File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/d-g_1994/deleuze_Mar.94, message 32


Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 14:33:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Kent D Palmer <palmer-AT-world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Just A Note to Say Hi (fwd)




---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 18:16:53 GMT
From: Richard Cochrane <SENRC-AT-CARDIFF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Just A Note to Say Hi

Just had to append a note to my last posting: of course, there are no 
exerts who can pronounce on right or wrong readings of D+G or, by 
extension, on readings of anyone. But surely there's a proper context 
and background from which to approach their work? I know when I 
started reading them I was, like others, impressed by their writing 
style, and their ability to forge connections between seemingly 
incommensurable areas of knowledge. I hope I haven't lost that way of 
reading them, but it's tempered by an appreciation that they're 
philosophers who demand to be taken seriously, and their ideas can 
only be approached in this way if one has some idea about their 
history. I think it's dangerous to assume they are rhapsodic 
thinkers, who throw ideas around at random and hope something 
interesting springs out. There is a tradition which Deleuze, at 
least, is constantly engaging with, and it's important to be aware of 
it. Partly, this is because a knowledge of the thinkers D+G are 
interested in is taken for granted, and their terminology is often 
loaded with references to them. Without such a knowledge, their 
terminology takes on other connotations. This is not necessarily a 
bad thing, but I think it's useful to distinguish between the two 
approaches.

--
Richard Cochrane
Dept of Philosophy, University of Wales College of Cardiff
e-mail: senrc-AT-cf.ac.uk



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005