Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 18:13:05 -0600 (CST)
From: CND7750-AT-utarlg.uta.edu
Subject: Re: Being and accident (specifically concerning Michael Hardt's book)


I have not yet received the post i sent a few hours ago so i will
make yet another response to Nathan.

I did not mean to imply that accident applied to the actual, as i tried
to make clear in my follow-up post. The passive affect is necessary
and not external in the Hegelian sense. It is in fact internal to
the body experiencing the affect and also internal to the relationship
between the bodies producing the affect to begin with. As Deleuze is
fond of saying, everything happens in between. It is precisely this
internal power of all affections tht Spinozan ontology affirms and
that Hegelian ontology negates. I Think this is what Hardt has in
mind in the critique of Hegel in the Spinoza chapter. Deleuze is in
no way rejecting what you might call an underlying Sameness, he's just
claiming that this Sameness is constituted by differences of nature.
This is not an affirmation of 'alterity' either. For there is no
alterity in actual being, but there are differences of nature
between the virtual and the actual. 

I sure don't think you're crazy, just that you need to give Spinoza
more of a chance.  On the first reading he may appear contradictory,
like Nietzsche does, but you have to work throgh it.

chris

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