Attempting to strike at one heart of the ideology questions, I
found the following part of Malgosia's statement (yesterday) telling:
"the notion of 'ideology' for me comes up in the context of asking where
one's ideas came from..."
- In Hume's Enquiry it is written, "If I ask why you believe any
matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and
this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you
cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last
terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses; or
must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation." (p. 30)
- Either one believes we are 'caused' by effects or that we are the cause
or our understanding of effects - free will. But these are not the
only two options! One must realize that for all the work Hume did with
effects and causes he was stuck with the above quote: how we could even
'know' what an event was. And the question, once again, which came first,
us or experiences? The answer is within the realization that there are \
no 'causes' after Hume's division of effects from causes: that,
subsequently, a cause in an effect... but this is not Deleuzian yet.
This position is still an 'effect' of a position of ressentiment, a position
that sees things as representational (or communicative). In Logic of Sense:
"...only bodies exist in space, and only the present exists in time. There
are no causes and efects among bodies. Rather, all bodies are causes -
causes in relation to each other and for each other." (L&S, p. 4) It seems
like Humean events are still 'representations of...' and so, my statement that causes are effects is, perhaps a step, but inaccurate because bodies
are finite. (Sorry for long a message, but lastly):
- doesn't the end of the Hume quote "without foundation" sound unerringly
like the anti-epistemological couch of Derrida, the resident slave moralist?
Signifiers are representative/communicative because the 'slave' sees
power or the active represented in the master. (couldn't find exact quote, but
in ACTIVE & Reactive, Nietzsche and P) ...
- please excuse length, but I hope it helps...
David Rieder
------------------
found the following part of Malgosia's statement (yesterday) telling:
"the notion of 'ideology' for me comes up in the context of asking where
one's ideas came from..."
- In Hume's Enquiry it is written, "If I ask why you believe any
matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and
this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you
cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last
terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses; or
must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation." (p. 30)
- Either one believes we are 'caused' by effects or that we are the cause
or our understanding of effects - free will. But these are not the
only two options! One must realize that for all the work Hume did with
effects and causes he was stuck with the above quote: how we could even
'know' what an event was. And the question, once again, which came first,
us or experiences? The answer is within the realization that there are \
no 'causes' after Hume's division of effects from causes: that,
subsequently, a cause in an effect... but this is not Deleuzian yet.
This position is still an 'effect' of a position of ressentiment, a position
that sees things as representational (or communicative). In Logic of Sense:
"...only bodies exist in space, and only the present exists in time. There
are no causes and efects among bodies. Rather, all bodies are causes -
causes in relation to each other and for each other." (L&S, p. 4) It seems
like Humean events are still 'representations of...' and so, my statement that causes are effects is, perhaps a step, but inaccurate because bodies
are finite. (Sorry for long a message, but lastly):
- doesn't the end of the Hume quote "without foundation" sound unerringly
like the anti-epistemological couch of Derrida, the resident slave moralist?
Signifiers are representative/communicative because the 'slave' sees
power or the active represented in the master. (couldn't find exact quote, but
in ACTIVE & Reactive, Nietzsche and P) ...
- please excuse length, but I hope it helps...
David Rieder
------------------