but- isnt it strange that Deleuze is "writing" again the hegemonic narative
unlike what he sould do - showing mainly how Scotus anticipated Spinoza and
Nietzsche?
-----Original Message-----
From: William Wood [
mailto:william.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:17 PM
To: deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Scotus
In the section on difference in itself in "Difference and Repetition",
Deleuze
describes the 3 crucial stages in the univocity of Being; the first is Duns
Scotus' Opus Oxionense, "the greatest book of pure ontology" I think he
calls
it, the second is Spinoza's Ethics, the 3rd is Nietzsche's eternal
recurrence.
Deleuze characterises the three stages by saying that in Scotus univocity
remains purely formal or void of content, in Spinoza univocity is affirmed
as
substance but still retains the distinction between substance and mode and
thus does not achieve the final radicality it achieves in Nietzsche.
Univocity
goes from being formal to being material and finally to its materiality
being
determined in a way entirely uncompromised by transcendence.
So you might say there aren't Scotist elements in Spinoza, but then you'd
have
to qualify it by saying there are Spinozist anticipations in Scotus, and
that
would just be argumentative...
In message <F742uT6335DxnDzMcC600004f14@xxxxxxxxxxx>
deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> but this is not true. duns scott erigen is argumentative old guy from
middle
> ages.but your report is very adequate to the book of deleuze.
> >
> >Scotus is mentioned throughout the first two sections of Expressionism in
> >Philosophy: Spinoza. Deleuze suggests that there are Scotist aspects of
> >spinoza.
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with your online buddies with MSN Messenger
http://messenger.msn.be
>
>
