From: "michelle phil lewis-king" <king.lewis-AT-easynet.co.uk>
Subject: RE: dialectics: 'Can Philosophers read Deleuze?' 
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 22:32:06 -0000


> >> 	I brought Nietzsche into it because, from the usual posts to the
> >> list, there seems to remain some weird conception of Hegel as the
> >> enemy, the
> >> one who msut be forgotten, the one who would contaminate our active
> >> becomings (heaven forbid!), etc.
> >
> >One could  say that there is a tendency to bring Nietzsche and Deleuze
> >into
> >a realm of a philosophical 'common sense' and that Hegel is the ground
> >of
> >that sense.
>
> In other words, one could set up a straw man again.
>

You seem to want to have it two ways:ie it's weird that Hegel is conceived
as an enemy because he is not.. he is but a straw man (straw territory?) and
then : know your enemy (in which case he is not a straw man but a real enemy
of thought). The implication ( beyond Nietzsches perspective on this) is
that once you get to know your enemy he is no longer an enemy. It is
knowledge which is the problem, it demands sharing the same, a
gregariousness, a question of recognition. As you say Nietszche knew
Christian morality inside out, he links what he does know of  Hegelianism
with it and as Klossowski points out understands it as heralding first of
all the "mise en commun" of victorian middle class society and then that of
the socialising force of industrialisation that then it could be argued
leads on to consumerism. I'm drawn repeatedly to this glitch, this an
absence of knowledge that  seems like a break in philosophy to me..a
fracture in  economy.. otherwise Nietzsche would just be a philosopher (I'm
not knocking philosophers).. I don't think it contradicts or competes with
what you're saying... does it?

I would like to know what you think of Deleuze's criticism of Hegel's (sorry
Hegelianisms) perversion of the dialectic (in D+F.pp164  )



> >
> >fair enough.. but then it is to expected that people will respond with
> >the
> >information that Nietzsche represents a site of resistance to the
> >perceived
> >homogeneity of Hegels thinking... his reduction of everything to
> >knowledge.
> >You haven't shown how this is not the case.
>
> Go back and read the 1/6 post again.  Did I say that Hegel covers
> everything?  No, I said what's wrong with it from the perspective of
> Deleuze, Nietzsche and Marx.  I told you how the attack on continued
> Hegelian abstraction and the positing of equality works, and how refusing
> that is the key to getting to a disjunctive synthesis.  Why am I being
> accused of reducing one to the other?

You're not. Hegel is.

 Or that I haven't outlined the site
> at which Nietzschean resistance to Hegel is most effective?

Ok. I simply felt the need to draw attention to the force of Nietzsche's
ignorance as a site of resistance. Its power may be more elusive but it
attracts me (moth) and oddly mobilises me more as fractured painter (often
caught up in an unknown 'thought without an image', in the work of 'bringing
into being that which doesn't yet exist' ect )  than 'fair discourse'
between knowledgeable philosophers.

(and no I can't justify this ignorance, or my paintings for that matter,
only that it sometimes of works for me! They kind of collapse.They have
their moments of stupidity I have to move through)
>
>
> I identify with the need Foucault outlines to know your enemy (in
> Michael's
> words).
>
 Perhaps the enemy has been abolished by the revelation of 'schizophrenia's'
possibility for thought. Perhaps not.

phil.