From: "Widder,NE" <N.E.Widder-AT-lse.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: dialectic
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:24:53 -0000


Congratulations on the expected child.  I will have to chew on this myself
for a bit.  Are you suggesting a disjunction of some sort that relates the
mind dependent and mind independent, and this disjoining is what is
univocal?

Nathan


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Paul Bains [SMTP:P.Bains-AT-murdoch.edu.au]
> Sent:	Thursday, January 14, 1999 4:23 AM
> To:	deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject:	RE: dialectic
> 
> Nathan, for a variety of reasons it is difficult for me to say too much
> now.
> New baby due on monday (keeping the numbers up) and work commitments....
> 
> However, i should have said that relations are univocal in their being as
> known (as objective relations). _Objective_ relations (relations as known)
> are neither mind-dep nor mind-indep, altho they are capable of being
> either
> mind-dep or mind-indep in a given case. 
> The interesting development is from the ontology of relations to a
> doctrine
> of signs which is prior to any categorial schema. Any schema presupposes
> the
> action of signs. Anyway more later on that.
> 
> Here's an example::
> 
> "Two lovers travelling to meet one another at 1900hrs are involved in a
> whole network of physical and objective relations, and some of the
> physical
> relations in which they are involved are as objective, i.e. physical
> relations of which the parties are well aware. At precisely 1845
> unbeknownst
> to the young man who continues toward his appointed and agreed rendezvous,
> the young woman is struck by a meteor and instantly killed. At that
> moment,
> whatever physical relations she was involved in as such ceased, for
> physical
> relations require the existence of both terms in order to exist. The
> objective relations, of course being sustained not by the dynamics of
> physical being as such but by semiosis, are, as objective, unaffected by
> the
> dramatic change in circumstances-except in this important particular:
> those
> of the objective relations which were _also_ physical became, at 1845hrs,
> _only_ objective, though, for want of knowledge of the changed
> circumstances, the young man continued to rush on at 1850hrs just as he
> had
> been rushing at 1840hrs, so as not to keep his lover waiting." (John
> Deely,
> The Human Use of Signs, 1994).
> 
> 
> The univocity of being and non-being in cognition. 'Being, the immed.
> indeterminate, is in fact nothing.'
> 
> I came across the following yesterday and will try to use the advice:
> Start
> with a simple example or shut up.
> 
> "Finally, allow me to give you some advice about work: it is always
> worthwhile, in the analyses of concepts, to start from very simple,
> concrete
> situations, and not from philosophical antecedents _or even problems_ as
> such (the one and the multiple etc);for example for multiplicities one
> could
> start from 'what is a pack?' (different from one animal), what is an
> ossuary?................Excuse the immodesty of these remarks." (Extracted
> from: Deleuze, lettre preface to Jean-Clet Martin, *Variations*, 1993).
> 
> Interesting that Jean Wahl starts *Vers le Concret* with remarks on Hegel
> and the expression 'it's night now'. 'Should we conclude with Hegel that
> language reveals the non reality of the concrete, that the concrete is an
> intention that is destined to never be realised.?' 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>