Thanks for responding, I'm going to bounce off of a part of your explanation.
Malgosia wrote: "We grow up in a certain intellectual atmosphere, and this plays a role in what we think about and how we think about it. Certain aspects
of this atmosphere are created via the instututions through which the culture
propagates and maintains itself. I call these aspects 'ideology.'"
I would agree with this statement as with any that sounded right, but the point that I'd wanted to bring up was that this statement, like all subject statements
have a foundation, it represents a belief or an idea - and before getting back
into a circularity, before saying, well, that's the point, I'de be interested
in supplementing ideolgy discussions with the following: How can we use ideo-
logical theories (and theories about ideology) to understand Deleuze when
the theories presuppose a stable subject/ivity?
There is a 'conclusion' (a cause), a foundation that the above statement
was representing. The above statement is not predicated by, it is predicating
- I'de say the above statement is a manifestation, it is a symtom of the
position of ressentiment... The point is that any statement can be
deconstructed: Down the word and finally to the paradox that Derrida has been
'circling' - the negativity of language. But so what! Ultimately, when
the foundation of any ideological belief - when all statements and then
words - when it has all been deconstructed, we are left with the one thing
we would have never thought to look for, a subject doing the doing. The
point is, then what is a subject? boom, deconstructed, and now we would be
left with a philosophical system or statement founded upon an instability:
Whether its a thing that represents or my thought represented by a thing
this is still the Metaphysics of Presence - because I'm writing this, so there
must be something... (and to Hume post).
- to restate my question and start a discussion:
How can we use ideological theories and theories about ideology to understand
Deleuze when the theories presuppose a stable subject/ivity?
- as Chris quoted D, "Perception will no longer reside in the relation of
the subject and object."
David Rieder
dmr9531
------------------