Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 09:48:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Hardt <hardt-AT-acpub.duke.edu>
Subject: atheism or a new divine



I'm intrigued by Karen's suggestion that we consider Spinoza's and 
Nietzsche's projects not as atheism but as a new kind of godliness (and I 
guess that links with Eric's attempts in a way).  I agree completely.  
Spinoza at least was accused of atheism but would never take on that 
label himself; his heresy was to take his notion of God too seriously 
rather than not seriously enough.  Both his and Nietzsches projects are 
certainly to reveal the immanence of the divine and the divinity of 
materiality, corporeality, practices.

Could someone (perhaps Karen) explain what the stakes are in this?  
Particularly in that it arises in response to Jon's questions about the 
political, it might be helpful to clarify what difference it makes to 
call this atheism or not.  I have tried to use the Spinozian notion of 
divine to emphasize the constituent and ontological  nature of material 
practices -- the divine for Spinoza and the dionysian for Nietzsche being 
that creative, productive force that constitutes being.  In another 
place, I tried to use Spinoza's divine constituent power as a way to 
understand the divine violence that Benjamin refers to in his essay on 
violence.  I don't know if any of these examples help.  My question is 
really about the stakes (political or not) in this discussion about 
atheism (tranquil or not).

Michael.

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