Thanks Chris, I'll take a careful look at that when I can. I am afraid I am
all too familiar with crude materialists, from the receiving end of power.
I know about Marx or Marxism being used by capitalist propagandists,
perhaps what is more pertinent here is how much poetry is used likewise.
From postmodernistas through to poetry slams to the cult of the trivial.
On 15 August 2012 23:05, chris Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 11/08/12 16:29, David Bircumshaw wrote:
>
>> given
>> Deleuze's supposed credentials) like contemporary bourgeois managerial
>>
>
> Capitalism will always adapt ideas to suit it's needs, even Marx gets
> drawn into this. I recently heard a research paper on accounting that used
> Marx. The imperial nature of capitalism. Beware of, and this is not an
> insulting term, crude materialist and simple empiricist observations. This
> Marx warns again, esp after his break with Aristotle, end of Cap Vol 1 Ch 1.
>
> Deleuze doesn't write for a supposed socialist future, that would be
> Utopian. He is writing for the time and takes Marx seriously when Marx says
> all philosophy is idealist. The virtual is Idea or ideal or I. It is also
> D's transcendental, which is not a priori, since virtual comes after,
> hence his importance since her was the first to develop this logic. (The
> analytic philosopher read and use him, as do quite a few scientists.)
>
> I can't understand Dominic's comments, they appear to be returning to
> Aristotle's categories, which I know he doesn't intend, maybe this is a
> consequence of DeLanda? Also, not being able to take into account
> difference. Don't trust DeLanda, Zizek or oter writers on Deleuze, they are
> doing their own thing, rather then explaining Deleuze. I would say the same
> of Badiou who is concerned with Virtual as monist.
>
> Deleuze has a cruel rigorous logic so there is little to gain by
> attempting to break it.
>
> Zekek in notorious for his misreading and his understanding desire as
> idealist marks his own idealism, which he mistakes as materialism. However
> many philosophers writing today do use Deleuze for their own writing. This
> is not unusual. Ray Brassier has a question which he thinks Deleuze slides
> over too quickly and is working on this.
>
> Deleuze uses Kant's critique in his discussion of dx (DR) which is not
> derived from x (differntial mathematics derives it proof from X ) and the
> problem and Idea in Kant. Philosophers don't solve a problem and move onto
> the next one, the problems remain with the question.
>
> I may paste a discussion of the virtual and actual, from Difference and
> Repetition, into my blog on narrative POV, after checking, but fear it is
> very heavy going.
>
> Unfortunately there is no easy way to understand Deleuze then to closely
> read the texts. Not an undertaking to take lightly, Especially Difference
> and Repition, Logic of Sense and A Thousand Plateaus.
>
> The below url is a transcipt of D's lecture on Kant... (He wrote the text
> book)
>
> http://www.webdeleuze.com/php/**texte.php?cle=66&groupe=Kant&**langue=2<http://www.webdeleuze.com/php/texte.php?cle=66&groupe=Kant&langue=2>
>
--
David Joseph Bircumshaw
**
Website and A Chide's Alphabet
http://www.staplednapkin.org.uk
The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/david.bircumshaw
twitter: http://twitter.com/bucketshave
blog: http://groggydays.blogspot.com/
Leicester Poetry Society: http://www.poetryleicester.com
|