From: "Friedman, Howard J." <hfn-AT-sdpfr.powersoft.com>
Subject: RE: No Ideas but in Things
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 12:50:00 PST



Crispin, Ed, Dominic, Karen, Amdib, et al


"No Ideas but in Things"

There is one way in which I'd agree with this:

If "in" is taken to mean "in relation to" rather than "inside" in a physical 
or extensive sense.  In an inflection, as Amdib says.

Ideas get their materiality, NOT their Reality*, from the inflection which 
is Convivial, NOT Immanent. Their reality, however, is the absolute Reality 
of the Virtual.

Ed wrote:
>Also, to Howie, I think.  You mention that the problem with passing from
>possible to actual is that there is a real/non-real divide that must
>be crossed.

I never once said this. Nor would I. The problem with passing from the 
possible to the actual is to find a new concept, NOT to cross a 
real/non-real divide.


Dominic wrote:
>Ideas are things.  not the same as some other things, true, but they
>have force, form, tangible organization; they log in constantly as
>cause or effect; they have affect

If ideas are not the same as other things, how are they different? I've at 
least made a suggestion.

Ed wrote again:
>Both V & A are real.  THERE IS NO "POSSIBILITY" IN DELEUZE.

Why not both V and S (the Substantial) are Absolutely Real and the Convivial 
is Contingently Real or even Possible?

Howie

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