Re: Redemption from Interest

At 05:35 PM 1/17/97 GMT, Goodchild P wrote:
>
>Peter Hallward's article, 'Gilles Deleuze and the Redemption from=
 Interest',
>in the current issue of Radical Philosophy 81,
>is a significant and provocative piece that challenges nearly all=20
>contemporary readings of Deleuze.  An important read for anyone engaged in=
=20
>serious work on the interpretation of Deleuze.
>
>It focuses the entirety of Deleuze's work onto a single paradigm:=
 redemption=20
>from the given, subjective interests, so as to participate in the univocal=
=20
>Real - comparable to models of redemption given in St Paul (a misreading -=
=20
>lacks eschatological dimension of discontinuity), Spinoza (better),=20
>Sahrawardi (don't know his work).  The philosopher and artist are those=
 best=20
>able to participate in this Real as creation of the world.
>
>Would be interested to hear if anyone has comments or views on this piece.
>
>My own are as follows: the basic mechanism of redemption is certainly=20
>frequent in Deleuze, and I agree with the basic thesis.  But the univocal=
=20
>Real becomes a transcendental signifier in Hallward's reading, a point of=
=20
>schizophrenic isolation from relation, the privilege of a solitary=20
>philosopher.  In short, Hallward positions Deleuze semiotically in perfect=
=20
>Spinozist abstraction which is identical to the world.  Hallward's method=
 is=20
>to search for aspects of Deleuze that fit his approximate paradigm - and=20
>there are many.  But can Deleuzean thought be reduced to the paradigm? =
 What=20
>is it like to live in and think the Real?
>
>Hallward says that the Real is univocal, but some (ie successful=
 Deleuzeans,=20
>Spinozists) are more real than others - reintroducing hierarchy.  The State=
=20
>re-emerges in the form of Hallward's paradigm.  Note what is excluded - all=
=20
>aspects of Deleuzean thought that cannot be subsumed under this paradigm.=
=20
> If this paradigm cannot be found in Guattari (and I have looked hard),=
 then=20
>the whole dimension of Deleuze's relation with Guattari cannot be included.=
=20
> But, then, could not a nomadic relationality (consistency) be at the heart=
=20
>of the combined work - and one formed by redemption from univocity,=20
>dismantling, subtraction - redemption from redemption?
>I won't repeat myself further.  But as an alternative view of Deleuze, this=
=20
>article is certainly refreshing, if reductive.
>
>
>
Peter Hallward=92s article is certainly a provocative interpretation of
Deleuze=92s thought.  Hallward says, "Whatever the virtues of Deleuze=92s
philosophy, then, we should not mistake it for what it most emphatically is
not=97a philosophy that complicates the realm of immediate expression, that
subverts a univocal order, that disrupts a strict ontological homogeneity,
that promotes a world of complex relations between distinct, specific
individuals or others=85.Invariably, =91multiplicity=92 with Deleuze is the
predicate of a radical, self-differing singularity.  His multiple is not the
plural, but the internal consequence of univocity."  For Hallward =91Univoca=
l
Being' allows only the eternal return of a self-identical Same.  Univocal
Being has merely internal coherence which cannot accommodate incommensurable
actualizations.  These assumptions about =91Univocal Being=92 lead to a=
 dualism
between the Real (absolute, other-worldly, singular, impersonal,
asignificant) and the "Given" (relative, worldly, specific, human,
significant).  Redemption would be of the Real from its given, worldly
condition-- a "redemption from interest" and a separation from worldly
relations.  Hallward=92s understanding of =91Univocal Being=92 entails all=
 the
consequences of his interpretation.  But is this really Deleuze=92s idea of
Univocal Being?=20

The Real whole is never Given.  Therefore, the Real Plane of Immanence must
be extracted from the mediately Given through an archaology.  But that which
is extracted from the mediated must itself be mediated.  Why then does
Hallward refer to a restoration of the Real in its presentational immediacy?
Hallward says, "To become adequate to the complete impartial Real, then,
is=85to restore the continuous luminous flow in all its immediacy.  It is to
overcome interest=85" Hallward describes this redemptive restoration of the
Real as a sort of phenomenological epoche=97a suspension of interest.  But
such "immediacy" implies a transcendental consciousness of essences.  Even
though Hallward describes Deleuze=92s Real as the impersonal presentational
immediacy of singular events without consciousness to a subject,
nevertheless his presuppositions about Univocal Being lead him to see the
Real as a transcendental Spirit in the immediacy of presence to itself.
There will always be return as representation of the Same originary Real=97a=
s
static essence.=20

Hallward assumes that Univocal Being must have homogeneous, representational
distribution, and all the consequences of his phenomenological
interpretation follow from this.  However, Hallward does not address
Deleuze=92s idea of =91Univocal Being=92 as expressive affirmation through
=91nomadic distribution=92.   Deleuze=92s nomadic univocity does not have
dualistic consequences.   There is no redemption or dualistic separation of
the Real from the Actual-Given.  Rather, redemption is from rigid
arborescent actualization in favor of rhizomatic nomadic actualization.
Redemption is found in the differential eternal return of the body without
organs.  There is the genetic flow of double articulation as thought
coincides with its own nomadic constitution.  Deleuzean philosophy does not
point to a disinterested life without relation, but rather it affirms the
divergent plurality of actualizations because it does not posit static
essences. It is the redemption of, not from, interest and relation.=20

Hallward, with his sense of =91Univocal Being=92, finds the same problem=
 that
theism has traditionally encountered.  Solutions to the =91problem of evil=
=92,
under the assumption of homogeneous Univocal Being (i.e., the assumption of
the identity of origin and eschatology), have oscillated between ontological
dualism and the idea of non-being of the evil-worldly.  Phenomenology
(onto-theology=92s transcendence-in-immanence) does not solve the problem.
=91Univocal Being=92 in the Deleuze-Spinoza sense solves this problem, but=
 it
means that =91transcendence=92 and =91immanence=92 cannot be dualistically
separate=97they relate as folds and unfolds of double articulation.=20

Beth Metcalf          =20

 =20