Date: Sat, 1 Apr 95 1:21 GMT
From: WIDDER-AT-VAX.LSE.AC.UK
Subject: Re: Intersubjectivity and Postmodernism


Chris,

I don't think we're actually in disagreement here.  I understand what you're
saying.  Maybe it could be referred to as a 'vague subjectivity', or a sort
of 'non-intentional agency'.  Obviously the world did not need language to
come along for things to happen in it, for energies to flow, return, differ,
etc.  I think you'll agree, though, that these are necessarily non-conceptual
(which doesn't mean they can't be talked about).  Well, obviously you'll agree,
since we're talking about a pre-conceptual subject.

Anyway, I don't really have a problem referring to this energetic movement as
a subject, as long as one makes clear what this means.

Obviously will to power cannot be reduced to form.  It is attributed to force,
but not really as a predicate.  It is attributed to forces as both that which
determines the relations between forces (even though it doesn't 'exist' 'prior'
to forces, as a ground of force) and that which is the 'agent' aspect of 
forces in their relations to one another (which doesn't mean that forces can
be thought of individually).  Actually what it is (to be a bit cruel to 
Nietzsche) is a deus ex machina -- it's there because it has to be there if
movement is going to be explained.

Later,

Nathan


	--- from list nietzsche-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------