[D-G] michael hardt

hwenk hwenk at web.de
Sun May 11 15:18:06 PDT 2008

Hello Filip,

As far as I see Filip, your interpreation is right,
the internal differnce and effective cause is nothing
else than the mode constituting immanent cause called
the conatus by Spinoza  of the modus
from the causa sui of Spinoza's substance.
As this "immanent" substantial cause "sustains" the differnce,
that what makes the differnce to stay in duration or existence  is what it
got from the subsatnce or being
and - ce ca.

This afffirmates 1) and 2)

to 3) The going over from an external efficent cause to the inner difference
of Bergson or the immanent cause of Spinoza is thus the
way to "ontologize" causality.
The need and advantage for that lie in the
  body-mind charcter of  cause.

This interpreation  is also testified by Gueroults Appendix IX in Spinoza
tome I
on "the letter on the infinity", page 504
especially footnote 17, with reference to Bergson.

What you say is in section  1.1 page 4 in my copy of Hardt's book.

You must know, that Spinoza a left only the efficent casue as immanent
with fierce polemic especially against the final cause.

So, as answer to 4), the subsantial or immanent cause is the effective
This is in Spinoza's terminolgy.
The traditionl efficent cause has become what we now call "effect",
as the other causes have vanished in common use of language.
The special case of a free electron for example with its effect is thus
the effect of the coantus of the electron or its being.
This problematic is pursued further by the "emanation" chapter in Hardts
chapter 1.
Actaully the inner difference is able to get new matter to sustain in
duration, therfore it is an effect or the effective cause.

At the end of cahpter 1, the need to change over to Nietzsche-Spinoza lies
the emphasis and the art of becoming and its
social character via common notions - what he takes from Spinoza.

Maybe the hint of Hardt in the first chapter to read the
final passages of  Deleuze's Bergnsonism, great Spinoza and Nietzsche book
is very valuable.

I hope I helped you

Greetings Harald Wenk

-----Original Message-----
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of filip
Sent: Dienstag, 6. Mai 2008 16:15
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] michael hardt

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)

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list