[D-G] michael hardt

filip fildh at gmx.net
Tue May 6 07:15:07 PDT 2008

hello harald, and every one else.

a small question,

since Bergson defines difference as internal difference, it looks to 
me like he is grounding
being with a "power" to express itself, with the power to be ? (maybe 
a bit dualistic formulated)

1)is this a correct interpretation
2)if this is true: it looks a lot like spinoza conatus
3)can you actually say that internal difference is actually effecient 
causality ? it looks like that, but can you substitute these terms by 
one and another ? or is there a slight /difference :-)
/4)if difference grounds the movement of being, i suppose it grounds 
being. I don't think there is a raw material which needs some kind of 
animating principle that would be called difference ? difference 
grounds being, and all that being is: expressing itself.

5)These are some question i have from reading the first pages of 
michael hardts book, i looks like i'm grasping bergson on a very 
spinozian way. am i this wrong or are they really that close when it 
comes to conatus and difference seen as a certain power that drives 
being ?

thank you so much

ps: thanks alot harald on the heavy physcial explanation (i'm keeping 
an eye on it, although i'm not able to grasp it all)

hwenk schreef:
>Hello ruth and filip,
>I would prefer, as I think, filip original intention was,
>to stick to the download available Hardt book
>for a common reading.
>Here the little difficulty is,
>the Hardts book is often third or second order,
>that is commenting Deleuze's reading of Bergson, Spinoza, Nietzsche, 
>Duns Sotus
>sometimes a comment to a comment of Deleuze's reading to.
>Therefore the idea, to go back to something of first order,
>that is for example the concept of difference of Deleuze itself, is  helpful.
>My proposal, to have a little impression about original the Spinoza
>or the academic discussions on Deleuze's Spinoza interpretation,
>  the neurology, which
>is badly needed as background maybe  also helpful.
>The hint to Vedanta and India has been thought as a connection to an 
>old tradition with the same body-mind-problem solution
>and the same "enlightening" ambition of philosophy or ethics.
>The intention to make some concepts for another way of life, anti-oedipal,
>- not only in the way of thinking - is something D&G have brought 
>again into philosophy,
>this is excluded by most of other so deep
>philosophical rooted approaches. Most prominent Hegel.
>Now ruth, I would be very pleased if you could explain a little bit
>more your statements about Deleuze's concept of difference
>- if it "makes sense or not",
>I am really interested what you think about it.
>In "Difference and repetition" there  the paradigma for "difference" 
>is the real  lightening with its foregoing corona
>discharge, as "dark persecutor".
>(D&R p. 50)
>  Deleuze remarks it  as
>difference of second order, "The difference in itself, which relates 
>itself through itself to  the different". p 158 D&R.
>Now,  from the electrostatic point of view, there is a threshold
>of the electrical field (3*10^6 N/C), for the electrical brakthrough. Then
>Ionisation of air molecules in a "channel" starts.  Within this 
>channel is build up what is dark prosecutor,
>and gives the "corona discharge". Within the channel is negative 
>electrical field charge, low compared to the lightening.
>So, the channel build up itself and afterwards the
>lightening takes place.
>It has something to do with trees or other peaks,
>where the surface charge is high because
>of the peak geometry of the object.
>The "second" order difference: Differentiating itself
>and the before non different,
>like the lightening differentiates itself and itself from the dark
>So, a "difference" is made to something not able to differentiate itself.
>Without surpassing the charge threshold, everything stays as usual,
>the sly stays homogenous dark.
>Now, the brain is very electrochemical, within lot of ionisation to. 
>Here the ionisation takes place by the neurology of the brain cells.
>Fro, the "idea" and notion side, there is a lot
>concerning general or common notions.
>But, the physical side maybe pondered about first.
>greetings Harald Wenk

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list