From: "michelle phil lewis-king" <king.lewis-AT-easynet.co.uk>
Subject: dialectics: 'Can Philosophers read Deleuze?' 
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 02:35:17 -0000



Nathan,
whoo there... I don't have a problem with Derrida, or with reading in
depth.. or even with your (sorry not project) answers as such. There's so
much sneery post going on that I think you assumed I was being dismissive..
when I wrote that Deleuze takes place beyond Derrida I didn't mean any kind
of heirachy or competition between them just that  Deleuze seems to me to do
the kind of 'writing' that Derrida endlessly describes. A writing that
includes its disjunctions.. a certain kind of impossibility, that is why I
quoted Derrida saying:

"This writing (and without concern for instruction, this is the example
it  provides for us, what we are interested in here, today) folds itself
in  order to link up with classical concepts- in so far as they are
inevitable  ("I could not avoid expressing my thought in a philosophical
mode. But I  do  not address myself to philosophers" Bataille:
Methode)-in such a way  that  these concepts, through a certain twist,
apparently obey their habitual  laws; but they do so while relating
themselves, at a certain point, to  the  moment of sovereignty, to the
absolute loss of their meaning, to  expenditure
  without reserve, to what can no longer even be called negativity or
loss  of  meaning except on its philosophical side; thus, they relate
themselves  to a  nonmeaning which is beyond absolute meaning, beyond
the closure or the  horizon of absolute knowledge."
  Derrida. Writing and Difference pp267-8.

He is writing about Bataille yet I have the impression that I could  apply
it to Deleuze. 'Beyond' has a specific place here. Only philosophy (Yes as
Derrida defines it in his essay) perceives the twisted classical concepts of
Bataille ( and Deleuze?) as loss of meaning or as negative . To the
outside of philosophy these concepts do not lack meaning.
hence my question: 'Can Philosophers read Deleuze?' Because according to
this view ( and Deleuze) others can.ie when he says illiterate people have
no problem understanding  the B.W.O. I did not intend to set up 'straw men'
let alone say that you were a philosopher as such... apologies if you are.

(I actually think Derrida complements Deleuze without relating directly..I
think that in classical terms Deleuze is fabulously scandalous.. I hope
Derrida is writing a book on him. Perhaps Blanchot is a figure that haunts
them both.)


>	Please explain how such sovereign writing licenses pig-ignorance
>regarding the people you write about?  Please explain also how you get
this
>licensing out of Deleuze, who clearly could read others rigorously.
>

I'm not looking to Deleuze to licence pig-ignorance, simply raising the
point (as Klossowski and Bataille do) that specific ignorance of the
Hegelian dialectic plays a vital part in Nietzsche's force. A force
close to Deleuze no? Deleuze could not be ignorant of Hegel so in D+R he
digs up a dialetic unperverted by Hegelianism.. reading back before Hegel.

(I'm reaching for Nietzsche on forgetting but I've forgotten where it
is.)


>	Project???  I was unaware that my comments on this list constituted
>a project of any sort.  I answered the question about what is wrong
with
>dialectics, which also asked for an explanation of dialectical thought.
I
>made some points concerning something Hegel has in common with
Nietzsche.
>Care to tell me why my points are wrong and not comforting yourself by
>labelling them some project, due to be porous precisely because it
tries to
>be so grand?
>
apologies, ... the question of why it is wrong to conflate Nietzsche
with Hegel is the whole notion of commonality.. it implicitely makes of
Nietzsche a 'gregarious' 'philosopher' sharing in some 'grand'
philosophical project with ends and purposes. Nietszche refuses the
needs of reciprocity ( between slave and master, problem and solution
etc ) that define Hegel's dialectic. This logic of identity causes the knee
to jerk. Again apologies, its nice you know so much Hegel..
As I don't I was genuinely grateful for your  post, I don't know if your
points were wrong or not but did wonder why you had to bring Nietzsche into
it. You end on if not a project then an affirmation: To draw out  a
Deleuzean position regarding rhizomatic, virtual pluralism  WITH a
rigorous reading of Hegel.

(the painter Rene Magritte did something like this which is perhaps why his
paintings can be so disquieting and funny.)

I drew attention in another post to Klossowski's take on Nietzsche relation
to Hegel, where he points out  that in Nietzsche there is no need of
reciprocity.. (paraphrase) Well on the contrary by the fact of his own
idiosyncracy: the sovereignty of the incommunicable emotion.. Nietzsche
stays a stranger to  "a consciousness of oneself mediated by another
consciousness" there is a basic isolation there; an autonomy that remains
strange to ANY connection to Hegel... lets face it Nietzsche was a glorious
loony... while my limited experience of Hegel is of a crushing power
worshipping all inclusive sanity..they did both however share an admiration
for Napoleon. didn't Hegel call him 'the world spirit on horseback'? You are
indeed proposing an idiosyncratic coupling, a real Bataille. I brought up
Bataille because he truly does seem to try and reconcile Nietzsche and
Hegel.. and ends up with a a kind of impossibility. Derrida of course is
right there watching... anyway why doesn't Deleuze fuck Hegel? You're saying
its either because he was ignorant of the true Hegel or that he was closer
than us mere mortals have cottoned on, so close that he didn't want to
mention it..Deleuze and Hegel hmmmm.ha ha.

Phil.
p.s 'a Derridian view,' doesn't mean 'Derrida's view'.