Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 10:15:07 -0400 To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org From: filip <fildh-AT-gmx.net> Subject: Re: [D-G] michael hardt hello harald, and every one else. a small question, since Bergson defines difference as internal difference, it looks to me like he is grounding being with a "power" to express itself, with the power to be ? (maybe a bit dualistic formulated) 1)is this a correct interpretation 2)if this is true: it looks a lot like spinoza conatus 3)can you actually say that internal difference is actually effecient causality ? it looks like that, but can you substitute these terms by one and another ? or is there a slight /difference :-) /4)if difference grounds the movement of being, i suppose it grounds being. I don't think there is a raw material which needs some kind of animating principle that would be called difference ? difference grounds being, and all that being is: expressing itself. 5)These are some question i have from reading the first pages of michael hardts book, i looks like i'm grasping bergson on a very spinozian way. am i this wrong or are they really that close when it comes to conatus and difference seen as a certain power that drives being ? thank you so much greetings ps: thanks alot harald on the heavy physcial explanation (i'm keeping an eye on it, although i'm not able to grasp it all) hwenk schreef: >Hello ruth and filip, > >I would prefer, as I think, filip original intention was, >to stick to the download available Hardt book >for a common reading. >Here the little difficulty is, >the Hardts book is often third or second order, >that is commenting Deleuze's reading of Bergson, Spinoza, Nietzsche, >Duns Sotus >sometimes a comment to a comment of Deleuze's reading to. > >ANYWAY, SOME READING OF THE ORIGINAL >SOURCES IS NEEDED TO GRASP THE "SECONDARY LITERATURE" HARDT BOOK >Therefore the idea, to go back to something of first order, >that is for example the concept of difference of Deleuze itself, is helpful. >My proposal, to have a little impression about original the Spinoza >or the academic discussions on Deleuze's Spinoza interpretation, > the neurology, which >is badly needed as background maybe also helpful. >The hint to Vedanta and India has been thought as a connection to an >old tradition with the same body-mind-problem solution >and the same "enlightening" ambition of philosophy or ethics. >The intention to make some concepts for another way of life, anti-oedipal, >- not only in the way of thinking - is something D&G have brought >again into philosophy, >this is excluded by most of other so deep >philosophical rooted approaches. Most prominent Hegel. > >RUTH; WOULD YOU PLEAS EXPLAIN MORE? > >Now ruth, I would be very pleased if you could explain a little bit >more your statements about Deleuze's concept of difference >- if it "makes sense or not", >I am really interested what you think about it. > >DIFFERENCE IN DIFFERENCE AND REPLETION (D&R) OF DELEUZE > >In "Difference and repetition" there the paradigma for "difference" >is the real lightening with its foregoing corona >discharge, as "dark persecutor". >(D&R p. 50) > Deleuze remarks it as >difference of second order, "The difference in itself, which relates >itself through itself to the different". p 158 D&R. >Now, from the electrostatic point of view, there is a threshold >of the electrical field (3*10^6 N/C), for the electrical brakthrough. Then >Ionisation of air molecules in a "channel" starts. Within this >channel is build up what is dark prosecutor, >and gives the "corona discharge". Within the channel is negative >electrical field charge, low compared to the lightening. >So, the channel build up itself and afterwards the >lightening takes place. >It has something to do with trees or other peaks, >where the surface charge is high because >of the peak geometry of the object. >The "second" order difference: Differentiating itself >and the before non different, >like the lightening differentiates itself and itself from the dark >So, a "difference" is made to something not able to differentiate itself. >Without surpassing the charge threshold, everything stays as usual, >the sly stays homogenous dark. >Now, the brain is very electrochemical, within lot of ionisation to. >Here the ionisation takes place by the neurology of the brain cells. >Fro, the "idea" and notion side, there is a lot >concerning general or common notions. >But, the physical side maybe pondered about first. > >greetings Harald Wenk > _______________________________________________ List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org Archives: www.driftline.org
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005