From: "Widder,NE" <N.E.Widder-AT-lse.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Dialectics
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:41:35 -0000


It makes me feel a bit better to see that Beth's inability to read words
that appear on her computer screen isn't limited to my posts.


>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.

Since I have made clear that I am not trying to disprove Deleuze's
philosophy, only objecting to certain characterizations he has made of Hegel
(as I made clear in my first response to Phil's email), my position is in
fact much clser to what Paul is saying it is than your one-dimensional
reading allows.

>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 can assure you that I am absolutely not trying to bully you into silence.
I may be trying to bully you into at least not taking the license in reading
me that you have taken so often.

>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.  

Are you completely incapable of realizing what Paul has just said here??
He's made the point that Deleuze's treatment of Hegel sticks out like a sore
thumb given the care with which he reads others -- even Descartes.  Yet you
somehow miss this obvious point.

I imagine Paul will confirm this when he responds.

>
>>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.

How nice, since that means that Deleuze wouldn't object to my claim that he
is reading Hegel in a reductive manner.

>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.

Are you a friend of unleesh or something?  I tell you you are ignorant, and
you think that I'm saying everyone is ignorant who doesn't agree with me.
Even after I've explained how I am open to alternative readings of Hegel and
am only objecting to yours.  How narcissistic can you get?

>  I
>don't
>think someone who calls his opponent "ignorant" is someone who is
>looking
>for new lines of flight.

Well, it's clear that you are not looking for lines of flight.  You have
simply taken Deleuze's word as gospel, and refused to think outside it.  And
Deleuze makes clear that there can be no line of flight or thinking which
hurts no one.  Thank you for confirming that mine is a line of flight by
feeling so insulted.

>In other words, I agree with your point, but
>not
>with what I take to be Nathan's. 
>>
>>Paul
>>
>Beth
>

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