Interesse in mijn werk? Stuur een e-mail aan email@example.com
“So that each time we find ourselves confronted with a duration, or in a duration, we may conclude that there exists somewhere a whole which is changing, and which is open somewhere.
If one had to define the whole, it would be defined by relation. Relation is not a property of objects, it is always external to it’s terms. It is also inseparable from the open and displays a spiritual or mental existence. Relations do not belong to objects, but to the whole, on condition that this is not confused with a closed set of objects. By movements in space, the objects of a set change their respective positions. But through relations, the whole is transformed or changes qualitatively. We can say duration itself or a time, that is the whole of relations. The whole and ‘the wholes’ must not be confused with sets. Sets are closed, and everything which is closed is artificially closed. Sets are always sets of parts. But a whole is not closed, it is open; and it has no parts except in a very special sense, since it cannot be divided without changing qualitatively at each state of the division. The real whole might well be, we conceive, an indivisible continuity. The whole is not a closed set, but on the contrary that by virtue of which the set is never absolutely closed, never completely sheltered that which keeps it open somewhere as if by the finest thread which attaches it to the rest of the universe.
…. movement relates the object of a closed system to open duration, and duration to the objects of the system, which it forces to open up through movement the whole is divided up into objects, and objects are re-united in the whole, and indeed between the two the ‘whole’ changes.”
Citaat uit: Deleuze, G. (2013). Cinema I: The Movement-Image (Bloomsbury Revelations) (Reprint ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.p 11-13