Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 18:25:35 -0700
From: l200-cm-AT-garnet.berkeley.edu
Subject: Peirce


	Regarding Richard Cochrane's comment that perhaps Deleuze's
three "figures of Being in his book on Foucault relate more to Peirce
than to Heidegger, I'd like to answer yes, it's possible.  What points
away from Peirce, however, is that Deleuze is speaking in terms of
ontology, of which semiotics is sketched as only one "figure of Being,"
and, Deleuze's discussion occurs amidst discussions of Heidegger and 
Blanchot.
	As an aside, I raised the questions Richard is responding to
in order to ask for any alternative readings of the text than the one
I came up with, as well as to raise what appeared to me to be a
striking dissimilarity between ATP and _Foucault_ in their description
of the construction(s) of person and personal agency.

	As a further aside to "our moderator's" dichotomy between
pop philosophy and "theory jocks," I'll refrain from engaging
a rhetoric of power which doesn't interest me because I see it
duplicating the entrepreneurial spirit of the enlightenment University,
and, in any case, I've 'always already' lost the game before I
even enter it (both on this list, at some times and at some locations,
and almost always, elsewhere).  Instead, in the phrase of D&G in
Anti-Oedipus, with the pronominal 'cuttings' of the beginnings
of ATP, and with the sense of the in-between posturing and counter-
posturing and the depth and breadth such an exploration of the 
in-between leads to when not run from, "We refuse to play, "take it
or leave it'" (AO 117).  I look forward to the reading of "Becoming-
animal..." which this list will undertake.

					Ron Day

     ------------------