... 'This' is always with me, and always 'there,' yet I do not understand it at all, nor does it seem likely that I will,' Kondo states.The question Kondo is trying to think through via Deleuze and Spinoza can also be said to be an attempt to 'understand this 'this' while remaining inside 'this' and still thoroughly remaining within'.
Deleuze and Guattari's concept of 'immanence' signifies something prior to the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, and is something that corresponds to 'this' in the sense that Kondo describes. In 'What is Philosophy?', Deleuze and Guattari associate 'immanence' withthe 'transcendental field'. What is transcendence? Is it not the orthodox perspective of modern philosophy that Descartes opened up with the philosophy of the 'cogito,' Kant greatly advanced with the critical philosophy of 'transcendental apperception,' and Husserl solidified with 'transcendental phenomenology'? However, what Deleuze and Guattari describe is something different from this.They are denying the very orthodox conception of modern philosophy of the subject as something transcendental. Their critique lies in the point that the 'philosophy of consciousness' desires 'immanence' as its own and, while setting it as the starting point of philosophy, always substitutes 'immanence' with 'immanence to this consciousness,' thereby introducing the 'transcendence' of 'this consciousness'.
Then, what kind of concept is the 'immanence' thatDeleuze and Guattari speak of? What they refer to isSartre's 'The Transcendence of the Ego'(1936) andthe 'immanent cause' or the logic of expression in Spinoza's 'Ethics'. In 'The Transcendence of the Ego,' Sartre finds'an absolute and impersonal consciousness'that is different from both subject and object. Furthermore, Sartre summarizes his own argument in the formula'transcendental consciousness is impersonal spontaneity'. Also, the connection with Spinoza's concepts is decisive. Deleuze states,
'In Spinoza, immanence is not immanent to substance, but substance and modes are in immanence'. 'Immanence' is the condition of possibility for the practice of philosophy, namely concept positing or concept creation, and Kondo explains that the very place where 'Spinozist concepts' such as 'substance' and 'modes' are practically posited is 'immanence' or the 'plane of immanence'.
Also,a characteristic of Deleuze and Guattari's concept of 'immanence' is that it is spoken of without 'transcendence,' which had been assumed as its pair. Grasping 'immanence' and 'transcendence' as paired concepts is a common way of thinking in the history of ideas, and it is actually more original to try to grasp 'immanence' without the correlative term 'transcendence,' as Deleuze and Guattari do. For them,'immanence' as a final form is, as it is said to be in itself, a concept that has no correlative term and stands on its own, like Spinoza's 'Intellect (Intellectus)'.
Deleuze acknowledges thatfor Spinoza, there is only the 'plane of immanence'. It isa 'plane,' a 'diagram,' where all modes and attributes are placed completely flat under the 'univocity of existence'. Moreover, it is something that must be 'constructed,' andconstructing the 'plane of immanence' is nothing other than living a Spinozist way of life. In other words, dualisms like immanence/transcendence are not recognized in Spinoza. That is to say, if one lives Spinozistically, one lives a life placed entirely on the 'plane of immanence.' There, no concessions to a 'plane of organization' or 'different plans' are allowed.In that sense, at least for a Spinozist life, immanence and transcendence are not complementary concepts at all.
'A life' on the 'plane of immanence' is, in other words, 'haecceity,' a 'singular essence,' a 'pure event,' a 'transcendental field,' and 'consciousness in right'Deleuze and Guattari say. This isa world of 'immanence' that becomes visible by assuming 'God's infinite intellect'. The 'transcendental field' from which subject and object emerge is, in Deleuze and Guattari's understanding, something that can only be theoretically grasped by escaping reality (= strata/plane of organization) in this way.What is important is the 'plane of immanence,' and everything arises upon it. This real reality, which is 'doxa' for us, will be called 'a transcendence' produced from the 'plane of immanence'.
In 'What is Philosophy?', it is said that Spinoza's 'substance' and 'modes' are placed upon the 'plane of immanence'. This is not particularly strange if one views the 'plane of immanence' as Spinoza's '(infinite) intellect'. This is because Spinoza defined 'intellect' as that which grasps the essence of 'substance' and 'modes'.
For Deleuze and Guattari, the 'potentiality of existence' (the cause of existence) and the 'power of affection' (that is, each essence) of modes are assigned onto a single 'plane of immanence'. And this plane is said to confront 'chaos' and draw in the power of 'chaos' in place of 'substance'. Within each 'plane', a unique line of flight is drawn, or each plane contains its own movement of 'deterritorialization', and movement is constantly occurring from one plane to another. In this enlarged diagram of immanence, what was once in the position of 'substance' becomes 'chaos', and what was in the position of the modes that were affections of substance becomes a unique 'subject-brain' that contains 'chaos' within it.