Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 10:44:07 -0500
From: Patrick Hayden <phkm-AT-totalnetnh.net>
Subject: Re: I am God most of the time......




Paul Bains wrote:

> Ps, Inna, i'll get back to you on relations, it's not difficult but takes
> time to 'explain'. Deleuze drastically oversimplifies with his 'relations
> are external to their terms mantra.'

Hmmm. . . not sure I can agree with this claim, Paul.  A few comments:

Indeed Deleuze's argument around external relations is not extremely difficult.
Basically the fundamental question he is addressing is that of how to conceive of
relations, and his concern about conceiving them as "internal" is that they are then
understood as mere properties of the "essences" of the terms in relation.  If that
is the case, a relation is little more than an intrinsic part of its terms.  Several
problems (in Deleuze's view) arise from this:  how is it possible to change
relationships if relations are tied to the necessity of essentialism?  do relations
have any real existence if they are intrinsic/internal? (this problem is what
motivates W. James, for instance, to insist that relations have as much reality as
terms, according to radical empiricism); and, if relations are dependent upon
essence, does this not imply some kind of ultimate "Absolute" or totality that ties
everything together neatly, so to speak?  By emphasizing the "externality" of
relations (at least in his most explicitly empiricist stances) Deleuze simply wants
to avoid some of unsavory consequences of essentialism, absolutism, etc. etc.  This
does not mean that there are no relations, but it does presume that difference is
what we're starting from--a difference that cannot be subsumed or recuperated.  Much
more can be said on this, of course, but I'll leave it at that for now.

So, how does Deleuze's position amount to a mantra?  Given the immense quantity of
writing he published, he actually devotes (remarkably?) little space to the issue of
external relations.  Much of what he has to say spins off from that position, but
what else should be expected?  And I'm not sure what it is he is supposed to have
drastically oversimplified with his position.  Perhaps he did not say all that could
be said about the matter, but all the better for us, no?  If anyone has made the
external relations thing a mantra, it might be me; but to that I would reply all I
have tried to do is focus attention on a topic that had been little explored.  In
that respect my endeavor has been carried out in complete agreement with another
point you made:  'Both Deleuze and Guattari emphasized that the impt thing was
whether others could use bits and pieces of their work, not simply becoming a
connoisseur of them. Taking what you need in a creative way. (see Chaosmosis, chpter
1).  "I invite those who me to take or reject my concepts freely." '

Others have taken and used different bits and pieces, I have taken and used the
parts on external relations.

Having said all of that, I do think one of the more important problems to tackle is
that of discerning more carefully how others have employed the phrases "internal"
and "external" relations, for they are not always used in the same way.  And here it
would be interesting to closely examine Whitehead's work, as you have suggested.
Not having looked at Whitehead in the way he probably deserves, I really can't
venture anything substantive at this point, although I would like to begin the
exploration.  However, it should be noted that I very much favor Deleuze's
methodology for approaching other philosophers--try to get them "right" but do not
necessarily constrain them within traditionally accepted interpretations/images.  In
other words, try to make new connections, different relations, with their work.

Best of luck with the father xmas bit.

Regards,

Patrick