From: amd <A.M.Dib-AT-lboro.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Deleuze's Transcendental Empiricism 3c?
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 16:52:54 +0100



Mark,

I am sorry for the delay in replying to your email. I am not sure if in the
coming weeks, I can maintain emailing the list. I have my own problems which
need to be sorted out as soon as possible. Ironies of life are just
overwhelming and bitter.... Paul Brian and you prompted me to delve into
transcendental empiricism. It is a splendid journey and I do intend (when I
settle a bit) to write an illustrated paper about the issue. I'll make sure
that a copy will be sent to the list to see the various critiques which can
be exposed. On the other hand, I attended 'Thinking the Event' conference
which was held in Warwick University two days ago. It was fascinating and
very useful. I want to make a review of the conference for the list, as done
previously regarding Spinoza's conference held several months ago, but then
I changed my mind prefering to wait for a while until the various papers of
the conference are sent to me. If after two weeks, I did not receive a reply
from the presenters (thanks for those who already sent me) then I shall rely
on my memory and the rest of notes taken to preview the conference. I reckon
that this a must for the members to become more active in enriching the list
with discussions, reviews, and invitations of key figures in
Deleuze-Guattari 'appropriations'.     


N.B. To Inna and Paul Bains, I got hold on Mogens Laerke's paper ' The Voice
and the name: Spinoza in the Badioudian Critique of Deleuze' which is
published in Warwick Journal of Philosophy 'PLI". This week I shall send you
each a copy of it. Sorry for the delay as Mogens seems either to have
forgotten to send me a copy or something else. best regards.. 

Before writing my excursion to transcendental empiricism, I would like to
clarify two points; 

a) Luben Karavelov emailed the list regarding my claim that 'there is a
confusion in transcendental empiricism'. It is important to mention that I
have never said this. What I said is that Patrick Hayden's 'definition' of
transcendental empiricism is embedded with confusion. 

b) Mark asked; "AMD, perhaps this excerpt might be useful in your
>research. Can you clarify whether what you call "the
>fourth distinction, transcendental empiricism" is
>distinct from this "transcendental pragmatics"
>mentioned above (remember, I am a complete novice
>with this stuff)? 

I was intending to go into detail regarding transcendental pragmatics. There
are plenty of interesting things to be said here. I shall return to this
later in my exposition. What can be said here is that.. transcendental
empiricism is distinct from transcendental pragmatics. The latter type of
transcendentalism is a sort of 'reformulation' which Otto Apel made. For
that reason, I kept it included as part of the third distinction and not a
fourth one.   

>Also, might it be that your original concern was not
>that Patrick Hayden's statement that "transcendental
>empiricism receives its name precisely because it
>seeks to understand the *actual conditions* under
>which new things (from ideas to political
>organizations) are created and produced" was
>inconsistent with Deleuze, but that it was not in
>tune with the "transcendental pragmatics" described
>by these other authors mentioned above? Thanks, Mark

Well, partly this question is answered in the above mentioned clarification.
Transcendental pragmatics is not transcendental empiricism. There are
critical differences between them in terms of grounds and projects.  

regards,

amd