tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8908570695727394609.post4956036309486664600..comments2023-11-05T10:18:00.054+00:00Comments on The Immeasurable Excess: Badiou and Deleuze- brothers in relational arms?Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166682331860761879noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8908570695727394609.post-29374286933331416582008-07-13T19:32:00.000+01:002008-07-13T19:32:00.000+01:00Yes I have that on my to-read list! Genosko mentio...Yes I have that on my to-read list! Genosko mentions it as it goes on at length about Deleuze but apparently omits to mention the interrelation b/w Guattari and Sartre. Interesting. Is this in Volume 2 of Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers: Deleuze? I really need to get hold of that even just to photocopy the three relevant articles...Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166682331860761879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8908570695727394609.post-77255870169267348772008-07-13T15:01:00.000+01:002008-07-13T15:01:00.000+01:00Hey man, I know you probably don't want to get too...Hey man, I know you probably don't want to get too far into this Sartre/Deleuze problem seeing as it doesn't really concern your project but I came across this article in Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers: Deleuze the other day: Boundas, C. "Foreclosure of the Other: From Sartre to Deleuze". Had a brief read of it and though it seems to deal with S's earlier stuff (CDR isn't mentioned at all) it might possibly be worth a look through...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8908570695727394609.post-39479898656446899332008-07-05T14:33:00.000+01:002008-07-05T14:33:00.000+01:00Later Deleuze does seem to focus on the idea of no...Later Deleuze does seem to focus on the idea of non-communication more generally, in interviews and What is Philosophy too... So am I correct in thinking that he switches from a relation between elements being defined initially by similarity shifts in the later work to the opposite position (relation determined by difference)? And what does this mean- surely they are different ways of expressing the same issue difference/commonality being two sides of the same measurement. There is the added confusion of the whole self-relationality issue (which Deleuze codes as difference-in-itself and Badiou as existential intensity). For Deleuze this is difference, for Badiou (in CT terms, within the domain of appearing) it is degree of self-identity. Though they look at the issue from opposing angles, both are measures of the same quality of self-relationality. And I believe what they share is that secondary relationality (between elements) is determined always by the primary degree of self-relation (either as difference-in-itself or self-identity). <BR/><BR/>Diarmuid, what books would you recommend me to read to fill in the Deleuzean side of this argument? (And which sections of D&R?) Any help would be really appreciated!Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166682331860761879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8908570695727394609.post-66351622658503727022008-07-04T17:24:00.000+01:002008-07-04T17:24:00.000+01:00I think you might definitely be on to something he...I think you might definitely be on to something here. In a bit of a rush so can't write all that I would like here but there is something in this relation of non-relation that I'd love to talk to you about at some point. Agamben's comment that Dz's philosophy takes as its foundational principle originary non-communication or non-relation between bodies doesn't seem so risible to me these days. I mean, it is slightly reductive because I think in his earlier work Dz can be more rightly called a Spinozist, specifically in relation to his words on the common notion as the representation of the commonality between bodies in relation (which at times approaches some kind of banal derivative of a liberal pathos: "if only we could just understand what we have in common!" ) but in his later work (especially with Guattari) he seems to be pulling towards determining an originary and insurmountable gulf between the two terms in relation: the only thing bringing them together being, as we've said, their difference. I think this tends to confuse people (namely: me!): there really does seem to be an evolution of his thought, but the terms are the same, their meaning modified.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, this is very interesting. I'll be back on Sunday. Keep it up man. I'm loving your stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com