Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:53:21 +0800 From: Paul Bains <P.Bains-AT-murdoch.edu.au> Subject: Re: Brusseau book Thanks for the 'info.' Is there anything in the bk on the 'scholastics', other than a possible referral to Scotus. Or any mention of Aristotle. Brusseau sounds french - is it a translation. There's a lot of code in your email. I wonder where it's coming from.. Paul. At 02:23 PM 6/23/98 +0100, you wrote: ><html> ><font size=3>At 10:09 22/06/98 +0800, you wrote:<br> >>In all this fucking thinking could you write who/where Brusseau is >and give<br> >>the title/pub.date of the bk.<br> >>Perhaps even his 'take' on D/G - or was it just D?<br> >>What's 'nice' about it?<br> ><br> >mm, quite right, nice is such a nasty word. passing thought really >and one borne of curiousity as to other thought.<br> ><br> >details;<br> >James Brusseau-<br> >Isolated Experiences, Gilles Deleuze and the solitudes of reversed >platonism<br> >pub.suny, 1998<br> >isbn-0-7914-3672-1<br> ><br> >what was nice about it, if i'm going to come back to that word, is that >it seems to have taken the spirit of some of deleuze's writings, or of >his 'take' on thought, and worked close to or inside that spirit. >i'm thinking here of negotiations, which i'm also reading at the moment >for a review, and the lightness that comes through in that book, >the flight, speed, whatever little jargon catchword we want to use to get >at this 'event' or moment. <br> ><br> >but nice isn't really enough is it? if i wanted nice i'd read eddie >bunker or something, my novellistic focus at the moment ('dog eat dog' >and 'no beast so fierce' down so far, another couple coming through >on order. _these_ are great pulp fiction, apparently some of the >inspiration for tarantino's film. one day books you stretch to two >or three days of flash reading. fucking great.) no, nice >never seems enough when there's the matter of thought.<br> ><br> >i'm still finsihing the book so a 'review' would be inappropriate, yet a >few things have begun to come out. the author puts forward an >argument that rests heavily upon a notion of production and of >'restricted ontology' that suggests deleuze aims towards redirecting >philosophies work away from generalities, yet in such a way that a simple >relativism, if there is such a thing, is not the route taken. he >also argues quite strongly that the disengagement with hegel is quite >central to the 'method' or approach deleuze takes, a disengagement that >is always going to be, to some degree, unacceptable to hegelians since it >operates on the basis of the gesture of refusal through ignoring. >this chimed with passages from negotiations where deleuze says he is >uninterested in 'criticisms', always wanting to move on to the next >thought when a challenge arrives. there are some brief and >quite clear passages, such as one about halfway through teh book where he >outlines the opening that bergson's virtual/actual division gives over >the possible/real and here the notion of production seems to be beginning >to actually get to work. it's difficult, at the moment, to be a lot >less vague than this. probably not a lot of help but perhaps if you >have a specific question then there could be something else.<br> ><br> >keyman</font> ><BR> ><div>---------------------------------------------------------------------- </div> ><br> ><div> ><a href="http://www.indifference.demon.co.uk/" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.indifference.demon.co.uk</a></div> ><div> ><a href="http://www.indifference.force9.co.uk/" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.indifference.force9.co.uk</a></div> ><br> ><div>the only thing we have in common is the illusion of being together....</div> ><br> ><div>INDIFFERENCE PRODUCTIONS</div> ><div>Pinion Pariahs of Film and Textuality</div> ><br> >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ></html> >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005