From: Melissa McMahon <melissa_mcmahon.philosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 17:20:12 +1000
I have erratic access to my account, so I might put in a few posts (a la
Adrian on the other list).
This is in response to Chris' comments Jan 10:
"now that I realise that this is not what deleuze calls 'thinking' I am
loathe to admit that he has a heideggerian tinge to him. for he appears to be
falling into some kind of 'human' or 'spiritual' realm."
Is it really _either_ the case that Deleuze's habit is thinking _or_ that he
is 'fallen' into the spiritual/human a la Heidegger? In my earlier discussion
with you I was trying to put forward the idea that while I saw 'thinking' as
allied with the synthesis of the future, rather than habit in the present,
this makes it no less 'ontological', no more 'human'. In his chapter 'the
image of thought', Deleuze specifically argues against the idea that thinking
is a 'natural' capacity, simply 'common sense' - it is the alliance of
thought with the future that makes it independent of any 'a priori' faculty
or concept, any 'predisposition' to thought that presumably would be part of
the definition of the human (nb. D suggests that Descartes' cogito is a
replacement of Aristotle's definition of man as rational animal, both fall
into the trap of presupposing thought as natural capacity of the subject...).
He also offers a passing critique of heidegger's 'ontological comprehension'
as a more embedded model of common sense.
All this by way of saying: don't despair just yet.