File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1996/d-g_Mar.96, message 38


Date:     Wed, 6 Mar 1996 00:19 EST
From: 044724240-AT-ucis.vill.edu
Subject:  RE: sub-substance



Greg, one correction.  Your are certianly right to denote relations
as external to terms, in both Hume and Deleuze, but I distinctly
remember that passions in Hume's sense of the term are very much
impressions of reflection, and depend on complex relationalities between
ideas/impressions which preceed them (of course, Hume's use of the term
Idea is also much much more equivocal than the use you attribute to D,
who, according to you, would distinguish it from impression.  This distinction
lives in Hume, but not terminologically...one of the reasons that H is
truly maddening to write about).  The reason I bring this up is that
passions and impressions of sensation are two distinct modes of affectivity,
the one having to do with the appearance of singular "terms"; the
second having to do with associations between terms--and it is only on
this second level, the level on which the subject appears, do we get
passions, which are in fact the glue that holds the subject together.  It
is precisely Hume's point that reason cannot perform that function, since
its only power is that of analysis/dissolution.  For confirmation that
impressions of reflections include the passions, see selby-bigge's
index under 'passions' and impressions of reflexion' which will lead
you to the Hume texts themselves.  I wouldn't pick this nit, except
that I think it's an important one, and that if it doesn't get picked, 
Deleuze gets to be guilty of Kantianizing Hume...which is, by the
way, exactly what Partricia De Mantalaere accuses him of doing in her
article Gilles Deleuze: interprete de Hume.  

Ed Kazarian,

Villanova University (where's millersville in relation to Philly, close?)

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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005