Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 15:31:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Inna Runova Semetsky <irs5-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Re:to share some british links


Thanks Paul. Yes, it was my implicit assumption that there is something
related to process-philosophy in Deleuze. But precisely because of
terminology i got confused with what exactly Deleuze mean. E.g. problem of
the "Outside' and his saying "the inside OF the outside"????. Contemorary
reading of Deleuze (e.g. Wolfe) made him strict pragmatist and oriented
toward "external relations" whatever these are. Also supported by
Smith (not sure that i remember correctly) who said that Deleuze's
philosophy is of nature, or rather, as nature. (In Kauffman volume on
mappings). Can  you give an example on internal vs external
relations - not as they are defined in philos. dictionaries but the way
Deleuze does.  Off the subject: where is your uni in Australia? Im going
to be in Sydney (psychology conference - not Deleuze but kristeva) in end
April and then Melbourne. 
inna.
On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Paul Bains wrote:

> At 04:41 PM 12/17/98 -0500, Inna wrote:
> >
> >To continue debate on external relations and naturalist position: Abner
> >Shimoni wrote two volumes "Search for naturalistic world view" in 1993 i
> >think. I always felt that Deleuze's transcendental empiricism borders on
> >experimental metaphysics Shimoni writes about.
> 
> Interesting that you mention Shimony (but in what way has the debate
> continued!).
> As you must know in vol.2 he discusses quantum physics and the phil of
> whitehead. 
> As i have mentioned before, W's phil of organism requires 'internal'
> relations, i.e. relations that really related to their terms. The trouble
> with Deleuze is his use of the term 'external' which is a fall out from
> Russell etc's anti hegelianism. (whatever that is). I think he means what
> Whitehead says but there is a terminological disaster area here.
> External relations post Russell means that there _really_ are relations that
> are not identifiable with their terms. But they are not just floating around
> by themselves.
> Whitehead's phil is not compatible with any positing of indep entities. The
> fallacy of misplaced concreteness. And W. uses the term 'externally related'
> precisely to characterise (and criticise) a classical materialist view in
> which there are indep. entities. He requires 'internal relations', perhaps
> diff from Hegel, meaning that 'things' (ie events) are really related. What
> happens actually makes a difference.
> Shimony ends up seeing a compatibility btwn W. and microphysics. Roger
> Penrose and stuart Hameroff also do this in positing a proto or
> funda-mentality and they embrace W. This is also an impt element of
> Guattari's speculations. Stengers claims that Chaosmosis repeats the
> Whiteheadian process of actualization.
> It's a shame Deleuze didn't write more on Whitehead, it would have been a
> refreshing breath of air. A schizo out for a stroll.
> 
> Paul.
> ps. i am sure that there are a lurkers out there who know a lot more about
> Whitehead and the hist. of phil. than I. Any really non violent comments
> appreciated.   
> 
> 
>