Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:08:24 +0100
From: Ruth Chandler <R.Chandler-AT-ucc.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Nietzsche
Hello Wong,
'Selective ontology' is just a textual collapse of the argument in Nietzsche
and Philosophy but I intend it as an ontology of parts. Paul Bryant ( on
the Deleuze list) is worth talking to in more detail about this but, very
briefly, Difference and Repetition talks about an asymetric synthesis of the
sensible, the exchange of qauntative and qualitative multiplicities.
Drawing on Bergson, Deleuze posits more than one form of time but all
temporal flux, the seas of becoming, make up the being of time as virtual
multiplicity with, which as N argues, is not becoming something in
particular. Singularities are haeccitties rather than particulars. The Logic
of Sense gives a closer reading of the split temporaliity of the Stoics,
Chronos and Aion..Chronos is the time of corporeal events and the actualised
series you mentioned , whereas the Aion is an incorporeal which is always
simultaneosly more and less than the multiplicities which comprise the
actualise series. DR's arguments for univocity at the extremity of excess
are an ontology but certainly not one that allows any of the parts to
contextualise the whole. Immersed in the clamour of the difference 'between
all', it is the necessity of a selection which affirms itself and, by so
doing affirms all chance in a single throw. Both forms of time are thus
operative in the parts that are actualised.
Hope that clarifies my point.
Ruth.C
>>> "W.F. Wong" <wfwongde-AT-yahoo.de> 03/28 7:09 pm >>>
Hello Ruth,
you wrote: "the dice throw both breaks the good will of the subject
predicated
on identity and introduces a selective ontology that selects against the
negative".
Did Deleuze use this term "selective ontology" in his book "Difference and
Repititon"? So much I remember that Deleuze's explaination shows a "serial"
phenomenon in which every element in the world links to another like chains
in
serial form, since every single is "particular" and can't be reduced in
general
form. Actually I just read part of the book, so I'm interested what is the
relation between this "selective ontology" with the "serial phenomenon".
Wong
Ruth Chandler schrieb:
> Hi Wong,
>
> It is not exactly humanistic but you are quite right that it is the human
> that affirms chance and necessity in a single throw.. Deleuze is committed
> to changing the nature of the 'place' and suggests, elsewhere that is only
> now the death of god has happened that it is possible to properly sate the
> problems of religion etc. the dice throw both breaks the good will of the
> subject predicated on identity and introduces a selective ontology that
> selects against the negative. Only return repeats itself, not necessarily
> the throw or thrower but it is the thrower that, at the extremity of
excess,
> raises the difference 'between all' to the power of a positive affirmation
> which splits into two.
>
> I have not read that much Foucault but Deleuze does write a very good book
> on him. It is especially good in the way that it theorises F's
> Nietzscheanism in relation to Heidegger. This might give you some useful
> background for the Derrida/Foucault debate.
>
> Ruth.C
>
> >>> "W.F. Wong" <wfwongde-AT-yahoo.de> 03/28 10:08 am >>>
> Hello,
>
> I agree that the interpretation of Deleuze on Nietzsche's "eternal return"
> is
> very interesting. I still remember in Deleuze's book "Nietzsche and
> philosophy",
> he describes the "eternal return" as throwing die: not the event (or
> historical
> event) returns but the "action of die-throwing returns", and this action
can
> only take place with or under human being, without human being this action
> won't
> happen. It relates to the act of human and also the possibility which
exists
> in
> the action of throwing die. It is not law of nature but, for me, it shows
a
> kind
> of "humanistic perspective" which binds with existence of human (if I'm
> allowed
> to say that). Then, there is question: how is the responsibility of human
> beings
> situated? or...more...
>
> About Foucault's poststructuralism and Derrida's deconstructionism (better
I
> take off the terms) - I'm interested in the argument between Foucault and
> Derrida, e.g. in the problem of "subject". But it is a big topic, and my
> reading
> of it is too limited. Maybe someone here can show me more or leading us to
> an
> interesting discussion.
>
> Wong
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free -AT-yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> --- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free -AT-yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005