Popular in Arts and Humanities

Arts and Humanities

Titus Quinctius Flamininus’ “Italian triumph”

McGill University Michael Fronda

Arts and Humanities

Lincoln and the Jews

Brandeis University Jonathan Sarna

Arts and Humanities

Amputations and Convalescence

University of Western Australia Emily Brink

Art

Drawing on the past: Palladio, his precursors and knowledge of ancient architecture

University of Birmingham David Hemsoll

Art

Language, Sound, and Image in Wallace Berman’s Aleph, 1956–1966

University of San Diego Chelsea Behle Fralick

Arts and Humanities

Early Modern Natural Law Theories

University of Copenhagen Knud Haakonssen

Theorizing, Deleuzian-style

View more insights in Arts and Humanities - Philosophy

View more figures from University of Birmingham

View the page of Christopher Collinge

There is a difference between theory and theorizing. Christopher Collinge discusses the components of a Deleuzian theory of theorizing.

Image courtesy of interviewee. April 11, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video discusses the nature of theory and theorizing, drawing particularly from the work of philosopher Gilles Deleuze. It begins by defining theory as a web of concepts that addresses problems and guides future research, noting that it often appears static, like a finished piece of work. The author emphasizes a distinction between "theory," which is a settled concept, and "theorizing," which refers to the dynamic process of developing ideas.

This video video captures the complexity of theorizing by referencing the personal experiences and inspiration that contribute to the development of theories, contrasting the lively and chaotic process of theorizing with the final, more rigorous form of a theory. It also discusses Deleuze's philosophical perspective, which focuses on difference rather than fixed identities and how his ideas resonate with broader philosophical movements, such as post-structuralism.

Key themes include the interplay between past influences on a theory and its future implications, as well as a critique of conventional methodology in academia, suggesting that theorizing should be viewed as an organic process rather than a formulaic procedure. The author hopes to encourage a more nuanced understanding of theorizing as a series of events that is interconnected with the lived experiences of theorists. Overall, the paper proposes that Deleuze's insights can inform a more dynamic and life-like conception of theorizing in contrast to traditional, rigid academic approaches.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.275 --> 00:03.535
Theory is most people would understand

00:03.535 --> 00:05.175
what theory was to some degree.

00:05.395 --> 00:06.895
Uh, I mean, the way

00:06.925 --> 00:11.455
that I've suggested it is in this paper is, a web

00:11.635 --> 00:16.415
of concepts that, sort of express a, a, a,

00:16.575 --> 00:19.495
a preoccupation on the part of a, of an academic

00:19.955 --> 00:22.135
or, anybody, not an academic,

00:23.095 --> 00:24.655
a meteorologist, you know, whoever.

00:24.995 --> 00:26.895
And, or, somebody,

00:26.895 --> 00:28.895
with a conspiracy theory even maybe.

00:29.235 --> 00:32.415
Um, and then, something which

00:33.005 --> 00:36.895
relates different aspects of a problem together,

00:37.315 --> 00:41.775
but also something that, guides future research.

00:42.475 --> 00:46.175
Um, so there are different ways in which theory functions,

00:46.515 --> 00:49.015
but theory tends to be rather static

00:49.555 --> 00:53.495
and, like a, almost like a finished ar article, whereas,

00:54.795 --> 00:56.255
and sometimes it's sort

00:56.255 --> 00:58.495
of hides the process of theorizing.

00:59.275 --> 01:02.745
Um, so when I

01:03.645 --> 01:08.345
was at a conference in, Florida, some time ago,

01:08.705 --> 01:12.385
I noticed that people who present their theories quite often

01:12.555 --> 01:15.025
start with a kind of biography

01:15.085 --> 01:17.065
for the theory itself, where it came from.

01:17.605 --> 01:19.305
And they try

01:19.305 --> 01:22.505
and set the scene by explaining, as I am doing now,

01:22.965 --> 01:25.585
why they came up with the theory that they did.

01:25.885 --> 01:28.705
Uh, so I thought theories face in two directions.

01:28.705 --> 01:30.825
They face forwards towards a topic,

01:31.165 --> 01:32.905
but quite often they also face sort

01:32.905 --> 01:34.905
of backwards towards their own genesis.

01:35.805 --> 01:39.345
So the question I asked was, what is the relationship

01:39.345 --> 01:41.585
between the theory as it points forward?

01:42.125 --> 01:45.825
And, its reference backwards to its own genesis?

01:46.685 --> 01:50.625
And the genesis of a theory, you might call that theorizing.

01:51.295 --> 01:53.105
It's the becoming of a theory.

01:53.175 --> 01:55.745
It's the way in which things emerge

01:56.375 --> 01:58.505
over time in a series of events.

01:59.325 --> 02:02.825
Um, so the, that would be the difference between theory

02:02.845 --> 02:06.385
and theorizing, rather settled thing that actually exists.

02:06.805 --> 02:09.785
And on the other hand, a kind of, process

02:10.685 --> 02:13.905
or sequence of events which are alive, not dead,

02:14.405 --> 02:19.345
and which, seem to somehow grow out

02:19.345 --> 02:23.505
of, a realm of unstated

02:24.925 --> 02:29.055
sort of invisible assumptions, knowledge, experience,

02:29.505 --> 02:32.975
which is referred to by Ulus as the virtual.

02:33.755 --> 02:35.815
So the virtual is something that's sort

02:35.815 --> 02:36.855
of waiting to happen.

02:37.595 --> 02:40.055
And then there's the actual, which has happened,

02:40.115 --> 02:43.415
and probably it's a bit more boring when it's happened than,

02:43.435 --> 02:46.895
you know, when we just about are having it happening.

02:48.005 --> 02:49.665
One of the sort

02:49.665 --> 02:52.825
of undercurrent in doulas is thought is about life.

02:53.845 --> 02:57.105
And of course, theory finds it quite hard to capture life.

02:57.725 --> 02:58.865
Uh, but

02:59.345 --> 03:00.605
We know what life is like.

03:00.755 --> 03:04.605
It's something that unfolds in a kind of precipitous,

03:05.525 --> 03:08.045
accidental quite often, kind of chaotic,

03:09.085 --> 03:10.925
slightly dangerous way.

03:11.465 --> 03:13.965
Um, and so, you know, the, the process

03:14.025 --> 03:16.685
of theorizing is not neat and tidy.

03:17.555 --> 03:21.245
It's, it's full of all these things like, you know,

03:21.245 --> 03:25.845
like, drinking coffee, you know, arguing

03:26.075 --> 03:29.805
with your mates, arguing with books, but,

03:30.105 --> 03:31.845
but more to the point really remembering

03:32.545 --> 03:36.525
and reliving beautiful experiences

03:36.595 --> 03:39.445
with your friends conversations in libraries.

03:40.145 --> 03:42.205
Um, one of the things that I was

03:42.725 --> 03:46.125
remembering in writing this article was, was this book,

03:46.495 --> 03:48.365
which, I read as a student.

03:48.945 --> 03:49.965
Uh, and it's almo.

03:49.965 --> 03:51.485
There's almost nothing written on this topic.

03:51.905 --> 03:55.285
Uh, and, although I did meet Alan Blum once,

03:55.305 --> 03:59.205
who wrote this book, and, yeah, I, I, so, you know,

03:59.285 --> 04:00.325
I was kind of inspired.

04:00.425 --> 04:04.965
So the, this process of being inspired is life.

04:05.465 --> 04:08.325
And of course, when you've written it, then it's just a,

04:08.365 --> 04:09.885
a lump of wood.

04:11.255 --> 04:15.045
Delos was a French philosopher who,

04:15.515 --> 04:17.325
died in about 1994.

04:17.905 --> 04:20.885
Uh, I say about, lemme just check.

04:21.025 --> 04:23.685
Yes, he died in, in 1995.

04:24.305 --> 04:29.085
Um, but he, he was one of a, a sort of

04:30.495 --> 04:33.885
group network of French philosophers

04:34.055 --> 04:35.685
after the second World War.

04:36.265 --> 04:39.845
His work was mainly in the 1950s, up to the 1990s.

04:40.385 --> 04:44.965
Um, but you might link his work with,

04:45.525 --> 04:47.845
Fuko or Deida

04:48.305 --> 04:50.885
or, there was a, there was a whole bunch of them

04:50.885 --> 04:51.925
around at that time.

04:52.505 --> 04:56.285
Um, Leo Todd for example,

04:56.705 --> 04:58.925
or ard, you know, there's quite a few of them.

04:59.185 --> 05:02.925
But, he, his thinking was rather different to them.

05:03.085 --> 05:06.125
I mean, they're sometimes referred to as post-structuralist

05:07.005 --> 05:09.885
philosophers, and they've had a massive impact,

05:09.885 --> 05:12.485
particularly Fuco, but, but the others,

05:12.585 --> 05:14.645
and they go through different phases,

05:14.705 --> 05:16.045
of being influential.

05:16.545 --> 05:20.845
Um, but Ulus was different in,

05:20.905 --> 05:25.045
in some ways because whilst those other thinkers, Fuco,

05:25.695 --> 05:29.725
deida, they were obsessed with language, really.

05:30.305 --> 05:33.925
Uh, I'd say that Delos was not obsessed

05:33.925 --> 05:35.165
with language, actually.

05:35.225 --> 05:39.405
He was much more interested in, experience

05:40.105 --> 05:43.645
in, sort of sensuous experience and,

05:44.225 --> 05:47.845
and in the impact that, what he, what he referred to

05:47.985 --> 05:50.845
as pre reflective encounters with force.

05:51.265 --> 05:54.765
So forces working in our lives, you know, the, the forces

05:54.945 --> 05:56.285
of things intersecting.

05:57.025 --> 06:01.685
Uh, there's some imagery of, of the, of the knife

06:02.925 --> 06:04.725
slicing, you know, which is an event.

06:05.585 --> 06:08.405
Uh, the knife that slices is an event.

06:08.545 --> 06:12.365
So, I mean, it's a fantastic image of, of something,

06:13.465 --> 06:16.325
the, the event of something that happens on the surface

06:16.585 --> 06:19.125
of objects that intersect.

06:19.705 --> 06:22.485
Uh, so that's not about language, primarily,

06:22.485 --> 06:23.605
that's about other things.

06:24.105 --> 06:26.845
Um, whereas somebody like Fuko, for example, is,

06:26.865 --> 06:28.605
it is all about discourse language,

06:28.925 --> 06:30.045
language shaping reality.

06:30.985 --> 06:34.085
So I, that's why I think Duluths has a kind of advantage.

06:34.545 --> 06:38.005
Um, I mean, he's influenced by structuralism, you know,

06:38.105 --> 06:41.765
the big structuralism of people like Claude Levy Strauss

06:41.765 --> 06:43.485
and, and Louis Altus and so on.

06:43.705 --> 06:48.085
But he, and structuralism is a paradigm

06:48.085 --> 06:49.645
that comes from language, by the way.

06:50.105 --> 06:53.975
But, you, you know, so,

06:55.115 --> 06:56.415
hi, his thinking is different.

06:56.515 --> 06:59.415
So then there's the question of how he relates to guitar.

06:59.595 --> 07:00.855
So Guitar, Delos

07:00.855 --> 07:03.335
and Qatari wrote together,

07:04.275 --> 07:08.775
the guitar was a psychoanalyst, and Delos was a philosopher.

07:08.995 --> 07:13.175
And I think what happened was that Delos found

07:14.015 --> 07:17.995
guitar's thinking, animating.

07:18.135 --> 07:19.595
He found it re a release

07:20.135 --> 07:22.915
to some degree from the philosophical,

07:23.515 --> 07:25.315
straight jacket of, of academia.

07:25.815 --> 07:29.555
And so the, the work that he does with Qatari

07:29.735 --> 07:30.955
as more wild

07:31.015 --> 07:34.435
and wacky than the work that he does with on his own,

07:34.495 --> 07:35.555
you know, but,

07:35.575 --> 07:37.995
but in this paper, I do try to go back

07:38.055 --> 07:42.915
to the work he does on his own, which is two works.

07:43.095 --> 07:44.835
One, one called Difference in Repetition, and,

07:44.935 --> 07:48.395
and the other called, the, what was that called?

07:49.135 --> 07:51.235
The, the, what is philosophy? That's it. Yeah.

07:51.305 --> 07:52.315
What is philosophy?

07:52.735 --> 07:54.595
So, so, that the,

07:54.595 --> 07:56.755
that was first one was at the more, at the beginning

07:56.755 --> 07:57.835
of his career, what is

07:57.835 --> 07:59.355
philosophy's more at the end of his career.

08:00.135 --> 08:03.435
Um, no disrespect to Felix Qatari,

08:03.535 --> 08:05.995
but, I thought it'd be useful just to try

08:06.015 --> 08:09.075
and disentangle the two a little bit also though,

08:09.075 --> 08:12.555
because, the work that they did together has been dead,

08:12.695 --> 08:13.875
trendy and fashionable.

08:14.255 --> 08:17.715
Um, like, well,

08:17.845 --> 08:20.235
there are various texts that they did together.

08:20.655 --> 08:24.435
Um, and, I thought it would be good to go back

08:24.455 --> 08:27.435
to de Lewis's work on his own and to try

08:27.435 --> 08:28.515
and make sense of that.

08:30.145 --> 08:33.655
Delos does share in common the interest

08:34.555 --> 08:38.535
and commitment to what those philosophers at

08:38.535 --> 08:39.975
that time called difference.

08:40.835 --> 08:45.735
Um, and the idea is to get away from,

08:46.175 --> 08:49.495
a sort of primordial essence to things

08:49.565 --> 08:52.335
that everything has a, a, an identity that's

08:52.865 --> 08:54.215
fixed in it in some way.

08:54.715 --> 08:57.285
And the idea was to go back behind identity

08:57.465 --> 08:59.005
and focus on difference.

08:59.665 --> 09:03.245
Um, and it's this rather mysterious idea that

09:04.155 --> 09:08.805
differences proceed, proceed identities,

09:09.265 --> 09:10.985
and,

09:11.125 --> 09:13.585
and, so it's, it's,

09:15.515 --> 09:19.365
it's somehow like that knife slicing, you know, to create

09:20.145 --> 09:21.525
two split parts.

09:21.825 --> 09:26.565
So the, the difference is like, it is a sort of splicing,

09:26.585 --> 09:29.045
but it's also a kind of emergence out

09:29.045 --> 09:30.365
of nothing, of things.

09:30.705 --> 09:33.525
Um, and there are different treatments of difference.

09:34.185 --> 09:36.725
So, well, difference is inherently differential

09:37.065 --> 09:40.445
and, so different treatments of difference by,

09:42.635 --> 09:46.145
Deida who spends a lot of time talking about this,

09:47.325 --> 09:51.425
and, and by Delos and by others,

09:51.605 --> 09:53.665
and that to some extent, they're reacting.

09:53.665 --> 09:57.505
All of them are reacting to the, sort of to Plato

09:57.565 --> 10:00.465
and to the Greek philosophers who focused on identity

10:01.045 --> 10:02.665
and on this idea of a kind of

10:03.345 --> 10:05.905
transcendent identity in some other plane, you know,

10:05.905 --> 10:06.945
the pure forms.

10:07.045 --> 10:10.465
And that we are merely projections of this,

10:10.935 --> 10:14.105
from this realm of pure forms, you know, that you encounter,

10:14.365 --> 10:17.145
if you leave the, the, the cave where we're,

10:17.165 --> 10:20.425
we are all living in a deluded world of, of cave,

10:20.525 --> 10:22.865
inside the cave, but outside that,

10:22.875 --> 10:25.665
there are the pure forms, God-like forms

10:25.695 --> 10:27.185
that shaped reality.

10:27.805 --> 10:29.945
Uh, so they were reacting against that idea

10:29.965 --> 10:32.385
and suggesting that difference comes first,

10:32.385 --> 10:35.505
which is an idea they sort of get from Hagel,

10:35.505 --> 10:38.265
because in the end, Hagel says something very like that,

10:38.445 --> 10:39.825
in his logic.

10:40.565 --> 10:44.145
So, so theorizing, well,

10:46.495 --> 10:48.005
Delos talks about philosophy.

10:48.025 --> 10:50.885
So what is philosophy? I, I focus particularly on that book.

10:51.225 --> 10:55.755
Um, but if we're talking about processes

10:55.755 --> 11:00.275
and things becoming, then where does theory become?

11:00.815 --> 11:04.905
And, so actually Delos doesn't write about theory.

11:04.925 --> 11:06.225
He writes about philosophy,

11:06.485 --> 11:09.705
but you can quite easily see how it's applicable

11:09.765 --> 11:11.585
to theory and theorizing.

11:12.245 --> 11:15.705
So the con contribution I was trying to make in a way was

11:15.705 --> 11:20.345
to try and wrench de lu's thinking in the direction of,

11:20.525 --> 11:22.305
of theorizing

11:24.205 --> 11:28.665
and, you know, to, to show the potential it has

11:28.765 --> 11:31.065
for producing a more lively

11:31.815 --> 11:34.385
viewpoint on the worker of theorizing.

11:34.685 --> 11:37.945
Uh, by the way, there's also, in the back of my mind, the

11:38.705 --> 11:42.825
resistance to, the normal treatment

11:42.825 --> 11:46.865
of theorizing in methodology, philosophical methodology.

11:47.245 --> 11:50.105
So what you get are textbooks, which are like recipe books,

11:50.105 --> 11:52.865
which tell you how to do theorizing. And so, you know, you

11:52.885 --> 11:56.125
Form a, you, you have a hypo, you have a concept,

11:56.265 --> 11:59.245
you have a hypothesis, you collect data, you know,

11:59.245 --> 12:02.485
this is a deductive, inductive approach and, and so on.

12:02.585 --> 12:05.765
So this, the, the idea to behind the paper was to try

12:05.765 --> 12:09.325
and break away from the textbook, the cookbook approach to

12:10.375 --> 12:11.685
theorizing, and to try

12:11.765 --> 12:13.965
and think of it as a real thing that happens in the world

12:13.965 --> 12:16.485
that people actually do, rather than something

12:16.485 --> 12:20.525
that should conform to a, a, a, a sort of guidebook

12:20.585 --> 12:23.805
or a rule book given to you by the methodology teachers.

12:24.105 --> 12:26.245
And I thought we could use Ulus to,

12:26.505 --> 12:29.525
to counteract those methodology teachers.

12:30.105 --> 12:33.365
So you have to try and extract, a kind of,

12:35.055 --> 12:38.195
almost like a framework from, from De Lu's work,

12:38.195 --> 12:39.515
which is what I tried to do.

12:39.895 --> 12:44.195
Um, and the good thing about Dilu is

12:44.195 --> 12:46.235
that he rather breaks away from

12:46.295 --> 12:51.115
and reacts against the dualistic picture of, of the world

12:51.115 --> 12:53.715
that you get from Descartes, which is as mind and matter.

12:54.415 --> 12:59.395
And he goes sort of to the side of Descartes,

12:59.395 --> 13:02.555
and he picks up on, on this guy Spinoza, who had a,

13:02.915 --> 13:07.235
a unitary monistic view of the world where mind

13:07.235 --> 13:10.075
and matter were part of one thing, which was called nature

13:10.255 --> 13:11.395
or God,

13:11.455 --> 13:14.155
and their sort of different emergent attributes from,

13:14.425 --> 13:15.475
from this one thing.

13:15.625 --> 13:19.075
Whereas Descartes had a, a sort

13:19.075 --> 13:20.635
of more theological view.

13:21.055 --> 13:22.595
God was over there. So mind

13:22.595 --> 13:24.795
and matter were separated from each other,

13:24.865 --> 13:28.715
radically separated, whereas for, Spinoza,

13:28.715 --> 13:30.475
they were mi they were unified.

13:30.655 --> 13:35.115
So then D Delos generates a, a model for

13:35.215 --> 13:37.515
how knowledge comes outta that.

13:37.935 --> 13:42.115
Uh, and it's through these encounters with,

13:42.295 --> 13:45.715
pre what's called pre reflective encounters with forces.

13:46.495 --> 13:49.995
Now, these are sort of sensuous sensible experiences,

13:50.085 --> 13:52.275
which are aesthetic like art,

13:52.775 --> 13:57.555
but they are sort of mute experiences,

13:57.845 --> 14:01.785
which force us somehow into the use

14:01.785 --> 14:03.225
of language and concepts.

14:03.645 --> 14:07.625
And, and so the model is a circular model

14:07.625 --> 14:10.305
that comes outta dilu in both books,

14:10.695 --> 14:12.465
both difference and repetition.

14:12.525 --> 14:13.905
And what is philosophy.

14:14.085 --> 14:17.265
You get the same model of, knowledge

14:17.265 --> 14:21.905
and theorizing coming out of these experiences with,

14:22.805 --> 14:27.065
sort of pre reflective experiences with forces at work.

14:27.525 --> 14:30.465
And then, you know, then that's art.

14:30.685 --> 14:33.145
And then we go into a sort of philosophical phase

14:33.145 --> 14:34.985
where you encounter problems.

14:35.325 --> 14:39.505
And problems are a motivating thing in this framework

14:39.505 --> 14:40.545
that he provides.

14:40.965 --> 14:45.585
Um, and to solve problems, you come up with concepts.

14:46.045 --> 14:50.745
Uh, and so we have a web of concepts, and then at that

14:50.745 --> 14:55.245
Point, you start to e experience evidence and data,

14:55.385 --> 14:56.565
and you can relate that back.

14:56.585 --> 15:00.525
So you get a, a, a, a cycle of emergent

15:00.825 --> 15:04.405
and synthesizing, to arrive at a theory.

15:04.585 --> 15:08.885
So that's the cycle that they, that Duluth presents,

15:08.905 --> 15:12.725
and which I sort of reconstruct outta reading their,

15:12.735 --> 15:13.965
their work, his work.

15:14.465 --> 15:19.165
Um, and then, what I try to do is to use the,

15:19.385 --> 15:24.165
my own experience of the theorizing that I'm doing there to

15:26.025 --> 15:28.725
inform the theory that comes out.

15:28.825 --> 15:30.445
So the answer to the question is,

15:30.945 --> 15:33.165
what's the answer to the question?

15:33.195 --> 15:35.205
What is the connection between the theorizing

15:35.265 --> 15:38.205
and the theory is supposed to be, to some degree,

15:38.235 --> 15:39.765
exemplified in the way that I,

15:39.765 --> 15:41.165
you might use my own theorizing

15:41.825 --> 15:43.485
to inform the theory that comes out.

15:43.985 --> 15:48.125
And that is neatly set up at the end in the conclusions,

15:48.225 --> 15:52.445
you know, where I have all my key points assembled

15:53.625 --> 15:55.725
and dead and buried almost.

15:56.035 --> 15:59.325
Well, the, the hope is that the paper,

16:00.715 --> 16:03.605
this might be a, a, a, a hopeless hope,

16:03.745 --> 16:07.805
but the hope is that the paper might encourage people to

16:08.455 --> 16:11.125
think about theorizing as a series of events,

16:11.265 --> 16:12.365
as a living thing,

16:13.105 --> 16:16.565
and continue to look at it from different angles.

16:16.865 --> 16:19.285
Uh, I mean, the, the, the Allen Blum,

16:19.505 --> 16:21.565
I'm really plugging this book, you know, I, I,

16:21.725 --> 16:23.605
I must have shares in it or something.

16:23.905 --> 16:28.645
But the Alan Blum approach is to look at it, the,

16:28.665 --> 16:31.805
the language he would use would be ma maybe hermeneutics

16:31.865 --> 16:33.285
or Hier or something.

16:33.285 --> 16:34.565
But the approach that

16:34.755 --> 16:36.965
that is in this paper is obviously

16:36.965 --> 16:38.125
completely different to that.

16:38.625 --> 16:43.325
Um, although they, Sharon common a sort of interest in,

16:43.375 --> 16:46.045
friendship and dialogue

16:46.545 --> 16:49.885
and sort of tensions

16:50.025 --> 16:53.325
and, sort of alliances.

16:53.625 --> 16:55.925
But, but anyway, so the idea would be

16:55.925 --> 17:00.285
that people might look at it again, add to, to this

17:00.505 --> 17:02.685
and develop different perspectives on it.

17:02.885 --> 17:05.525
I mean, I can think of other angles on theorizing,

17:05.665 --> 17:07.765
but, you know, I, I don't need to do those.

17:07.915 --> 17:08.845
I've done this one.

00:00 - Theory is most people would understand what theory was to some degree. I mean, the way that I've suggested it is in this paper is, a web of concepts that, sort of express a, a, a, a preoccupation on the part of a, of an academic

00:19 - or, anybody, not an academic, a meteorologist, you know, whoever. And, or, somebody, with a conspiracy theory even maybe. and then, something which relates different aspects of a problem together, but also something that, guides future research. so there are different ways in which theory functions, but theory tends to be rather static and, like a, almost like a finished ar article, whereas,

00:54 - and sometimes it's sort of hides the process of theorizing. so when I was at a conference in, Florida, some time ago, I noticed that people who present their theories quite often start with a kind of biography for the theory itself, where it came from. And they try and set the scene by explaining, as I am doing now, why they came up with the theory that they did.

01:25 - so I thought theories face in two directions. They face forwards towards a topic, but quite often they also face sort of backwards towards their own genesis. So the question I asked was, what is the relationship between the theory as it points forward? And, its reference backwards to its own genesis? And the genesis of a theory, you might call that theorizing. It's the becoming of a theory. It's the way in which things emerge

01:56 - over time in a series of events. so the, that would be the difference between theory and theorizing, rather settled thing that actually exists. And on the other hand, a kind of, process or sequence of events which are alive, not dead, and which, seem to somehow grow out of, a realm of unstated sort of invisible assumptions, knowledge, experience, which is referred to by Ulus as the virtual. So the virtual is something that's sort

02:35 - of waiting to happen. And then there's the actual, which has happened, and probably it's a bit more boring when it's happened than, you know, when we just about are having it happening. One of the sort of undercurrent in doulas is thought is about life. And of course, theory finds it quite hard to capture life. but We know what life is like. It's something that unfolds in a kind of precipitous,

03:05 - accidental quite often, kind of chaotic, slightly dangerous way. and so, you know, the, the process of theorizing is not neat and tidy. It's, it's full of all these things like, you know, like, drinking coffee, you know, arguing with your mates, arguing with books, but, but more to the point really remembering and reliving beautiful experiences with your friends conversations in libraries.

03:40 - one of the things that I was remembering in writing this article was, was this book, which, I read as a student. and it's almo. There's almost nothing written on this topic. and, although I did meet Alan Blum once, who wrote this book, and, yeah, I, I, so, you know, I was kind of inspired. So the, this process of being inspired is life. And of course, when you've written it, then it's just a,

04:08 - a lump of wood. Delos was a French philosopher who, died in about 1994. I say about, lemme just check. Yes, he died in, in 1995. but he, he was one of a, a sort of group network of French philosophers after the second World War. His work was mainly in the 1950s, up to the 1990s. but you might link his work with,

04:45 - Fuko or Deida or, there was a, there was a whole bunch of them around at that time. Leo Todd for example, or ard, you know, there's quite a few of them. But, he, his thinking was rather different to them. I mean, they're sometimes referred to as post-structuralist philosophers, and they've had a massive impact, particularly Fuco, but, but the others, and they go through different phases,

05:14 - of being influential. but Ulus was different in, in some ways because whilst those other thinkers, Fuco, deida, they were obsessed with language, really. I'd say that Delos was not obsessed with language, actually. He was much more interested in, experience in, sort of sensuous experience and, and in the impact that, what he, what he referred to as pre reflective encounters with force.

05:51 - So forces working in our lives, you know, the, the forces of things intersecting. there's some imagery of, of the, of the knife slicing, you know, which is an event. the knife that slices is an event. So, I mean, it's a fantastic image of, of something, the, the event of something that happens on the surface of objects that intersect. so that's not about language, primarily, that's about other things.

06:24 - whereas somebody like Fuko, for example, is, it is all about discourse language, language shaping reality. So I, that's why I think Duluths has a kind of advantage. I mean, he's influenced by structuralism, you know, the big structuralism of people like Claude Levy Strauss and, and Louis Altus and so on. But he, and structuralism is a paradigm that comes from language, by the way. But, you, you know, so,

06:55 - hi, his thinking is different. So then there's the question of how he relates to guitar. So Guitar, Delos and Qatari wrote together, the guitar was a psychoanalyst, and Delos was a philosopher. And I think what happened was that Delos found guitar's thinking, animating. He found it re a release to some degree from the philosophical, straight jacket of, of academia.

07:25 - And so the, the work that he does with Qatari as more wild and wacky than the work that he does with on his own, you know, but, but in this paper, I do try to go back to the work he does on his own, which is two works. One, one called Difference in Repetition, and, and the other called, the, what was that called? The, the, what is philosophy? That's it. Yeah. What is philosophy?

07:52 - So, so, that the, that was first one was at the more, at the beginning of his career, what is philosophy's more at the end of his career. no disrespect to Felix Qatari, but, I thought it'd be useful just to try and disentangle the two a little bit also though, because, the work that they did together has been dead, trendy and fashionable. like, well,

08:17 - there are various texts that they did together. and, I thought it would be good to go back to de Lewis's work on his own and to try and make sense of that. Delos does share in common the interest and commitment to what those philosophers at that time called difference. and the idea is to get away from, a sort of primordial essence to things that everything has a, a, an identity that's

08:52 - fixed in it in some way. And the idea was to go back behind identity and focus on difference. and it's this rather mysterious idea that differences proceed, proceed identities, and, and, so it's, it's, it's somehow like that knife slicing, you know, to create two split parts. So the, the difference is like, it is a sort of splicing,

09:26 - but it's also a kind of emergence out of nothing, of things. and there are different treatments of difference. So, well, difference is inherently differential and, so different treatments of difference by, Deida who spends a lot of time talking about this, and, and by Delos and by others, and that to some extent, they're reacting. All of them are reacting to the, sort of to Plato and to the Greek philosophers who focused on identity

10:01 - and on this idea of a kind of transcendent identity in some other plane, you know, the pure forms. And that we are merely projections of this, from this realm of pure forms, you know, that you encounter, if you leave the, the, the cave where we're, we are all living in a deluded world of, of cave, inside the cave, but outside that, there are the pure forms, God-like forms that shaped reality.

10:27 - so they were reacting against that idea and suggesting that difference comes first, which is an idea they sort of get from Hagel, because in the end, Hagel says something very like that, in his logic. So, so theorizing, well, Delos talks about philosophy. So what is philosophy? I, I focus particularly on that book. but if we're talking about processes and things becoming, then where does theory become?

11:00 - And, so actually Delos doesn't write about theory. He writes about philosophy, but you can quite easily see how it's applicable to theory and theorizing. So the con contribution I was trying to make in a way was to try and wrench de lu's thinking in the direction of, of theorizing and, you know, to, to show the potential it has for producing a more lively viewpoint on the worker of theorizing.

11:34 - by the way, there's also, in the back of my mind, the resistance to, the normal treatment of theorizing in methodology, philosophical methodology. So what you get are textbooks, which are like recipe books, which tell you how to do theorizing. And so, you know, you Form a, you, you have a hypo, you have a concept, you have a hypothesis, you collect data, you know, this is a deductive, inductive approach and, and so on. So this, the, the idea to behind the paper was to try and break away from the textbook, the cookbook approach to

12:10 - theorizing, and to try and think of it as a real thing that happens in the world that people actually do, rather than something that should conform to a, a, a, a sort of guidebook or a rule book given to you by the methodology teachers. And I thought we could use Ulus to, to counteract those methodology teachers. So you have to try and extract, a kind of, almost like a framework from, from De Lu's work, which is what I tried to do.

12:39 - and the good thing about Dilu is that he rather breaks away from and reacts against the dualistic picture of, of the world that you get from Descartes, which is as mind and matter. And he goes sort of to the side of Descartes, and he picks up on, on this guy Spinoza, who had a, a unitary monistic view of the world where mind and matter were part of one thing, which was called nature or God, and their sort of different emergent attributes from,

13:14 - from this one thing. Whereas Descartes had a, a sort of more theological view. God was over there. So mind and matter were separated from each other, radically separated, whereas for, Spinoza, they were mi they were unified. So then D Delos generates a, a model for how knowledge comes outta that. and it's through these encounters with,

13:42 - pre what's called pre reflective encounters with forces. Now, these are sort of sensuous sensible experiences, which are aesthetic like art, but they are sort of mute experiences, which force us somehow into the use of language and concepts. And, and so the model is a circular model that comes outta dilu in both books, both difference and repetition. And what is philosophy.

14:14 - You get the same model of, knowledge and theorizing coming out of these experiences with, sort of pre reflective experiences with forces at work. And then, you know, then that's art. And then we go into a sort of philosophical phase where you encounter problems. And problems are a motivating thing in this framework that he provides. and to solve problems, you come up with concepts. and so we have a web of concepts, and then at that

14:50 - Point, you start to e experience evidence and data, and you can relate that back. So you get a, a, a, a cycle of emergent and synthesizing, to arrive at a theory. So that's the cycle that they, that Duluth presents, and which I sort of reconstruct outta reading their, their work, his work. and then, what I try to do is to use the, my own experience of the theorizing that I'm doing there to inform the theory that comes out.

15:28 - So the answer to the question is, what's the answer to the question? What is the connection between the theorizing and the theory is supposed to be, to some degree, exemplified in the way that I, you might use my own theorizing to inform the theory that comes out. And that is neatly set up at the end in the conclusions, you know, where I have all my key points assembled and dead and buried almost.

15:56 - Well, the, the hope is that the paper, this might be a, a, a, a hopeless hope, but the hope is that the paper might encourage people to think about theorizing as a series of events, as a living thing, and continue to look at it from different angles. I mean, the, the, the Allen Blum, I'm really plugging this book, you know, I, I, I must have shares in it or something. But the Alan Blum approach is to look at it, the,

16:28 - the language he would use would be ma maybe hermeneutics or Hier or something. But the approach that that is in this paper is obviously completely different to that. although they, Sharon common a sort of interest in, friendship and dialogue and sort of tensions and, sort of alliances. But, but anyway, so the idea would be

16:55 - that people might look at it again, add to, to this and develop different perspectives on it. I mean, I can think of other angles on theorizing, but, you know, I, I don't need to do those. I've done this one.

Faculti AI can make mistakes