[D-G] Deleuze-Guattari Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5

[Harald Wenk]

Dear Mr. Laudenebrger,

It is in:
Merleau Ponty : "Les Philosophes célèbres", Éd. d'Art, Mazenod Paris 1956. 
p. 136.

quoted in "Spinoza et le probleme de l'expresssion" by Deleuze, page 22.
Footnote 1.


A very special question, it is related tio any further interest?
For D&G or Merleau_Ponty?


Although the "calculus" of infinitisimal differentials and integration goes 
about it,
Spinoza's letter on the infinity seems to have been very influental and high 
valued,
in spite he did not mention anywhere (The "Calculus").

"The paradoxes of the allmight" and the uptaking of the 
"Theologician/Phiosopher" Bolzano
of the Pardoxes of the infintiy for the foundation of Analysis (Theorem of 
Bolzano Weirstrass) at the end of
19th century support the view staetd by DEleuz from Merleua-Ponty.
Also the constant arguemnt of the "finite mind and the infinte god being 
"without common measure".

Indeed, modern mathematics is the almost the only heritage of that
innocent thinking of te innocent.
Even Nietzsche wanted to "forbid us this excess of thinking the infinite" 
and declares the
world as a "finite sum of energy".

I myself was often very surprie´sed to find this sentiment against the use 
of teh infinite
in matemmatics among phlsophers today.
For,in modern mathematics, and in consequnce in Physics,
almost nothing of real uinterst happens without
analysis, limit processes, infinitsimal differential equations,
intimily realted to infinit in every form.

Aristotle denies the "actual infinity", that is what the
makes the philosophical connection to theology.
The question of infinty in theology thus comes from a philosopher, namely 
Aristotle (and Plato and neoplatonism)
not from a bible cite.

So, the question of the infinite in teh 17the century was as such, 
mathematical,philosophical, ontological
and in strugggle with theological metaphysics.

A fine ontological connectioon of physics, matheamtics and metaphysics
stood behind that.


greetings H.W.
--------------------------------------------------
From: <deleuze-guattari-request at lists.driftline.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:02 PM
To: <deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org>
Subject: Deleuze-Guattari Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5

> Send Deleuze-Guattari mailing list submissions to
> deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> deleuze-guattari-request at lists.driftline.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> deleuze-guattari-owner at lists.driftline.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Deleuze-Guattari digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1.  Deleuze Leibniz and Merleau-Ponty (John Laudenberger)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 23:37:08 -0300
> From: John Laudenberger <johnnywoops at gmail.com>
> To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
> Subject: [D-G] Deleuze Leibniz and Merleau-Ponty
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTil8gACSqRUKj4Pc03dfYMTucmdmi2LkLu0oFTSt at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Does anyone on this list know to which text by Merleau-Ponty Deleuze is
> referring in his second class on Leibniz?
> Here is the link:
> http://www.webdeleuze.com/php/texte.php?cle=53&groupe=Leibniz&langue=2
>
> Here is a quote from the class, it is at about the middle:
> Leibniz does not know that. Moreover, the indefinite appears to him to be
> purely conventional or symbolic; why? There is an author who said quite 
> well
> what creates the family resemblance of philosophers of the 17th century, 
> it
> was Merleau-Ponty. He wrote a small text on so-called classical 
> philosophers
> of the seventeenth century, and he tried to characterize them in a lively
> way, and said that what is so incredible in these philosophers is an
> innocent way of thinking starting from and as a function of the infinite.
> That's what the classical century is. This is much more intelligent than 
> to
> tell us that it's an era in which philosophy is still confused with
> theology. That's stupid. One must say that if philosophy is still confused
> with theology in the 17th century, it's precisely because philosophy is 
> not
> separable at that time from an innocent way of thinking as a function of
> infinity.
>
> Thank you,
> John Laudenberger
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Info: 
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
>
> End of Deleuze-Guattari Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5
> ***********************************************