From: "HOWARD FRIEDMAN" <hfriedman-AT-minitel.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 19:09:44 +0200 (MET DST)


>>What allows you to speak of this multiplicity of
>>voices at all unless they all have being?  Suddenly we
>>are no longer able to say that the differences
>>produced by imagination, by falsehood, by simulacra
>>are false or illusory differences, but rather being
>>comes to necessarily include them as well (hence
>>undermining in an important way the entire
>>subject/object dichotomy, as well as any sort of
>>essentialism that would treat essences as transcendent
>>models which have the only "true being").  The scope
>>of the thought of univocity is astonishing.  Where a
>>heirarchical model allows itself to select among good
>>and bad differences, relegating the latter to
>>non-being, univocity entails the affirmation of all
>>differences...  Which is why Deleuze and Guattari can
>>claim monism = pluralism.  The fact that Deleuze
>>claims that being is said *of* difference, indicates
>>that being is not a term which is higher than this
>>multiplicity, that the multiplicity is subservient to
>>it, but that being just (is) difference.

Paul,

To me, univocity is a "bad difference". That doesn't mean I claim it 
doesn't have being, but rather, as you say, "being comes to necessarily 
include (that) as well".  I agree with that.

As far as I'm aware, I'm not making any claim for essentialism or an 
hierarchical model. I do think it requires a leap of faith to claim 
"monism = pluralism", and I find it hard to believe that such a faith 
will not get transmuted into a system of master and disciple, or high 
priest and lay person. You can shout that no "term ... is higher than 
this multiplicity" til you're blue in the face. But the perception of 
what you're saying will always be the contrary: "monism > pluralism".  
(Maybe a few disciples will be able to repeat the mantra successfully. I
 wouldn't count on the rest.)

Howie

- Proceed by Paradox or End by Enantiodroma.