From: "Widder,NE" <N.E.Widder-AT-lse.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Dialectics
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:26:40 -0000


Beth,

>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.

No, you have "violently" misread most every point I have made.  I have
finally gotten sick of the sophistry you have engaged in, your blatent
refusal to answer questions put to you, your dismissal of questions when you
finally do choose to answer them, and the way in which I have pointed out
similarities which you have refused to engage, despite the fact that you
have taken issue with these similarities.  As for my "totalizing perspective
of Hegel", you could not be more wrong.  Just because I have found your
interpretation completely wrong does not mean that I am insisting on my
reading.

As far as I'm concerned, I've given a reading of Hegel's philosophy, pointed
to parts of Hegel's corpus, and explained multiple times the similarities I
have found with Deleuze, as well as the differences.  You have consistently
ignored what I have said.  If you are upset that I have scolded you, too
bad.  I explained why two posts ago, and you had nothing to say on those
points, you simply put forward your misreading again.

>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.

But, despite the many posts where I have tried to correct your
misunderstanding of my description of Hegel, you have continued to take my
description in a twisted way to maintain your own position that Deleuze
understands Hegel, that his criticisms of Hegel are correct, and that there
are no worthwhile similarities between them.  So who's being totalizing
here?

>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.

But you have done so by misunderstanding my description of Hegel -- i.e.,
all the times you have said Hegel is an atomist, while I have explained that
that is not the case.  And since you have been so selective in what you have
responded to, and since you have never once directly addressed the
similarities I have pointed out between Deleuze's virtual and Hegel's realm
of forces -- again, I have not said they are identical, I have pointed to
similarities and differneces between them -- and continued to repeat only
the difference I have already identified, I hardly think it is unreasonable
to say that you are the totalizing one who has read me in a violent way.

>Rather, D has a
>different plane of immanence.

True, but different planes of immanence may have similarities and
difference.  I have pointed out both.  You, being a totalizing non-thinker
who is processing everything through binaries, think that the differences
between Deleuze and Hegel are sufficient to overlook obvious similarities.

>  D does not violate your definition of the
>possible when he interprets H as still being in the realm of the
>possible.

Deleuze does not say Hegel is still in the realm of the possible.  You have
said that.  And you have yet to show me where Deleuze defines the possible
in the way you have been suggesting in order to say that Hegel is still in
the realm of the possible.

>It's just that you are hearing D from H's plane of immanence.

Don't violently misread me again.  I have already told you that I am not
speaking from a Hegelian perspective.  But perhaps you, who admit you don't
know Hegel yourself, think you know my perspective better than I, a clearly
interested party, do.

>
>>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.

No, I am angry with you because you have read me selectively to maintain
your position, refuse to answer my quesitons, and not address the specific
similarities I have outlined.

>  You think
>that anything outside your totalizing perspective of H is a caricature.

No, I think that your perspective is a caricature.  Since I have only
objected to your caricature, and not to the readings given by other people,
how do you come to the conclusion that I object to everything outside my
perspective?

>
>>> 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.

And I have pointed this out as the ultimate (i.e., critical) difference
between them, while also pointing out similarities.  You have continually
bypassed the similarities I have identified, saying they do not exist on the
basis of this critical difference that I identified back in the 1/6 post.
And you wonder why I have told you off.

>THAT is why it is not similar to D's virtual.

As I said before:  Like duh, I have been identifying that difference between
Deleuze and Hegel from the beginning.  How about telling me why the other
similarities I have identified are wrong?

>All the
>similarities you have listed are those which are not critical to the
>question of virtuality from D's perspective.
>

>From your perspective on Deleuze.  You totalizer!!!  You are insisting that
your reading of Deleuze is gospel.  Grow up.

>
>>	Let's go back and remind ourselves of your shifty position,
>shall
>>we? 
>
>"Shiftly" because it won't fit into your schema.

No, shifty because you started out saying one thing, then said another when
you couldn't back it up.  Shifty because you tried sophistically to
reintroduce "similarity" within Deleuze and Hegel's respective philosophies
as a way of bypassing the similarities between them I have identified.  And
shifty because you have so selectively read what I have written, and refused
to engage in the points I have made.

>
>>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.

You have violently labelled my perspective Hegelian.  I have spoken from my
perspective, and I only humbly claim to have read some Hegel.

> I don't think they appear the same way from D's perspective.

You mean your perspective on Deleuze's perspective.  Big difference from
Deleuze'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.

Yes, but I haven't tried to use the fact that there are differing planes of
immanence to dismiss the possibility of communication.  You have.  When you
can't defend yourself anymore, you have simply said "well, we just have
different perspectives and cannot speak to each other."  If this was the
case all along, I wish you hadn't bothered starting this exchange.

>
>>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?

Well, you insisted that "Deleuze DOES understand Hegel".  Who gave you the
authority to decide it was correct???

But now you say that you are going by my description of Hegel, so maybe it
is me.  But I haven't simply given you a description of Hegel, I have
pointed you to specific texts.  Odd how you have continued to defend your
position when you could have simply withdrawn, taken some time to read some
Hegel, and had an informed exchange with me.  I have been on the list for a
long time and would probably still be here by the time you had done the
reading.

>
>>	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.

More sophistry.  We have not been talking about how Deleuze applies the term
versus how Hegel does.  We have been talking about similarities and
differences between Hegel and Deleuze.  You brought up the idea that Hegel's
forces are still in the realm of what Deleuze calls the possible. Since you
now admit that Deleuze is using the ordinary definition of the term, and
since I have made a case that Hegel's forces do not fit into that category,
this response of yours is entirely off-topic.

>
>>> 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.

Again, you are not in a position to say what Deleuze's perspective is, nor
whether mine is Hegelian.  More totalizing, imperialistic non-thought on
your part.  And it doesn't seem to me that Deleuze mistreads Hegel because I
don't see things from Deleuze's perspective.  It seems to me Deleuze
misreads Hegel because I have read some Hegel and come to see the subtle
ways in which he is similar to Deleuze as well as the ways in which he is
different.

>
>>	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).

To say that Deleuze's criticisms are not based on a misreading of Hegel is
to defend them.  As for my description, every time I have tried to correct
the way you have read what I have written, you have ignored me, or tried to
shift to another terrain.  Since you have not engaged in the specific points
I have made regarding Hegel, but simply thrown out claims like that it
remains within the realm of the possible, etc., 
  
>
>>> 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 have not tried to disprove Deleuze's thinking.  Nor have I put Hegel down
as a totalizing foundation.  You have conveniently skipped over the
criticisms I have made of Hegel in order to accuse me of doing this.  More
totalizing on your part.

>
>>	I notice you skipped the long part where I explained why I
>called
>>you thoughtless and ignorant.
>
>Yes, I cut through the crap.    

No, you evaded the issue.

>
>>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. 

And, as I explained two posts ago, this is nothing more than dogmatic,
thoughtless ignorance on your part.

>
>Beth
>

Nathan
n.e.widder-AT-lse.ac.uk