Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 10:28:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Bryant <levi_bryant-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Dialectics


Beth--

I can't speak on behalf of Nathan, but I think you misconstrue the
question when you put it in terms of disproving Deleuze through Hegel.
 In observing Deleuze's reading of other philosophers, a certain
practice of reading is involved whereby that philosopher is set in
continuous variation yielding an entirely new set of concepts.  Thus,
Nietzsche becomes a systematic philosopher under Deleuze's reading,
which is hardly something that can be seen in Nietzsche's works
themselves.  Similar things could be said about Deleuze's readings of
Bergson, Spinoza, and Leibniz.  Since Deleuze seems to apply this
"reading method" to every philosopher he comes across-- even Descartes
--Hegel represents something of a singularity in Deleuze's thought
because he reduces him to a sort of monoreading that doesn't open him
up to a multiplicity such as he does with other thinkers.  There are
some obvious reasons for this.  For starters, no one has raised the
question of "which Hegel" Deleuze is talking about. As a reminder, we
might point to Wahl and Kojeve, who's readings of Hegel dominated the
intellectual milleux of France during that time, and were leading to
restrictive conditions for thinking and writing.  In this context,
Kojeve's reading is especially important insofar as it tended to
reduce Hegel to the master/slave dialectic, which was then popularized
as a schema for reading all social phenomenon.  From this, one can
clearly see why Deleuze was so interested in reconceiving "mastery". 
In light of Deleuze's reductive reading of Hegel, along with the
intellectual role that Hegel played in France during this time, we
might say that Deleuze's reading represents the point of reactivity in
his own thought, that remainder that he refused to turn into a
multiplicity.  However, from a Deleuzian perspective, we also know
that every molar structure contains an entire network of
non-oppositional differences, repetitions, and lines of flight that
make them subject to "systematic" and productive (mis)readings that
can yield new conceptual tools.  Hegel is no different in this respect
(unless we look at him as the anomolous that defines Deleuze's pack or
multiplicity).  As I see it, the similarities that Nathan has pointed
out are precisely an attempt to maximize some of these potential or
virtual multiplicities to yield a Hegel that would no longer be a
Molar thinker of totality... It has nothing to do with disproving
Deleuze, or proving that Hegel was right; rather, it's a great example
of D&G in practice.

Paul




---"B. Metcalf" <bmetcalf-AT-ultranet.com> wrote:
>
> Nathan,
> 
> >This gets us back to a different aspect
> >of our exchange, which specifically has focussed on Deleuze's
reading of
> >Hegel.  You have staked your claims the D and H are not similar
solely on
> >D's reading, because you admit not knowing H. 
> 
> You have violently hurled insults at me for not being able to fit your
> totalizing perspective of H.  I have NEVER made any interpretation
of H,
> because I know I am not qualified to do so.  I do not argue with your
> description of H.  However, I think I do understand something about
D's
> perspective of H, and I think that D does not misread H (as you
think he
> does) based on what I know of your description of H.  Rather, D has a
> different plane of immanence.  D does not violate your definition of
the
> possible when he interprets H as still being in the realm of the
possible.
> It's just that you are hearing D from H's plane of immanence.    
> 
> >I have pointed out that this
> >is not what H is up to and that D on this point is wrong about him.
 If this
> >caricature of H is removed, you will find there are similarities. 
You have
> >refused to think outside this caricature, because for you ignorance
is
> >bliss.
> 
> You become angry with me because I will not play by your rules.  You
think
> that anything outside your totalizing perspective of H is a
caricature.
> 
> >> For D, H's is NOT that multiplicity which tolerates no dependence
on the
> >> identical in the subject or in the object.
> >> 
> >	Like duh.  I have said that all through this exchange, in fact I was
> >saying this from before this exchange began.  You are again trying
to say
> >that D and H are not similar because of other ways in which they are
> >different, and you are in no way addressing the specific
similarities I have
> >outlined.
> 
> H's is not the multiplicity which tolerates no dependence on the
identical
> in the subject or object.  I think THAT is the very criterion that D
sees
> as critical.  THAT is why it is not similar to D's virtual.  All the
> similarities you have listed are those which are not critical to the
> question of virtuality from D's perspective.
> 
> 
> >	Let's go back and remind ourselves of your shifty position, shall
> >we? 
> 
> "Shiftly" because it won't fit into your schema.
> 
> >I pointed out similarities in D's virtual and H's realm of forces.  I
> >was quite specific in how they both oppose atomism, underlie
meaning and
> >sense, give primacy to relationality, and so forth.  I have also
said from
> >long ago that H's synthesis is conjunctive (and, therefore, we can
say that
> >it is not a realm of multiplicity in the same way as Deleuze's
virtual
> >forces).  You have said that the similarities I have identified are
not
> >similarities by pointing to the difference I have already stated. 
You whole
> >argument is fallacious.
> 
> You have pointed out only how things appear from your Hegelian
perspective.
>  I don't think they appear the same way from D's perspective.
> 
> >> Therefore, D would say that H's is really a representational
repetition in
> >> the form of the *possibility* of the concept.
> >> 
> >	I don't give a shit what Deleuze would say.  That is irrelevant.
> 
> Yes.  Our whole exchange has been nothing but dueling planes of
immanence.
> 
> >You have been drawing on Deleuze's reading of Hegel, and staked
your claim
> >to it being a correct reading.  Since I have objected to parts of
it which I
> >feel are incorrect, it does no good to respond to my objections by
repeating
> >them to what Deleuze would say.
> 
> Who gets to say what THE CORRECT reading is?  You?
> 
> >	That said, this is also NOT even what Deleuze would say.  Show me
> >one place where Deleuze defines "possibility" as "representational
> >repetition".  He speaks of the realization of the possible in that
sense,
> >but not the possible itself.  Hence, here again, the way you draw
on Deleuze
> >is flawed.
> 
> D does not change the definition of the possible.  H merely applies it
> differently because he sees things from a different plane of
immanence.
> 
> >> I have never said H thought of his own position in those terms.
> >> 
> >	No, but you have stated that Deleuze understands Hegel, with nothing
> >more than Deleuze's comments as your basis, no knowledge of Hegel.  
> 
> I see nothing in D's criticisms of H which would contradict your
> description of H.  It seems to you that D "misreads" H, because you
aren't
> seeing things from D's perspective.
> 
> >	Now, again, you are trying to defend it by saying that it is just
> >Deleuze's perspective, and Hegel's self-perspective would obviously
be
> >different.  You are here just trying once again to justify your own
> >ignorance and put it on par with someone who has actually read some
Hegel.
> 
> I am not trying to defend D's criticisms of H.  Since I do not know
H, I
> would be in no position to accept D's criticisms.  All I am doing is
saying
> that D's criticisms of H (justified or not) is not based on a
misreading of
> H (at least nothing in your description of H's position is
contradicted by
> D).  
> 
> >> H & D have very different planes of immanence.  The
presuppositions of one
> >> plane cannot be used to prove the other wrong.
> >> 
> >	Typical relativist comment, of the very sort Deleuze rejects.  You
> >have the Leibniz book, see for yourself.
> 
> I repeat, The presuppositions of one plane of immanence cannot be
used to
> prove another wrong.  That is not a relativist comment.  Rather, to
think
> you can disprove D  from the point of view of H, is to believe in H
as a
> totalizing foundation.
> 
> >	I notice you skipped the long part where I explained why I called
> >you thoughtless and ignorant.
> 
> Yes, I cut through the crap.    
> 
> >Care to justify your curt dismissal of
> >similarities between Hegel and Deleuze as being too unimportant to
mention?
> 
> O.K.  If you insist.  I will point out a similarity.  As someone else
> said...Hegel and Deleuze both have one 'l' in their names. 
> 
> Beth
> 
> 

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