it appears as though most agree that ideology is not transcendent but
rather ecological or a set of practices. This i can agree with without
a problem. So if you change the meaing of the word 'ideology,' as Deleuze
changed the meaning of the word 'transcendental' prior to his work with
Guattari, then ideology could be used when discussing ideas or thoughts.
However, i would prefer to not use it because it always rings of the
nature/culture, mind/matter distinctions in my head. If you think this is
radical, then you should read Deleuze on the non-distinction between
organic and inorganic matter. There are numerous places: the last couple
of pages of FOUCAULT, plateau 11 of ATP, ch. 1 of THE FOLD, and the
conclusion to WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?, from which i have posted a passage.
>Organic matter is not, however, different from inorganci matter... Whether
>organic or inorganic matter is all one; but active forces are not the only
>ones exerted upon it. THE FOLD, P. 7
here Deleuze is discussing Leibniz, but this is compossibel with his own
writings in ATP and WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?, plus the stuff on BwO's and the
death instinct in DIFFERENCE & REPETITION and THE LOGIC OF SENSE.
Deleuze's twist on Kantian Ideas is rather Humean. Deleuze wrote a book
on Hume in '53 that looks forward to the unconscious Ideas of D&R.
Consider Hume's positions on Ideas, causes, habits, and knowledge in
general and then consider Kant's. Who do you think Deleuze is closer to?
Deleuze's views on subjectivity and religion are closer to Hume than Kant
too. Deleuze is a post-kantian, but Kant was responding in large part
to Hume. Of course, Deleuze is Nietzschean, Spinozist, Leibnizian, and
Bergsonian as well, but to overlook Deleuze's relation to Hume in favor
of Kant, is, I think, a bit misleading.
But back to ideology. Does anyone else think D&G's rejection of ideology
AND metaphor is a result of their ontology, as worked out by Deleuze
in D&R and TLS? I can see no other reason. But i'm sure thre could be others.
Oh, one more thing on the 'transcendental.' i agree with Nathan that in
D&R and TLS Deleuze uses this term to refer to something beyond experience.
Perhaps this lead to some misunderstanding and Deleuze stopped using
'transcendental' because it gave the wrong impression (like i think he
feels ideology does). The development of the concept of the fold is very
important here, i think. Now, rather than refer to a beyond, Deleuze
uses the fold to speak of an unlimited finity. Outside but nonetheless
real. His concepts of actual and virtual are important and belong here
in the folds of unlimited finity too. I think it is this concpt that enables
D&G to now oppose trancendence to the folds of an unlimited plane of
immanence. Just some thoughts.
chris
------------------