[D-G] Communism definitions Physics

[Mike Lansing]

We need to be able to search the archives of the old D&G list from
1994-5 or so. Widder was a frequent poster back then. Rad univocity and
leftist politics will have to redefine the left as "movement" (as per
Deleuze's removal of political resonance traditionally attached to the
concept of the Left [mentioned in Bosteels, Badiou and Politics]).

<-----Original Message-----> 
>From: Johnatan Petterson [internet.petterson at gmail.com]
>Sent: 3/7/2019 7:26:05 PM
>To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>Subject: Re: [D-G] Communism definitions Physics
>
>hello Mike,
>
>i remember Nathan Widder for having spoken on this list, he is in the
dg
>archives right?
>
>i hope he can clarify for us why Deleuze posturized in Difference &
>Repetition
>about Duns Scott being one step further on the path of radical
univocity
>(if that does mean something to your ears?)
>
>accordingly Spinoza was one step behind Deleuze/Duns Scott.
>the argument you have rejected with Nathan seemed though quite obvious:
><<to derive the
>existence of god (.) from his essence, for this is
>to demonstrate something on the basis of itself.>>
>i see no problem. there is a universe, because there is a universe.
>i do not call "sequences" or "static order", or even "death", or
"virtual"
>i do not take into account Deleuze posture about Duns Scott.
>Nothing which Deleuze claims Duns Scott has brought forward
>in terms of intensities, and degrees of intensities, (for instance in
his
>book on expression) nothing helps
>explaining the universe as well as have been done. the idea of an
absence
>of foundation just means that
><<basis of itself>> thing, which is not requiring any false 
>attributes or
>predicates,
>unlike what anti-rhetorical jargon enjoys and uses Nathan in the two
posts
>about reason and god: those two quotations you have sent the same night
>with a vague reference to leftist politics.
>
>most kind felicitations to you and those you love!!
>
>Johnny Petterson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Le ven. 22 févr. 2019 à 00:48, Mike Lansing <badger2 at mail2world.com> a
>écrit :
>
>> Johnny wrote: 'because the word perception seems to imply that the
mind
>> suffers.'
>>
>> According to Hardt and Negri's necessary labor vs surplus labor as
>> being the pivot of the impossibility of socialism, Bernie Sanders's
>> socialism, the Impossible Trident
>>
>> Impossible Trident
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trident
>>
>> Though capitalism's rabidity and bulemia is now attempting to subsume
>> all social labor.
>>
>> 'the (Transcendental)formal being undoes the sadness of its
conatus....'
>>
>> For perception, note how the middle tine of the trident can both
appear
>> and disappear.
>>
>> 'To free individuals from the concepts imperfectly applied to them,
as
>> Ockham sought to do, requires articulating a prior disunity and
>> dispersion escaping all identity, from which the simple individual
as a
>> ground for abstraction both appears and disintegrates. It is only
>> appropriate, even if ironic, that this conclusion -- which dissolves
>> the christian god as well -- should follow from christian philosophy
>> itself.'
>> (Widder N, Genealogies of Difference, p.148)
>>
>> 'so shall we find one single and same order, that is one single
>> connection of causes....'
>>
>> On questions of necessary labor....
>>
>> 'Agan, what exists must be separated from the way it is cognized.
>> Certainly, existence as predicated of god differs from that
predicated
>> of his creatures, for he exists necessarily and they do not: "For
that
>> reason, there is no distinction in god between 'that which is' and
>> 'that in virtue of which it is,' because there is not anything
>> different from god in virtue of which god is. But in a creature there
>> is distinction, because that which a creature is and that in virtue
of
>> which a creature is are simply distinct, just as god and a creature
are
>> distinct." This does not, however, establish a real distinction
within
>> either being, as though essence were what the thing is and existence
>> were that by virtue of which it is. It is thus fallacious to derive
the
>> existence of god from huis essence of god from his essence, for this
is
>> to demonstrate something on the basis of itself. It is also
impossible
>> to establish hierarchy based on the increasing convergence of essence
>> and existence, since all beings are equal in their dependence on god
>> for existence.
>>
>> In these ways Ockham's razor limits the resources reason can rightly
>> use ro demonstrate the existence of god. Clearly Ockham's criticism
of
>> Scotus seriously distort the latter's understanding of essential
order,
>> consistently treating sequentially ordered causes as essentially
>> ordered, but they are consistent with the constraints he has
developed.
>> First, the categorical distinctions necessary for establishing such
an
>> order as static are only mental constructions. There can be no real
>> ordering among the four types of cause, for example, because the
>> supremacy given to telos rests on the logic that the whole is greater
>> than the sum of its parts, and therefore prior to them, but Ockham
>> views a whole as nothing more than an aggregate. Similarly, the
>> argument that an accidental order of causes must refer to a permanent
>> order because change takes place only in virtue of something
unchanging
>> illicitly invokes a real universal.'
>> (Widder, op cit pp. 135-6)
>>
>> "Virtue, I have quit your tyranny."
>> (Marguerite Porete, burned as a heretic, 1 Jun 1310, Place de greve,
>> Paris)
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>Info:
http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>Archives: www.driftline.org