[D-G] michael hardt
superdragon at addlebrain.com
Sat Apr 26 17:29:47 PDT 2008
Hi Filip, I find it useful to think of difference in terms of individuated difference and individuating difference. the domain of concepts on realy belongs to the former as individuating difference is without concept.
other ways of thinking of individuating difference is as an ordinal multiplicity that exceeds the terms of reference of cardinal multiplicities or individuated differences and organized composites, opening on to the much disputed 'body without organs' of deleuze and guattari's collaborations. Deleuze points to encounter with difference in terms of a clamour, in which individuated differences can not be discerned so it is also deindviduating difference in so far as it desubjectivises the indivuated differences of the organized composite-there are useful parallels with this and hindu mysticism(s) which aim for lived encounter with non-dual reality (advaita). in other words, it is a mistake to try and pin difference down under a rigourous definition. it is more useful to try and define the work that difference without concept does in Deleuze and Deleuze and Guattari's texts.
hope that makes sense
would love to join your reading group but don't have time right now. maybe i could dip in now and then with a queery?
Sloughing one's skin.-The snake that cannot slough its skin perishes. Likewise spirits which are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be spirits (Nietzsche: Daybreak:V:573)
--- fildh at gmx.net wrote:
From: filip <fildh at gmx.net>
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] michael hardt
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:07:25 +0200
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
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 me a url. that would be
nice. i'm really in need
of a rigorous definition.
thanx a lot
Christopher Moreno schreef:
> I am interested in reading along with you all as well. Hardt book is good
> for understanding need to also read Spinoza, Nietzsche and Bergson.
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Christian Diel <jecopo at gmx.de> wrote:
>> I would join in for the Kant book, already read it so if anyone needs
>> help with it.... I offer my services.
>> Am 26.04.2008 um 12:24 schrieb Nadeem Hameed:
>>> thans for the file, anyone interested to read togather
>>> this text and deluze's kant....
>>> --- ".+oot8am wakeup" <dr.crawboney at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> hi folks,
>>>> I have not read the book either but it looks like a
>>>> good one.
>>>> http://www.mediafire.com/?70v3po3wbg0 (thnks shards)
>>>> Amazon has some brief customer reviews, perhaps it
>>>> would be nice to read
>>>> clap clap,
>>>> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>>>> Archives: www.driftline.org
>>> Be a better friend, newshound, and
>>> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>>> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>>> Archives: www.driftline.org
>> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>> Archives: www.driftline.org
List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari