Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 18:18:06 -0400 To: <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org> From: "hwenk" <hwenk-AT-web.de> Subject: Re: [D-G] michael hardt Hello Filip, As far as I see Filip, your interpreation is right, the internal differnce and effective cause is nothing else than the mode constituting immanent cause called the conatus by Spinoza of the modus from the causa sui of Spinoza's substance. As this "immanent" substantial cause "sustains" the differnce, that what makes the differnce to stay in duration or existence is what it got from the subsatnce or being and - ce ca. This afffirmates 1) and 2) to 3) The going over from an external efficent cause to the inner difference of Bergson or the immanent cause of Spinoza is thus the way to "ontologize" causality. The need and advantage for that lie in the body-mind charcter of cause. This interpreation is also testified by Gueroults Appendix IX in Spinoza tome I on "the letter on the infinity", page 504 especially footnote 17, with reference to Bergson. What you say is in section 1.1 page 4 in my copy of Hardt's book. You must know, that Spinoza a left only the efficent casue as immanent casue, with fierce polemic especially against the final cause. So, as answer to 4), the subsantial or immanent cause is the effective cause. This is in Spinoza's terminolgy. The traditionl efficent cause has become what we now call "effect", as the other causes have vanished in common use of language. The special case of a free electron for example with its effect is thus the effect of the coantus of the electron or its being. This problematic is pursued further by the "emanation" chapter in Hardts chapter 1. Actaully the inner difference is able to get new matter to sustain in duration, therfore it is an effect or the effective cause. At the end of cahpter 1, the need to change over to Nietzsche-Spinoza lies in the emphasis and the art of becoming and its social character via common notions - what he takes from Spinoza. Maybe the hint of Hardt in the first chapter to read the final passages of Deleuze's Bergnsonism, great Spinoza and Nietzsche book is very valuable. I hope I helped you Greetings Harald Wenk -----Original Message----- From: deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org [mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of filip Sent: Dienstag, 6. Mai 2008 16:15 To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org 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) _______________________________________________ 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