+
From: dan2105@xxxxxxxxxxxx
+
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:19:07 -0400
Quoting Bekir Gur <bekir@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> As we know, Deleuze says conversation has never produced a single
> concept
> (therefore, philosophy). For him, it is absolutely useless. He
> says
> conversation or dialogue is good for dinner discussions at Mr.
> Rorty. So,
> Deleuze refutes any kind of "communicative rationality".
this may be true, and i have not read much deleuze so i don't know
what you're referring to, but in ATP deleuze & guattari cite an
essay by Kleist, "on the gradual formation of ideas in speech," as
a text about the form of exteriority of thought. in this essay,
Kleist writes that when he has trouble solving a math problem, he
turns around to his sister and starts asking her about it. she
knows almost nothing about mathematics, but in the course of their
conversations kleist says he is almost always provided with the
solution. "he [Kleist] distinguishes this from thought as a
proceeding and a process, a bizarre anti-Platonic dialogue, and
antidialogue between brother and sister where one speaks before
knowing while the other relays before having understood: this,
Kleist says, is the thought of the Gemuet, which proceeds like a
general in a war machine should, or like a body charged with
electricity, with pure intensity." p. 378. maybe deleuze is opposed
to the kind of habermasian discourse you seem to be suggesting, but
this list seems to be a place where the form of conversation can be
that of the antidialogue referred to above, "bringing something
incompreshensible into the world." so, you may be on the right
track when you think that there must be certain kinds of
conversation (your example, deleuze's collaboration with felix
guattari) that are not "useless."
-dave
