THE UNIVOCITY OF DELEUZE
by Beth Metcalf
bmetcalf.ma.ultranet@rcn.com
1.
Widder’s Genealogies of Difference
(2003) Nathan Widder remains in Representational thought. He does
not reach Deleuze’s Univocity.
2. What is Univocity?
(2003) Spinoza’s Univocity is the key in the understanding
of Deleuze. Univocity differs from any Representational ontology
of classification according to genus and species.
(2005) Univocity overcomes all
opposition of many/one with Multiplicity (real distinction,
ontologically singular).
4. The
Immanence of Univocity
(2003) The immanence of Univocity shows us that Individuals are
not separate forms or Subjects. What is the life of immanence
where there are no ‘individuals’ of the kind in
Representational thinking?
5. Force Relations
(2003) Ideas are the sub-representative internal relation of
difference without a concept. Ideas must not be confused with
concepts.
6. Transcendental
Empiricism
(2003) Deleuze’s Transcendental Empiricism is not to be
confused with Representational Transcendentalism or Empiricism
which trace conditions from the possibility of the concept.
7. Expressive Univocity
(2003) Univocity is not a correspondence of an object of
perception with a conceptual form of Representation. It is the
expression of an internal understanding that precedes all
representation.
8. Ethics and
Common Notions
(2003) Deleuze-Spinoza’s Univocity is an ethics of
difference. It is not a metaphysics of moral generality.
9. Logic of Sense
(2005) Univocity is the expressive logic of sense. It is not to
be confused with the Representational logic of signification.
10. Bergson and
Univocity
(2005) I will try to make the case that Bergsonism is consistent
with Deleuze’s Univocity. So, why does Deleuze never apply
the term ‘Univocity’ to Bergson’s thought?
11. The Empty Form
of Time---Eternal Return
(2003) With Univocity, the empty form is not merely empty of
empirical content. It is also empty and without concept. It is
pure order. It is the Eternal Return, the third synthesis of
Univocity.
12. Nietzsche’s
Univocity
(2005) In order to understand Nietzsche’s Univocity, we must
know the active forces that appropriate it.
13. Deleuze Versus
Hegel
(2005) Representational philosophy (such as that of Hegel)
presents us with a choice: either you will accept difference as
negatively determined, or you will be condemned to the
undifferentiated abyss of black nothingness where there is no
difference at all. Deleuze rejects that alternative.
14. Parallelism and the Syntheses
(2005) I try to show that Deleuze bases his three syntheses on Spinoza’s parallelism. With Spinozist Univocity, disjunction becomes a real synthesis. Univocity opens all the forms. Disjunction becomes all-inclusive.
(2006) We reach real difference only if we reach the virtual forces of intensity. The virtual is actualized in varieties of singularity.
(2008) I attempt to draw Deleuze's diagram of Stoic Univocity. The diagram is not circular, but it is a paradoxical element unfolding in a Mobius strip.
17. Univocity and Structuralism
(2008) There seems to be some ambiguity about Deleuze’s
assessment of Structuralism. How can his Univocity shed
light on this ambiguity?
(2009) I compare what Deleuze calls the 'classical conception' of linguistics with his reading of Hjelmslev. I attempt to show why this is an example of Univocity.
(2009) Analogy is equivocal being said of the univocal. Univocity is the reverse. It is univocal being said of the equivocal.
20. Movement-Image and Time-Image
(2010) I compare Deleuze's movement-image (indirect representation of time) with the time-image (direct presentation of time). In the former, spatialized time is subordinate to movement. In the latter, movement becomes subordinate to a transcendental empty form of time.
(2010) I believe that, if we are to understand the machinic model of flows described by Deleuze and Guattari, it is important to understand their reading of Spinoza. Deleuze and Guattari find machinic univocity in Spinoza.