Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:32:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Bryant <levi_bryant-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: dialectics: 'Can Philosophers read Deleuze?' 


It seems to me that this debate surrounding Hegel is a question of
what it means to do a philosopher justice when engaging them.  Sure,
Deleuze wants to forget Hegel.  Sure, he looks for the lines of flight
in Hegel and also looks at the points where Nietzsche diverges from
Hegel as well.  But a critical appraisal of the Hegel/Deleuze debate
would consist in determining whether these arguments do Hegel justice
or not.  That is, it would be a matter of demonstrating that Hegel
cannot account for the claims Deleuze makes against the dialectic.  As
one who's tried, this is not at all as simple as it seems, nor is it
totally clear that Hegel is guilty of the sort of totalization that
his French detractors accuse him of (as Zizek has aptly attempted to
demonstrate).  If this seems like an unDeleuzian way of going about
things, I would invite people to look at Deleuze's defense of Antonio
Negri at <http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~forks/TNDeleuze.htm>
I'd pay special attention to what he has to say about
non-contradiction and clearly identifying the charge.  It seems to me
that philosophical engagement is similar to this, that this is part of
what it means to read a philosopher fairly, whether or not one is
producing a rhizome.  It's nice to float in the foam of a plurilistic
universe, but that claim becomes hollow when it prevents us from
saying anything and where we fascistically accept the claims that our
favorite thinker makes without seeing if they can back themselves up. 
At least, that's my opinion.


---michelle phil lewis-king <king.lewis-AT-easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 
> 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'.
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free -AT-yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com