Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 15:22:01 -0500 (EST)
From: "C - M - C'" <aedCCS-AT-hamp.hampshire.edu>
Subject: Re: That one ontology



Paul et al,

I think my vote is for Patton:

On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Paul Bains wrote:

> At 07:21 PM 3/24/98 +0000, you wrote:
> 
> I would like to remind you that a return to Hardt's 
> >analysis in Gilles Deleuze: an apprenticeship in philosophy (59-66) can be a 
> >refreshing dive to answer your question.
> 
> Thanks dib. I was looking at Hardt p. 124 footnote 4. fourth line: 'Scotus
> knew how to raise univocal being to the highest point of subtlety, _without
> giving in to abstraction_'
> 
> This is the opposite of the Patton trans. in Diff/Rep. p.35: 'albeit at the
> price of abstraction.' 
> 
> I'll have to check the french one day for the truth of the matter....
> 
Here it is:
"Nous disons Duns Scot, parce qu'il sut porter l'etre univoque au plus
haut point de subtilite', quitte `a le payer d'abstraction."
_D & R_, p. 52

A.



formally yours,
> paul.
> 
>