[D-G] conatus (addiing)
hwenk at web.de
Thu May 15 06:24:18 PDT 2008
I hope you had some nice Whitsun holidays.
Of course your recognition of the
medieval and Spinozistic content
of the "internal differance" of
in the part of the Hardt book is really brilliant.
A little warning not to get lost in
it maybe useful.
There are severe
"differences in the ontologies"
of Bergson and Spinoza.
But probably you are already aware of it.
The cited Gueroult had the imprerssion,
Bergson did not grasp the authenic historical
Spinoza, although Bergson gave several courses on him.
The cite of Gueroult in the Appendix IX
philosophical heavy loaded question
The "concious" experience of
one one's life by intuition starting from the substance.
This (concious) "life" is our conatus.
But that will be enough from Gueroult for a lot of time.
Machery wrote a whole book in french - "Hegel ou Spinoza" -
and Wim Klever an article on that theme
(Hegel and Spinoza) in dutch.
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
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)
>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,
>sometimes a comment to a comment of Deleuze's reading to.
>ANYWAY, SOME READING OF THE ORIGINAL
>SOURCES IS NEEDED TO GRASP THE "SECONDARY LITERATURE" HARDT BOOK
>Therefore the idea, to go back to something of first order,
>that is for example the concept of difference of Deleuze itself, is
>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.
>RUTH; WOULD YOU PLEAS EXPLAIN MORE?
>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.
>DIFFERENCE IN DIFFERENCE AND REPLETION (D&R) OF DELEUZE
>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
List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari