Re: AUT: Negri and Charleton Heston?

[Lowe Laclau <lowe.laclau@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Maybe in phantasy land, you don't have to. Sorry, Lowe, but
> this is at the very best a self-delution.  And a good example
> of how one can get oneself so lost within theory that one
> ends up denying concrete reality. In this world we are livng
> in there is no affirmation without negation (other than in a
> few sacred moments.)

Well if you want to argue a point here do it. You have not said what
necessitates "negation" a la Hegel in a non-dialectical metaphysics.
If you don't understand what a non-dialectical metaphysics is or
entails then also say so, I could perhaps explain it again. Don't try
to insult these people by implying I non-dialectical thought is
"phantasy land".

>        (I know that it was critical to Deleuze throughout his
> life to try to show this need not be so. But there is absolutely
> *nothing* to point to that he succeeded, or could succeed
> in this; however many the blind alleys travelled, and however
> heroic the effort. Even the title, Anti-Oedipus bear
> wittness to this. )
>
> Harald


Let me ask you a question: what exactly is the role of the negative in
the dialectic? Its not a difficult question, or shouldn't be if you're
arguing with me about this. Now answer another question, what role
does negativity play when Being is not divided into multiple senses
(i.e. when one's metaphysics places Being itself at the center of all
possible negative positions, i.e. difference?) It changes the very
nature of all "negations" no? Is negation originary in becomings or
Being? No. It need not be. You're arguing against something you
*think* you've understood, but instead you're only making a caricature
out of Deleuze that doesn't pertain at all to what he really did.


> P.S In the period quoted above, I left out the last part: "...for
>
>
> the multitude to be defined as "subject".
>
>     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>


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