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
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005