xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" http://mail.architexturez.net/+/Deleuze-Guattari-L Mailing list archive for Deleuze-Guattari-L at Architexturez en-us admin-res@architexturez.net (Architexturez) Copyright (c) None Architexturez IMPRINTS 2008-05-16T11:31:08+05:30 http://mail.architexturez.net/logo.jpg http://mail.architexturez.net http://mail.architexturez.net/+/Deleuze-Guattari-L/archive/msg24298.shtml Rowan Wilson 2008-05-16T10:43:17+05:30 Where are all the Radical Thinkers? Tuesday 20th May, Queen Elizabeth Hall, London, 7:30pm Tickets: £12 Our leading thinkers discuss the history and future of radical thought at this centrepiece event in the Southbank series 'All Power to the Imagination'. After the events of 1968 there was a dramatic rise in the popularity of radical theory, but in the 21st century it seems to be on the wane - is it still useful? Has its utopianism been found lacking after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of neo-liberalism? Where is the next generation of radical thinkers? A distinguished panel of authors from Verso's acclaimed Radical Thinkers series discuss the context in which radical thought evolved in the 1960s and debate its future. PANELLISTS: Peter Dews, author of Logics of Disintegration: Poststructuralist Thought and the Claims of Critical Theory Ernesto Laclau, author of Emancipation(s) and On Populist Reason Jacqueline Rose, author of Sexuality in the Field of Vision and Last Resistance Göran Ther... http://mail.architexturez.net/+/Deleuze-Guattari-L/archive/msg24297.shtml hwenk 2008-05-16T10:34:46+05:30 Helllo Berry, Deleuze's Kant book is very short and lucid. He declares him to be an "enemy". Perhaps a reading and discussion here of that book may suffice for your purposes. As discussions here are hard to keep on the same issue for a longer time, the common reading of Deleuze's Kant book here would be the most, which realistically is to achieve here. Kant occurs in the Hardt book too, which is discussed in the moment with Bergson. It maybe helpful for the reading in the class too. Deleuze is a real good historian of philosophy. He spares a lot awful non oriented reading and thinking. Maybe it has to do with his idea of "general intellectual", who has an intellectual education with the most and best connections to other disciplines. If you only read his Books: Hume, Nietzsche, Kant, Bergson, Spinoza, Leibniz you have a lot to do and you are have a education in philosophy on a very high level At the moment the discussion on the Hardt book is going on, which treats the books named there. As you see by your pro... http://mail.architexturez.net/+/Deleuze-Guattari-L/archive/msg24296.shtml hwenk 2008-05-16T10:34:45+05:30 Hello Filip, I hope you had some nice Whitsun holidays. Of course your recognition of the medieval and Spinozistic content of the "internal differance" of Bergson in the part of the Hardt book is really brilliant. A little warning not to get lost in it maybe useful. There are severe "differences in the ontologies" of Bergson and Spinoza. But probably you are already aware of it. The cited Gueroult had the imprerssion, Bergson did not grasp the authenic historical Spinoza, although Bergson gave several courses on him. The cite of Gueroult in the Appendix IX treats the philosophical heavy loaded question of "vitlalism". The "concious" experience of one one's life by intuition starting from the substance. This (concious) "life" is our conatus. But that will be enough from Gueroult for a lot of time. Greetings Harald Wenk PS: Machery wrote a whole book in french - "Hegel ou Spinoza" - and Wim Klever an article on that theme (Hegel and Spinoza) in dutch. -----Original Message----- From: deleuze-guattari-bounces@xx... http://mail.architexturez.net/+/Deleuze-Guattari-L/archive/msg24295.shtml hwenk 2008-05-11T17:21:29+05:30 Hello Filip, As far as I see Filip, your interpreation is right, the internal differnce and effective cause is nothing else than the mode constituting immanent cause called the conatus by Spinoza of the modus from the causa sui of Spinoza's substance. As this "immanent" substantial cause "sustains" the differnce, that what makes the differnce to stay in duration or existence is what it got from the subsatnce or being and - ce ca. This afffirmates 1) and 2) to 3) The going over from an external efficent cause to the inner difference of Bergson or the immanent cause of Spinoza is thus the way to "ontologize" causality. The need and advantage for that lie in the body-mind charcter of cause. This interpreation is also testified by Gueroults Appendix IX in Spinoza tome I on "the letter on the infinity", page 504 especially footnote 17, with reference to Bergson. What you say is in section 1.1 page 4 in my copy of Hardt's book. You must know, that Spinoza a left only the efficent casue as immanent casue, with fier... http://mail.architexturez.net/+/Deleuze-Guattari-L/archive/msg24294.shtml filip 2008-05-06T09:19:26+05:30 hello harald, and every one else. a small question, since Bergson defines difference as internal difference, it looks to me like he is grounding being with a "power" to express itself, with the power to be ? (maybe a bit dualistic formulated) 1)is this a correct interpretation 2)if this is true: it looks a lot like spinoza conatus 3)can you actually say that internal difference is actually effecient causality ? it looks like that, but can you substitute these terms by one and another ? or is there a slight /difference :-) /4)if difference grounds the movement of being, i suppose it grounds being. I don't think there is a raw material which needs some kind of animating principle that would be called difference ? difference grounds being, and all that being is: expressing itself. 5)These are some question i have from reading the first pages of michael hardts book, i looks like i'm grasping bergson on a very spinozian way. am i this wrong or are they really that close when it comes to conatus and difference see... http://mail.architexturez.net/+/Deleuze-Guattari-L/archive/msg24293.shtml hwenk 2008-05-01T11:30:17+05:30 Hello ruth and filip, I would prefer, as I think, filip original intention was, to stick to the download available Hardt book for a common reading. Here the little difficulty is, the Hardts book is often third or second order, that is commenting Deleuze's reading of Bergson, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Duns Sotus sometimes a comment to a comment of Deleuze's reading to. ANYWAY, SOME READING OF THE ORIGINAL SOURCES IS NEEDED TO GRASP THE "SECONDARY LITERATURE" HARDT BOOK Therefore the idea, to go back to something of first order, that is for example the concept of difference of Deleuze itself, is helpful. My proposal, to have a little impression about original the Spinoza or the academic discussions on Deleuze's Spinoza interpretation, the neurology, which is badly needed as background maybe also helpful. The hint to Vedanta and India has been thought as a connection to an old tradition with the same body-mind-problem solution and the same "enlightening" ambition of philosophy or ethics. The intention to make some con... http://mail.architexturez.net/+/Deleuze-Guattari-L/archive/msg24292.shtml hwenk 2008-04-28T12:18:32+05:30 Hello Filip, Thank you too, Filip. I will read it, maybe I have done it already. You are obviously concerned with Bergsons time of Deleuze, which is at the start of the book of Hardt too. You may, if you like, read the article of DeDjin later or not, if you like. To the Vedanta case I like to add, that Hegel characterizes Spinoza as "oriental" - this included India. "Psychisme" means the feature of every being, including minerals, to have a kind of "soul". This is in general the "killing argument" against Spinoza as too speculative. But the other way round it is the possibility to build up "complex" souls out of molecules and to understand feeling and thinking connected to physiological processes. Of course the chemical or mechanical amalgation of memory in Bergson too. But you know this probably all already. greetings Harald Wenk -----Original Message----- From: deleuze-guattari-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of filip Sent: Montag, 28. April 2008 04... http://mail.architexturez.net/+/Deleuze-Guattari-L/archive/msg24291.shtml filip 2008-04-27T21:54:04+05:30 thank you Harald, i didn't check that. i will try to find an english version for all the other readers. the article i was refering to can be seen (at least a summary) on line http://faculty.vassar.edu/giborrad/new_page_8.htm greetings hwenk schreef: _______________________________________________ List address: deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org Archives: www.driftline.org http://mail.architexturez.net/+/Deleuze-Guattari-L/archive/msg24290.shtml filip 2008-04-27T21:50:47+05:30 hello ruth, thanks a lot for the information. it makes sense; still i'm looking for a definition that explains what difference is, to somebody who doesn't know deleuze. that is a tricky one :-). i have found a website (http://www.dif-ferance.org/4771/58601.html) hosted by professor protevi, it is a difference website. so that could be usefull. thanx so much greetings Super Dragon schreef: _______________________________________________ List address: deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org Archives: www.driftline.org http://mail.architexturez.net/+/Deleuze-Guattari-L/archive/msg24289.shtml Andrew Hlavats 2008-04-27T16:25:12+05:30 Hello Filip, I just found a reference of of your beloved DeDjin on Deleuzes Spinoza book in Dutch: DeDjin: "Spinoza en het Expressie-Probleem" Tydschrift der Filosofie, vol. 31 (1969) p 572-582. It is pretty short and must be available in Leuven. Hope, ie may help you. greetings Harald Wenk _______________________________________________ List address: deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org Archives: www.driftline.org http://mail.architexturez.net/+/Deleuze-Guattari-L/archive/msg24288.shtml Jeremy Dunham 2008-04-27T12:11:48+05:30 Hello, I too would be interested in joining in with the reading of these works Jeremy _______________________________________________ List address: deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org Archives: www.driftline.org http://mail.architexturez.net/+/Deleuze-Guattari-L/archive/msg24287.shtml hwenk 2008-04-27T11:27:30+05:30 From: filip <fildh@xxxxxxx> To: deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [D-G] michael hardt Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:07:25 +0200 Great, well i'm on it, i'm reading it, and i have found some other stuff that could be usefull. here is an article, that discuss the first part of chapter one: it is about the early writings of deleuze: La conception de la différence chez Bergson (translated by Melissa McMAhon bergson's conception of difference") the temporalization of difference: reflections on deleuze's interpretation of bergson giovanna borrador (continental philophy review 34: 1-20:2001) but i would like to ask a question. Maybe it is a bit obvious, but still i wanna know. can anyone give me a good definition of difference. I know what it is, and most of the time people start explaining it by pointing out where deleuze or bergson use it. but i have never found a very good definition of it; i have looked it up in the dictionary of deleuze for example and not that instructive. or if someone can give m...