---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 18:16:53 GMT
From: Richard Cochrane <SENRC@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Just A Note to Say Hi
Just had to append a note to my last posting: of course, there are no
exerts who can pronounce on right or wrong readings of D+G or, by
extension, on readings of anyone. But surely there's a proper context
and background from which to approach their work? I know when I
started reading them I was, like others, impressed by their writing
style, and their ability to forge connections between seemingly
incommensurable areas of knowledge. I hope I haven't lost that way of
reading them, but it's tempered by an appreciation that they're
philosophers who demand to be taken seriously, and their ideas can
only be approached in this way if one has some idea about their
history. I think it's dangerous to assume they are rhapsodic
thinkers, who throw ideas around at random and hope something
interesting springs out. There is a tradition which Deleuze, at
least, is constantly engaging with, and it's important to be aware of
it. Partly, this is because a knowledge of the thinkers D+G are
interested in is taken for granted, and their terminology is often
loaded with references to them. Without such a knowledge, their
terminology takes on other connotations. This is not necessarily a
bad thing, but I think it's useful to distinguish between the two
approaches.
--
Richard Cochrane
Dept of Philosophy, University of Wales College of Cardiff
e-mail: senrc@xxxxxxxx
------------------