Notes to self, adding more subcategories to the infinite reading list. I had a nice chat with my friend Colin today. (Incidentally, I’ve known four Colins that I can think of. I’ve lost track of one, one passed away, and two I’m still in touch with. All are super smart and creative, a bit on the quirky side, and all are or were at one time very into music. Onomatology is destiny.)
My sense after talking to Colin, reductively posed, is that Deleuze and the Nouveau Spinozistes is basically a turn (back) to metaphysics. That strikes me as a fair characterization. And it can occur in a way that expresses a certain foundationalism or desire for foundations. I’m hoping to talking Colin into presenting any historical parallels that he knows of, and to speculate on
the motivations and (meta?)philosophical positions bound up with this turn. To my mind it all seems motivated by anxiety. I mean to say, not all metaphysics is motivated by anxiety. But, as Colin said in our phone conversation, one doesn’t need to do/talk metaphysics to do/talk politics. So, what’s behind/enabling the belief (implicit or explicit) that some people seem to have that we can’t do/talk politics w/out doing/talking metaphysics? Anxiety and a certain type of … umm
… category mistake? Not sure. Like most stuff here, this is a placeholder for future inquiry.
Another placeholder — plan to do some more research on the series Negri-Schmitt-Lenin, on the following: their readings of Marx, their take on ideas in relation to something objective or given and in relation to/as intervention, and the relationship with the state. In short for now, look at the relation between Negri’s periodizations and Schmitt’s nomoi, and how they think political space is conditioned within these divisions (and how their politics is bound up with their thinking of these divisions). Negri’s logic of the tendency – naming as intervention that helps bring about the tendency. Schmitt’s friend/enemy distinction and its forging. If Negri’s accounts of the changes in capital are wrong, then he is, I think, primarily a left Schmittian who speaks a sort of marxian idiom. Next step after that, the relation between the friend/enemy and the state (ie, is there some connection with either a. forging friend/enemy distinctions as such and statist politics or b. certain specific friend/enemy distinction and statist politics). Another way to pose this is, one of the questions bound up here, is the question of how much Negri’s Multitude differs (or doesn’t) from Negri’s People.