Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 08:23:59 -0600 (CST)
From: CND7750-AT-utarlg.uta.edu
Subject: Re: Being and accident (specifically concerning Michael Hardt's book)


Nathan, Deleuze deals with the inside outside problem extensively in his
book on Foucault. Not unlike Derrida, Deleuze does talk about the outside
is the inside... Also, in his _User's Guide_, Brian Massumi talks about
the interior/exterior fold quite a bit. Also, in _The Fold_ the examination
of the inside/outside is taken to new heights by Deleuze himself.

On the switch at the end of Hardt's book. I think Hardt believes that in
dealing with Spinoza, Deleuze is simply no longer on the Hegelian terrain.
In the Nietzsche chapter Hardt talks about the end of Deleuze's anti-
gelianism. "The development of a total opposition to the dialectic seems
to have been an intellectual cure for Deleuze: It has exorcised Hegel and
created an autonomous plane of thought, one that is no longer anti-Hegelian,
but that, quite simply, has forgotten the dialectic." (53) So Hardt has
tried to set the table for an analysis of practice that has nothing to
do with the Hegelian problematic of negativity, but one that deals rather
with the positivity of power (as Foucault often tried to do). Now, Hegelians
want to bring negativity back into the picture, but Hardt is saying that
what Hegelians think of as 'the negative' has no place in this picture.
Of course thos invested in Hegelianism are go ing to say that as soon
as you begin to talk about exteriority you're talking about the negative,
because they don't want to give up that in which they are invested (and
neither do we!). Why do they want the negative? Who wants the negative?
Like Nietzsche, i would argue that it is those who desire accountability
or revenge. Hegelians are quite right in arguing that without the
negative you can't do politics, not Christian politics anyway. 

chris

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