Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:29:55 +0200
To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] Close reading : Bergson's conception



Hello Harald, thanks a lot for your remarks.

still i'm a bit fuzzy about it.

i'm gonna use your numbering, that way it makes it easy .

1)so atoms have a difference of degree if you consider there atomic weight ?
the difference of nature lies in the fact that when used in a reaction 
the elements have different effects ?

a)So atoms have a difference in degree (weight) and difference in nature 
(effect).

what about isotops, sometimes they have the same effect, cause they are 
the same atom, but sometimes
they have a different effect as the non isotop element (like a mass 
spectrometer).

i would say that H2 is not the same, does not have the same nature as H1 
because it doenst react the same
on all conditions, or am i getting to kantian: exploring all the 
possibilites instead of just those who happen ?

So i could conclude that a difference in degree (weight) is at best only 
a consequence, that the nature of the element
is different. so the difference of nature is primordial.

2) is there a difference between kind and nature ? cause you say  " same 
"kind" and/or "nature". "
so the daughter bacteria is the same, just smaller then the mother ?  
that i can understand as an difference of degree.
so the nature of something is that what makes it that thing. still that 
is a broad definition;
so the mother can be replaced by the daughter, could you say they are 
identical.?


2a) human twins: well i was just thinking about cloning, identical twins 
could be considered like this (i suppose)
but i don't see if they are differences of nature, of differences of 
degree ? i would state that there is difference of
nature. they are not the same, not within a degree.


3)this is a difference in degree if you consider the temperature in the 
room. for us human beings, the nature
of the room could be different ? the intensity of the warm or cold 
feeling is different ?

4)identical lyric: do you mean : a recorded song: identical the same ? 
so that the repetition itself causes
the the diffeerence degree of intensity ? but a difference degree of 
intensity isn't that a difference of nature ?
(isn't so that deleuze states that after a difference of nature there is 
a difference of degree, like the small
perceptions with leibniz).

5) i don't understand your remark very well.

thanx a lot harald

greetz filip


>
> 2) Two daughter bacteria of a mother bacteria have the same "kind" and/or
> "nature".
>   2a) Human twins,  occurring in the introduction of "Difference and
> Repetition as a "repetition as existence" of a notion.
>
> 3) The  air with different temperate in degrees in two rooms of the same
> shape and size.
>
> 4) The repetition of a identical  lyric may have a different degree of
> intensity.
>     Remark, that for Deleuze you have some kind of subject or producer role
> as a singularity of the thing repeated.
>     Maybe the intensity of a feeling is the singularity of a repetition,
> "producing"  the situation for the "re"feeling.
>
> The critique of Deleuze on Bergson's critique on intensity is on page 307 of
> the French issue of "Difference and repetition."
> in Chapter 5,  "Differences of essences and differences of intensities" - It
> is a bit elaborated.
>
>
> greetings Harald Wenk
>
> PS: I am very pleased  to hear something  of you again.
>       You are cured in the meantime from your sickness?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org
> [mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of filip
> Sent: Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2008 04:43
> To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org
> Subject: Re: [D-G] Close reading : Bergson's conception of difference[1
> paragraph]
>
>
> 1)What does deleuze mean by "differences of nature between things"
>
> i think that by saying "differences of nature between things" Deleuze
> wants to say that there exists (at least one)  a thing A that cannot be
> reduced to thing B, in no way whatsoever. The nature or being of the
> thing A is not gradually different, but radical from the nature of thing B
>
> a)but if things have a nature, what is it, other then what makes them
> that thing specifically?
> b)if every thing has a nature, which makes it its self, how can you
> compare ? then everything differs from everything ?
> c)can anyone give an example (of things that differ from each other  (by
> nature and by degree))
>
>
> 2)On the other hand, if the being of things is somehow in their differences
> of nature, we can expect that difference itself is something, that it
> has a nature,
> that it will yield Being.
>
> d)on the other hand: there is no implication, so Deleuze posits it just
> like that ?
> e)how can the being of things be in their differences of nature ?
> if the being of things = the nature of the thing = what makes it that
> thing = what is the essence of the thing then
> it should be in theire differences of nature ?
>
> I think deleuze wants to say that difference isn't only relational, but
> also that difference is an "thing" , an entity, or
> what could be called a tendency.
>
> 3)Why would a philosophy of difference work on two planes,
> methodological and ontological?
> a)I understand that it has its effects on the ontological side, but what
> does he mean with methodological?
> that we must first seek the difference of nature that allows us to
> return to the thing itself, and then we will
> see that difference is an entity ? or does he mean something more ?
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> filip schreef:
>   
>> The philosophy of Bergson,
>> and inversely, Bergsonism promises to make an inestimable contribution
>> to a
>> philosophy of difference. Such a philosophy is always at work on two
>> different
>> planes: the one methodological, and the other ontological. On the one
>> hand, we
>> must determine the differences of nature between things: only in this
>> way will
>> we be able "to return" to the things themselves, to account for them
>> without
>> reducing them to something other than what they are, to grasp them in
>> their
>> being. On the other hand, if the being of things is somehow in their
>> differences
>> of nature, we can expect that difference itself is something, that it
>> has a nature,
>> that it will yield Being. These two problems, methodological and
>> ontological,
>> constantly echo one another: the problem of the differences of nature,
>> the prob=AD
>> lem of the nature of difference. In Bergson's work, we encounter these
>> two
>> problems in their connection, surprising them in their passage back
>> and forth.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
>> Info:
>> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>> Archives: www.driftline.org
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
> Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
> Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
>
>   

_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Archives: www.driftline.org