From: "Chris McMahon" <pharmakeus-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Event, Habitus and Jon
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:08:14 PST


Dear Amdib,

For me the most important dif between D&G and B. relates to the diff 
between expenditure (of which there is plenty in D&G) and the investment 
(or the garnering of capital - symbolic etc.) which us a theme that 
dominates B. 

Big dif!

- Chris :)


>From owner-deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Tue Jan 12 
13:51:24 1999
>Received: from lists.village.virginia.edu (lists.village.Virginia.EDU 
[128.143.200.198])
>	by cuda.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA29442
>	for <Christopher.McMahon-AT-jcu.edu.au>; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:51:11 +1000 
(EST)
>Received: (from domo-AT-localhost) by lists.village.virginia.edu 
(8.8.5/8.6.6) id QAA62376 for deleuze-guattari-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 
1999 16:29:19 -0500
>X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.virginia.edu: domo set sender 
to owner-deleuze-guattari-AT-localhost using -f
>Received: from mailer2.lut.ac.uk (root-AT-mailer2.lut.ac.uk 
[158.125.1.206]) by lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP 
id QAA70562 for <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; Tue, 12 
Jan 1999 16:29:08 -0500
>Received: from [158.125.1.205] (helo=pophost1.lboro.ac.uk)
>	by mailer2.lut.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1)
>	for deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>	id 100BN1-000198-00; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:29:03 +0000
>Received: from (pc-ssmg.lut.ac.uk) [158.125.206.39]
>	by pophost1.lboro.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1)
>	id 100BLX-0002wh-00; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:27:35 +0000
>X-Sender: ssamd2-AT-staff-mailin.lboro.ac.uk
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>From: amd <A.M.Dib-AT-lboro.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Event, Habitus and Jon
>Message-Id: <E100BLX-0002wh-00-AT-pophost1.lboro.ac.uk>
>Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:27:35 +0000
>Sender: owner-deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>
>
> 12/23/98 -0500, Jon wrote:
>>I've always been interested in overlappings between Deleuze and 
>>Bourdieu.  
>
>After a short absence, and due to some continuous interest in the 
discussion
>regarding Deleuze and Bourdieu, I shall try to specify more than what I 
have
>previously stipulated about the differences.  However, I shall not do 
it in
>this email. It is too late for me after a long day. What is important 
Jon is
>to initiate you yourself pointing out where are the insterstices of 
these
>overlappings. Otherwise, I consider that the previous email to Paul 
Kala (in
>short:) about the difference between Deleuze and Bourdieu was not read
>carefully as (perhaps) your concern for the overlappings was stronger. 
Your
>expression is too general to provide with a motivation to respond more 
in
>details about the object of concern.  
>
>
>>But I'd like to ask, in this context, what is meant by Deleuze' notion 
of 
>>structure?
>
>I guess the notion of structure was discussed in various emails. 
Worthwhile
>to go back to the list archive or at least to return to LS and DR and
>Deleuze's article about structure in Stivale's book The Two fold 
Thought of
>Deleuze and Guattari. I know you are familiar with them. To respond to 
your
>question you need to specify more? 
>I can list other articles specifically dealing with the issue of 
structure.
>But for the time being this is enough:) 
>>
>>I'd have thought that Deleuze's concept of image of thought is very 
>>similar to Bourdieu's analysis of doxa, and that habitus is indeed a 
>>description of social mechanisms as they function in immanence.
>
>Well I cannot respond now. But what I will point out, the image of 
thought
>is not Bourdieu's analysis of doxa though it might include it. The 
image of
>thought is a concept that has various types of modalities. When it 
becomes
>'dominant', the modality might turn out to be doxa as Bourdieu 
articulates.
>One can say, the image of thought in one respect is doxa but in another
>respect is `meta- doxa' (that is an archaeology). "It is a system of
>coordinates , dynamics, and orientations' which defines what it means 
to
>think at a certain time.Deleuze's negotatiation, p 148). And in another
>place, i guess in Logic and sense, the image of thought is measured by
>height, depth and surface. 
>
>Bourdieu's attitude towards doxa has to be sociologised, that is, 
contesting
>the acceptance of the phenomenological daily lifeworld. The first 
modality
>of image of thought is displaced through the ungrounding the conditions 
of
>facticity (common sense). At the first reading, Bourdieu has a position 
of
>displacing the first modality of image of thought with another image, 
what
>deleuze calls it, the good sense. (Watch it... Bourdieu has more 
complex
>position than that!!:). This is not enough for Deleuze. There has to be 
a
>thought without an image (which is an image of an empty image), the non
>sense. This 'thought without an image' is not existing in Bourdieu 
though he
>ironically always seems to bounce on it. The study of these various
>modalities of images of thought is called the Deleuzeguattarian 
'Noology'.     
>
>
>amd
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com