Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 22:10:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Rooney <rooney-AT-tiger.cc.oxy.edu>
Subject: RE: dialectic (can non-philosophers read?)




On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, michelle phil lewis-king wrote:

> "The greatest force is the force of a writing which in the most audacious
> transgression, continues to maintain and to acknowledge the necessity of the
> systems of prohibitions (knowledge, science, philosophy, work, history,
> etc). Writing is always traced between these two sides of the limit.
>
[...]
> 
> "For this writing must assure us of nothing, must give us no certitude, no
> result, no profit. It is absolutely adventurous, it is a chance and not a
> technique."
> Derrida W+D pp 272
>
> 
> 'Beyond' maintains the prohibitions of your system of Philosophy.

Such as what?  I'm curious to find out what I
think.


> Farther
> onwards in comparrison with Derrida because as well as writing about
> writing it is (in my view) the writing that Derrida continually indicates.
> It is 'beyond' in  the sense (direction) that it includes the unknown, in
> the sense that it is 'experimental'and can loose its direction.

Derrida loves to talk about such things -- see,
e.g., his remarks on the aleatory in essays like
"Mes Chances" and "The Time of a Thesis".

But this "beyond" still sounds like vague hype:
the sciences "include the unknown", experiment,
and lose their direction.  Advertising assures
us of nothing, with neither certitude nor result.
Are these pursuits Bataillean-Derridean-Deleuzean 
too?


> "A writing with pneumatic, electronic, or gaseous indifferent supports, and
> that appears all the more difficult and intellectual to intellectuals as it
> is acessible to the infirm, the illiterate, and the schizo's, embracing all
> that flows and counterflows, the gushings of mercy and pity knowing nothing
> of meanings and aims."A.O pp370-1
> 
> Deleuze (and Guattari!)'s 'writing' is a trace drawn between two sides of
> the limit, as they continually stress (M.P)..I really don't want to use the
> rhizome example..."writing has nothing to do with signifying. It has to do
> with surveying, mapping, even realms that are yet to come".pp5

Yes, I get your general point of comparison:
Derrida reads Bataille as indicating an extra-
textual "scream", which is prima facie akin to
Deleuze's attack on semantic or semiotic linguistic
philosophy in favor of pragmatics, true.  But
this is an exceedingly general common point.
By the same standard, you may as well enrol
H.P. Grice or John Searle as Bataillean beyonders,
too.

On more specific grounds, the differences over-
ride the superficial similarity.  For example,
the above quotes have little to do with the two 
sides Derrida is talking about (trangression and 
prohibition).  That dyad, supreme for Bataille, 
is a non-issue for d+g.  



> > However, if Deleuze is doing something like that --
> > going beyond conventional philosophy by relating
> > concepts to a non-meaning beyond absolute meaning
> > (as Derrida attributes to Bataille) -- then we would
> > expect Deleuze to make some indication of that, no?
> 
> I didn't say he was going beyond conventional Philosophy by "relating
> concepts"

But that's what Derrida was talking about.


> but that he was going (beyond)further than philosophy by an
> experimental writing whose  activity endlessly created (creates) endless
> unknown concepts. He is beyond philosophy because he existed in 'addition'
> to philosophy.. a 'Brut' (Pourparler p122)'supplement' to philosophy that
> replaced it (derrida again!).Writing as philosophy. philosophy as writing.
> Philosophy beyond Philosophy. (Le plus denue de culpabilite de "faire de la
> philosophie").

Okay.  How does this differ from philosophy?


> > But he doesn't.  One would expect, if this was part
> > of his project, it would surely be quite important
> > to him, and that he would mention it, say, in his
> > criticisms of the Hegelian dialectic (which is the
> > only place where Derrida's remark has any relevance
> > at all).  But he doesn't; Deleuze's critique of
> > Hegel is very different from Derrida's (or Bataille's).
> 
> The critique is in the activity of a thought without an image: In the
> question "what is such a thought, and how does it operate in the world?"
> 
> You fetishize what he said  and ignore what he does.

It strikes me as an improvement over stringing
together random quotes with free association,
or using the vaguest of similarities to justify
ignorance.


> I think his thought
> operates as writing in Derrida's sense (about Bataille for example) .. and
> Derrida says a lot about writing..as a dangerous supplement..   derrida
> indicates  writing is a  critique of Hegel in itself.. as an activity.. as
> production.. as movement.. as trace.. as operation.

I think it's in "Restricted to General Economy"
that Derrida says something like "Il n'y a qu'un
discours, il est significatif et Hegel est ici
incontourable".


>  There's quite a lot of evidence that Deleuze wrote!!!(understatement)

Duh.  But not in the Derrideo-Bataillean sense
you claim.


> see above. also " beyond: on the farther side of:
>                           farther onward in:
> >           and " farther:same as further, sometimes
>                   prefered when the notion of distance
>                   is more prominent
>             and " further: at or to a greater distance
>                   or degree: in addition: additional,
>                   more, other
>             so: beyond: on the other side of
> 
>     Chambers English Dictionary

And your point is...?


> So:
> 
> Deleuze Philosophy Writing on the additional side of Hegel Philosophy
> Philosophy.

Verbs Philosophy Writing on the helpful side of
English Comprehensible Coherent.


Cordially,

M.