This week, I’m going to write a response to Grosz because I am in the groupleading discussion for this reading.
One note (I think I mentioned this first week) - I don’t know why Groszincessantly refers to sexuality as it relates to art and science. On page26, she states “I hope to understand music as a becoming, the becoming-otherof cosmic chaotic forces that link the lived, sexually specific body to theforces of the Earth.” What does a sexually-specific body NECESSARILY have todo with the understanding “the becoming-other of cosmic chaotic forces”linked to the Earth? It is not clear to me why she extensively discussessexuality in this context - I think “survival” is a broader, moreapplicable/relevant theme to Chaos, Territory, and Art, than merelysexuality.
I’ve been thinking about the concept of planes. One quote on page 28 thatI’d like to briefly respond to begins, “Chaos…can be understood as theongoing possibility of infinite planes.” I don’t think so. Rather, I thinkchaos, like the concept of infinity, cannot be fully understood by humans,and attempting to frame chaos as the “ongoing possibility of infiniteplanes” seems to be an attempt at defining/categorizing/classifying theunknown. At the same time, I think its fine to extract “information” fromchaos and “erect a plane,” but I don’t think its possible or reasonable toclaim that chaos can be understood as infinite planes.
The main paragraph on pg. 30 got me thinking - is music derived fromlanguage, or visa versa? I think music came before language, but thatlanguage is not necessarily derived from music. It is interesting to thinkabout music and the arts as a product of sexual selection, although, I thinkGrosz puts too much weight on the need/desire to attract a mate as THEexplanation for the genesis of music. Even in prehistoric times, I speculatethat music served other visceral functions which have nothing to do withsexuality - mobilizing a tribe for battle, community rituals (ex.celebration after a hunt), recounting/recording of history, andsupplication/prayer to a supernatural force. In any case, I would argue thatmusic is, “necessary rehearsal and preparation for what is life sustaining.”(30) In any case, despite my complaints about Grosz’s emphasis of sexualityas it relates to music, I definitely agree with Darwin that, “there issomething about vibration and its resonating effects on material bodies thatgenerates pleasure, a kind of immediate bodily satisfaction.” (32) No wonderdancing is often a kind of foreplay. Although I would argue that nowadays, agood percentage of people [read: males] who go to dance clubs seeking asexual encounter merely ASSOCIATE the music and scene with sex, rather thanFEEL the music stimulating their “vibratory force.” This is because I’mcynical, and think that most people are shallow. They dance because that’swhat you do if you want to get laid. If you ask most guys, they don’t dancebecause they like to, they get out on the dance floor because they have to.Furthermore, I don’t think that most males nowadays need their internal”vibratory force” to be stimulated by music in order to mobilize theirorgans and “prepare them for courtship.” Often times, I would speculate thatsubstances replace music as the catalyst for the generation of pleasure and”immediate bodily satisfaction.”
Personally, I do have an interest in how art, science, and philosophyapproach chaos, but to me, this book is pretty much useless. I can’t imagineciting this work in my masters thesis. I’d be fine with shelving this oneand moving on to another author.