Hello.
I'm trying to think through some problems relating to D+G and philosophy
of mind. On the one hand it seems like a great move on their part to
dismantle the phenomenological 'subject' and I see the links with Hume
and his work on personal identity. I also see the links with Spinoza,
but, as Deleuze said himself somewhere, we have not yet begun to understand
Spinoza! The woory I have is that if we apply D+G to philosophy of mind
we might end up degenerating into a form of solipsism - the speaker
declaring everyone else as nothing but an assemblage of flows, a
multiplicity - while still living a cosy life tucked inside his or her
ego. This is probably a very crude thing to say! - but I hope people can
see the sorts of worries that I am having. I have not yet read D+G as
closely as I would like to - that is a forthcoming project - But am I
picking up a tension here, or just showing my lack of understanding?
I had a further thought on this matter.
Foucault, in his preface to Anti-Oedipus describes it as a book of ethics
and an introduction to the non-facsist life. I couldn't agree more. This
seems to apply to A Thousand Plateaus as well - one of the most political
books I have ever read. Could it be a mistake to apply these ethical and
political writings to matters of philosophy of mind, ontology, etc??
Is it fair to characterise them as 'purely' ethical/political?
I have my doubts - after all, one of the biggest attractions, for me at
least, of D+G is the fact that their Rhizomatic model applies to so much
- much more than everyday 'human' relations.
Do people have any comments on the function of these books?
- or are we to use them as and when they become useful - as a tool? I imagine
this would be the response of D+G but what do others think?
'Towards a Deleuzoguattarian Philosophy of Mind' - is this a viable project?
- I hope so!!!!!!!!!!
Best Wishes,
John Sellars
University of Wales, Lampeter.
ui234@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------
I'm trying to think through some problems relating to D+G and philosophy
of mind. On the one hand it seems like a great move on their part to
dismantle the phenomenological 'subject' and I see the links with Hume
and his work on personal identity. I also see the links with Spinoza,
but, as Deleuze said himself somewhere, we have not yet begun to understand
Spinoza! The woory I have is that if we apply D+G to philosophy of mind
we might end up degenerating into a form of solipsism - the speaker
declaring everyone else as nothing but an assemblage of flows, a
multiplicity - while still living a cosy life tucked inside his or her
ego. This is probably a very crude thing to say! - but I hope people can
see the sorts of worries that I am having. I have not yet read D+G as
closely as I would like to - that is a forthcoming project - But am I
picking up a tension here, or just showing my lack of understanding?
I had a further thought on this matter.
Foucault, in his preface to Anti-Oedipus describes it as a book of ethics
and an introduction to the non-facsist life. I couldn't agree more. This
seems to apply to A Thousand Plateaus as well - one of the most political
books I have ever read. Could it be a mistake to apply these ethical and
political writings to matters of philosophy of mind, ontology, etc??
Is it fair to characterise them as 'purely' ethical/political?
I have my doubts - after all, one of the biggest attractions, for me at
least, of D+G is the fact that their Rhizomatic model applies to so much
- much more than everyday 'human' relations.
Do people have any comments on the function of these books?
- or are we to use them as and when they become useful - as a tool? I imagine
this would be the response of D+G but what do others think?
'Towards a Deleuzoguattarian Philosophy of Mind' - is this a viable project?
- I hope so!!!!!!!!!!
Best Wishes,
John Sellars
University of Wales, Lampeter.
ui234@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------