Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 03:21:11 EST
From: Aden <BGRZ-AT-musicb.mcgill.ca>
Subject:
Regarding the two stones crashing: don't the alternatives Nathan
presents both presuppose a notion of difference in terms of
identity? (Taking the second alternative first), if difference
is understood as relying on a medium, or substance, which grounds
it, then the self-identity of this substance provides the
possibility for difference. Clearly, this is not what Deleuze
wants. On the other hand, if the clash between the stones is
taken to be immanent, then difference is understood as the
least difference (a la Leibniz, in D&R), but inasmuch as it
is purely accidental, this is only in relation to something
else, a continuity perhaps, which is presumed essential.
That is, if mere accident is problematic, then this can be
so only by contrast with something else which is not accidental.
With difference at the origin, the clash of the stones is
genuine, positive, even pure positivity, since it is difference
manifest in the actual. In the small Spinoza book, (and as
Chris pointed out), the nature of difference is relative. From
the perspective of the stones their meeting is accident, and,
at least for stone A which gets broken, their meeting is
negative, disagreeable, sad, and passive. In God's eye, this
meeting is the pure immanent positivity of difference, so
a subject who comprised these stones (or reflected them?) would
experience this meeting as active. Of course, this is again
to draw the distinction between virtual and actual without
clarifying the point where they come together, but that point
is the crux of Deleuze's ethical thought. Oh well, just some
thougts.
::=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=::
:: ::
: Ice cream, ice cream, wheel scream, for ice cream :
:: ::
::=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=::
:: ::
:: Aden ::
:: ::
:: BGRZ-AT-MusicB.McGill.CA ::
:: ::
::=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=::
------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005