File deleuze-guattari/deleuze-guattari.0501, message 67

To: <>
Subject: RE: [D-G] mona has
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:39:11 -0500


I'm certainly up for this reading. Niggling abt. is the idea that Capital is
the Symbolic. Not a deep insight but a place to begin --

I have not read much Lacan, only in literary theory class-- Poe's 'Purloined
Letter' in conjunction w/ Derrida's reading of his reading.

Could we work out a cogible reading list? I'm interested in following Gary
Genosko's work on Guattari's semiotic but think we might start with reading
the first and last chapters of AntiO again. I'm going to anyways.

You think Lacan's Seminar #8?


-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of sid littlefield
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [D-G] mona has

To these four we should add the fifth (5) Truth

1) The event
2) Ontology
3) Ontological role/importance of temporality
4) Majoritarian/minoritarian militant/ethico-aesthetic practice

I think this would be a very fruitful project. To begin I will suggest a
reading: Daniel Smith has a wonderful essay on Deleuze v. Badiou in
relationship to mathematics. I know that it was in the Southern Journal of
Philosophy and I imagine that it is floating around in other places (Sorry
to participate in the "capitalist desire to read texts but...)

These are just starting points...

(1) It strikes me that one difference in the way that D & B look at the
event is in the question of the question of language.  It seems that Deleuze
places the event at times into a linguistic enterprise. Of course, Badiou
would be forced to reject this being the new non-linguistic philosopher.

(2) I am in the minority but believe that Deleuze was "to be done with
ontology." The insistence that being is univocal seems to be great strike
against ontology.  If ontological difference is located in the individual
and not the species (if you all me to use the biological concept) then
ontology is moved to becoming (mutation). This is the continuation of the
Nietzsche project from Twilight. Badiou strikes me as almost equally
skeptical of the ontology, not the concept, but being itself.  As with most
disagreements between Deleuze and Badiou, it comes down to their
understanding of multiplicity and difference.

(3) Nothing now.

(4) There seems to be some aggreement that D & G's politics would be
different from Badiou's, hence not militant.  I am not sure if this true.  I
do not see that D&G are not setting up a radical militant politics although
it does take on a group dynamic that is absent from Badiou.  Although Badiou
is highly involved with non-party politics, it still seems that processes
that bring about the militant have a party look to them. If we think about
is continually example Paul I think we see the party lurking in the
background, or at least the shadow of party lurking in the background. I
think this is what Zizek means when he says that Badiou is afraid to ex-cize

(5) Deleuze was famous for his dis-taste for TRUTH, but Badiou's reworking
of the term renders most of Deleuze's objections mute. Perhaps like not
wanting to be surround by "scarecrows and suken faces" (Nietzsche "the Gay
Science), deleuze's rejection of truth is just a matter of taste.

Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages

List address:
Admin interface:

List address:
Admin interface:


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005