Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 11:04:47 -0500
From: "Thomas G. Schumacher" <Schumacher.2-AT-osu.edu>
Subject: Re: to destratify


	It seems that Dan H's dispute with Michael is perhaps one of terms, but
I'm not sure.  Dan's version of "mysticism" as a form of materialism seems
more akin to Bataille's base materialism and writings on religion than the
more evasive and "philosophical" Deleuze (though see Brusseau's book on
Isolated Experience).  In other words, when Dan says, This is what I mean
by mysticism and materialism, it may very well be that his is a "singular"
usage, one that transforms his objects into Deleuzo-Guattarian parlance,
pulling out the non-identical in what is normally seen otherwise.  One
could make the case that Bataille's inner experience, or Bergson's elan
vital, or Nietzsche's will to power are repetitions of Deleuze's
difference, or D&G's desiring production, or the plane of consistency, or .
. . , given particular readings of those texts or presentations of those
positions.  But then one is open on both sides to people saying That's not
what he/they mean!  As Hardt points out in the notes to his book, for
example, not every Bergson scholar is as impressed as we are with Deleuze's
Bergsonism.  Here of course religious worship is confused with rigor.

	But the problem seems to be in the oposite direction where just about
anything can be made to sound Deleuzian (my favorite band, my favorite
drugs, my favorite artist, my favorite beer, my favorite architect, my
favorite television show), and perhaps Deleuze is unique amongst the
Pantheon of theorists for inspiring such repetitions (Foucault's
panopticism coming in a close second).  There is certainly something to be
said for trying to start off from Deleuze himself in these situations
(though this last sounds frightfully close to hero-worship and faith in the
author -- not quite what I'm suggesting).

	I'm not being very clear, I guess.

	Tom S.