RE: AUT: Statist Thinking

[chris wright <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And Chris I do not mean to be obstructive or obtuse.  I apologize if I
seem so.

I can't seem to get through more than a few paragraphs of Hegel at a
time, and I usually need to read it with someone who I can bounce ideas
off of.  It is hard.  I hope to have the same opportunity with Deleuze,
and happily my reading buddy (who unhappily is now separated from me by
800 miles) is also interested in Diff & Rep.  In Baltimore, I have no
one to read these things with, at least not yet.

I will try to say something more about Hegel and Marx and negativity if
I can write something I find helpful.  Otherwise, better to read Hegel
than me.

Cheers,
Chris

On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 04:37, Chris Hurl wrote:
>
> Chris W:  >ps - Hegel does write about spontaneity and his notion of spontaneity is not causal.
>
> I am aware of Hegel's critique of causality.
>
> ("if we stick to causality as such, we have it not in it's truth.  Such a causality is merely finite, and its finitude lies in retain the distinction between cause and effect unassimilated".)
>
> To some extent my (mis)understandings of Hegel and D&G run parallel to one another, hence my difficulty in attempting to establish any sort of dialogue between the two.  When I was getting into D&G's stuff, I was not trying to suggest that Hegel's analysis could be reduced to causal chains.  Rather, I was trying to get at D&G's analysis of the 'event' as somehow irreducible and external.
>
> As I mentioned in the beginning, my current encounter with Hegel is mediated through CLR James' "Notes" where he focuses on Being, Essence, and Notion in Hegel's Logic.  While I find James to be quite lucid and refreshing in his translation of Hegel, he certainly leaves out some stuff.  Now, I also understand that Hegel's thinking cannot be simply reduced to negative vs. positive.  I have come to understand that there is generally a third term.  James does not spend much time on 'sublation' and my recent encounters with this idea have been limited.  Nevertheless, in exploring the relationship between Hegel and Marx, I was attempting to argue that Marx adopts a more 'positive' approach in his analysis insofar as he largely grounds his analysis in existing social struggles.
>
> I have recently began attempting to compile my fragmented knowledge of Hegel and D&G.  In reading such dense theoretical texts, I find myself forgetful.  Just as I think I understand them, I realize there's a whole other layer of complexity.  Now, I find in order to engage with this stuff, just reading it is not enough.  On the contrary, I find it quite useful to talk about it.  unfortunately, I do not have the time or energy to work through a vast philosphical treatise every time I post something and I have no background in philosophy.  Until now this has prevented me from speaking about these issues, given the dense theoretical discussions that take place on this listserv.  However, I do find this discussion to be quite useful in informing my engagement with these texts.
>
> --chris
>
>
>
> >From: chris wright <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> >Reply-To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >To: aut-op-sy <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> >Subject: RE: AUT: Statist Thinking
>
> >Date: 10 Nov 2004 23:59:57 -0500
>
> >
>
> >Chris H:
>
> >Now the concept of Negativity in Hegelian thinking, I have always found
>
> >deeply problematic.  While I try to reconcile my empathy with a critical
>
> >Hegelian analysis (a la Marx and Debord) with D&G's analysis, I always
>
> >find that Negativity is the sticking point.  But to what extent is a
>
> >critical Hegelian standpoint grounded in the Negative?
>
> >
>
> >I am critical of Debord, to the extent that his analysis of the
>
> >spectacle does not seem to pay any attention to positive struggles and
>
> >consequently risks imploding in the myopic viewpoint of the spectacle.
>
> >Likewise, it seems at times that Marx falls into the myopic viewpoint of
>
> >Capital.
>
> >
>
> >And yet I think one of the virtues of Marx's stuff is that he moves
>
> >towards a more positive position (contra Hegel).  Class struggle becomes
>
> >a positive force, pushing Capital to expel the working class in the
>
> >production process to the greatest extent possible through the
>
> >introduction of machinery, etc.  Likewise, the situationist's stuff
>
> >cannot be restricted to simply the spectacle, but rather they push
>
> >through all sorts of positive measures (workers council's, etc).  It
>
> >seems clear that capital will not simply generate irs own opposition.
>
> >This is fundamentally a backwards analysis.  Rather, capital itself
>
> >seems to be a sort of black hole generated by the positive activity of
>
> >workers.
>
> >
>
> >Chris W:
>
> >First, what do you think is meant by 'negativity'/negation?  Have you
>
> >worked through Hegel's notion of 'sublation' (the better translation of
>
> >aufhebung)?
>
> >
>
> >What I think is missing here is the relation of positive and negative,
>
> >in all dialectical work (and this is why Debord and Marx have such a
>
> >deep appreciation of Hegel.)  Hegel understood this as well, btw and it
>
> >is distinctly not where he differs from Marx and Debord.
>
> >
>
> >However, I see not point in going into it here since I do not want to
>
> >lecture on negation when it is better to read Hegel and Marx to see what
>
> >is meant.  This is the source of many debates and much antipathy (see
>
> >the whole tradition of post-Heidegger French philosophy which seems to
>
> >hate nothing so much as negation/negativity in the dialectical sense.
>
> >One wonders if it is not that more than anything that upsets them about
>
> >dialectic.)
>
> >
>
> >Chris H:
>
> >So then by beginning in struggle can the critical Hegelian perspective
>
> >be reconciled with D&G?  I have doubts.  Yet it seems like both projects
>
> >are opening onto a similar sense of praxis.
>
> >
>
> >Chris W:
>
> >The object is not reconciliation, in dialectic, at least not in the
>
> >sense I think you are using.  'Does Deleuze's work have a place in the
>
> >movement of Spirit coming to know itself?' would be somewhat more
>
> >accurate, though that has little importance here.  For all of my
>
> >interest in Hegel, one cannot 'apply' Hegel or Hegelianize Marx.  Both
>
> >notions go against what Hegel and Marx were doing.  Dialectic is not
>
> >'applied'.  Negation is not mere destruction or opposition.  Of course I
>
> >say that having played around a bit with Hegel's notion of Understanding
>
> >in relation to the elections, but that was more shorthand for my own
>
> >purposes.  To write that out for analysis would require more work and a
>
> >different exposition.
>
> >
>
> >Cheers,
>
> >Chris
>
> >
>
> >ps - Hegel does write about spontaneity and his notion of spontaneity is
>
> >not causal.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed ---
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> text/html (html body -- converted)
> ---
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---