Thus, concerns over destructive plasticity being an absurd proposition, of whether or not the annihilative has a form, are hereby addressed by plasticity’s negative precondition. By the logic of this thinking, plasticity is guaranteed its ontological possibility-the precondition that articulates the being of form as a becoming that is (the precondition) of what becoming isn’t (a form)-that ensures a potentially unlimited metamorphism of plasticity. Destruction of form is actually the production of a new form in and of the absence of form. Put another way, destruction of form does not collapse into an abyss (of the formless or, if you will, as somehow form-denying). Thus, plasticity not only entails becoming formed and re-formed, but it may also, as per inaugurating an entirely new unforeseeable form, entail the annihilation of form.įor Malabou, in virtue of its being the destruction of form the annihilative (which prima facie defies being of a form) is to be conceived as form-giving. Instead, destruction needs to be recognized as a potential force of and for change(s) in the subject that further, and more philosophically speaking, reveals the radical other of plasticity and of Being. For example, in the instance of the brain-damaged subject, instead of representing the dire termination of the supposed productive continuum of “normal” neurological plasticity, Malabou argues destructive plasticity is, in fact, no dead-end. Further, along with linking the material and conceptual, by the genius of her plasticity, Malabou most poignantly provokes re-thinking, alongside creative plasticity, the often negatively-considered destructive. In all, Malabou provides the contemporary philosopher with a conceptual bridge that connects the theorizable to the neurosciences and/or plastic workings of the brain. On another front, her account brings focus to form by its material coming into being in the world-a thing’s being given form and giving form-by and through creative and destructive forces. In Plasticity at the Dusk of Writing, declaring plasticity’s ontological status, that, at once, may mold or explode, she writes: “Being is none other than changing forms being is nothing but its own mutability” ( Malabou 2010, p. On one front, plasticity encapsulates a being’s potential for change. Ultimately, in my estimation, such elaboration may lead to plasticity’s conceptual re-birth in the form of a mediating force.Ĭatherine Malabou accounts for plasticity, both ontologically and poietically, as possessing dynamic potential for change. As a result, in order to address the figure of force as being integral to form, I argue that Malabou will need to somehow transfigure her conception of plasticity. Nevertheless, developing upon Christopher Watkin’s idea for engaging Malabou’s plasticity relationally within a broader ecology, we come to see how, whether ontically or ontologically, force(s) appear to be what makes plasticity dynamic. The problem being, though somewhat presupposed and even alluded to in her elaborations of form and destructive plasticity, Malabou doesn’t conceptualize force nor advance it as a necessity for conceptualizing plasticity. Exploring the dynamism of Malabou’s plasticity, I question: how is plasticity, whether as a giving or receiving form, constituted to be so dynamic? Drawing somewhat from Heidegger’s account of change, I propose thinking of form as existing within a world of forces, to be a force, and be composed of force(s). Catherine Malabou’s conception of plasticity as potentially having a creative or destructive form provides both philosophy and the neurosciences with a dynamic and generative concept for describing the workings and transformations of psychological, social, and material phenomena.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |