cross-posted to 8040.
The question I asked from last class is still on my mind — Who said that when there are more people in a room that “get it,” then it is more likely that the ones who haven’t gotten it yet will get it quicker? According to the footnote attributed to Guattari, “The star is the one who most effectively melds with the collectivity, toward its becoming” (78). In other words, the star uses energy/attention/intensity ?? from the other players and the crowd to make really great plays.

I wonder, if similarly, when someone (not the star) doesn’t know something they can appreciate it from others even if the others don’t tell her directly, but the “knowledge/awareness” that she doesn’t have is potential that becomes more probable given the energy/attention/intensity in the room?

This thought is really loose though, because, to choose a really obvious example, if I am in a room with a bunch of George Bush supporters, it is not very likely at all that I will learn what they want me to. So, there must be something else in the equation. Maybe it is desire. When someone doesn’t understand something, but has the desire to learn and more people in the room know it, then is it easier to learn?? I wish I knew who said the first thing.

This line of thinking also circles back (for me) to the distinction between ‘in relation to’ and ‘relating to.’ You can guess that I perked up when I read, “Only apparently do the players relate to each other empirically as discrete terms, mediated by reflection and language. They relate to each other in their collective becoming as a distinct ontological level doubling their substantial being” (76). In part, this reminds me that ‘collective becoming’ and ‘collective change,’ do not necessarily mean that everyone will change and the outcome will be the same, just that everyone will change. However, I am still not sure of the distinction between ‘in relation to’ and ‘relating to.’

Players move in relation to the other players. They relate to what is happening around them — what is said, how others move, etc. In relating to others, they achieve some outcome — wining or losing the game, scoring some points, etc. However, when I say, I can relate to what the president said, it has the potential to mean that I somehow agree with what he said, or if I am ‘relating to’ him, it implies some emotional connection that is quite likely not there in actuality. However, if I say, “I relate what the president said to mean…” that is different. Even if I am in a relationship with someone, (say taking a course from someone on a subject that is only of minimal interest) and I am relating to, or attempting to relate to that person, it doesn’t mean I agree or feel much affinity for/with them, just as opposing players during a game don’t feel much affinity for each other. I mean, it’s nothing personal, but on the field of play, we may share proximity and may be relating to each other in ways that correspond to each other’s actions, but at the same time, don’t signal an alignment. Gosh, I feel like I’m going in circles.

So to argue the latter, we can’t be said to be relating to others if there is no affinity?? If there is proximity, but not affinity then there isn’t any relating to be done? Is that it?

Words are slippery little suckers. I guess it’s all relative.. :-) Suggestions anyone?