Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:11:07 -0500
From: "B. Metcalf" <bmetcalf-AT-ultranet.com>
Subject: RE: Dialectics


Paul,

>
>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.  

Nathan has said that Deleuze "misreads" Hegel.  So, I have not construed
his position in the way you portray your position.  And I hope you'll
understand why I'm having trouble reading Nathan that way when he only
reacts with a tirade of name-calling.  I  feel he is only trying to bully
me into silence.  I agree with the point you raise, but I don't think
Nathan is making that point.  

>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. 

Yes.  I do think Deleuze uses Hegel as a sort of illustration of what
Deleuze criticizes as philosophy of transcendence.  

>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.

I think Deleuze himself would not object to this point.  I think he used
Hegel to illustrate what he criticized as transcendence in philosophy.
And, I think it is in the Spirit of Deleuze to find that remainder in Hegel
and turn it 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). 

I agree. 

>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.

I think he sees from more of a totalizing perspective than you do.  I don't
think someone who calls his opponent "ignorant" is someone who is looking
for new lines of flight.  In other words, I agree with your point, but not
with what I take to be Nathan's. 
>
>Paul
>
Beth