Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 16:03:54 +0800 From: Paul Bains <P.Bains-AT-murdoch.edu.au> Subject: Re: Scotus and Univocity Well i'm sure you're on to something, look forward to seeing the poietic product! One thing. The expression 'ontological relation' is Deely's way of translation the cumbersome latin expression 'relatio secundum esse' (relation according to the way it has being). This is in contrast to that which is relative (the pre-kantian 'transcendental relation'). Thus, within human experience every being is relative, i.e involved with and dep. upon things other than itself. An indiv. is not itself a relation, but cannot be understood unless the relations it is involved in are understood. The relations a being are involved in are the ontological (external) relations. Signs in what they are as signs, are ontological relations. And a relative being will give rise to an indefinite number of sign relations. A univocal logic of sense. An onto-ethology to use Alliez's expression. Or an eco-logic of relations/affects. Voila. "So an animal, a thing, is never separable from its relations with the world." (Deleuze, Practical Phil, 125. Following uexkull [and others]). 'In short, if we are Spinozists we will define a thing' by its relations/affects. A limitless plane of immanence. Or something like that. I don't believe L'actuel et Le virtual has been published anywhere else. It is four dense pages. "Philosophy is the theory of multiplicities.Every multiplicity involves actual and virtual elements. There is no purely actual object.................." Nothing that changes what has gone before. D. refers in partic. to Pierre Levy's *Qu'est-ce que le virtuel?* (in trans. minnesota?). pb.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005