THE UNIVOCITY OF DELEUZE
by Beth Metcalf
What is Univocity?
(2003) Spinozas Univocity is the key in the understanding of Deleuze. Univocity differs from any Representational ontology of classification according to genus and species.
Univocity IS Multiplicity
(2005) Univocity overcomes all
opposition of many/one with Multiplicity (real distinction,
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?
(2003) Ideas are the sub-representative internal relation of difference without a concept. Ideas must not be confused with concepts.
(2003) Deleuzes Transcendental Empiricism is not to be confused with Representational Transcendentalism or Empiricism which trace conditions from the possibility of the concept.
(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.
Ethics and Common Notions
(2003) Deleuze-Spinozas Univocity is an ethics of difference. It is not a metaphysics of moral generality.
Logic of Sense
(2005) Univocity is the expressive logic of sense. It is not to be confused with the Representational logic of signification.
Bergson and Univocity
(2005) I will try to make the case that Bergsonism is consistent with Deleuzes Univocity. So, why does Deleuze never apply the term Univocity to Bergsons thought?
The Empty Form of
(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.
(2005) In order to understand Nietzsches Univocity, we must know the active forces that appropriate it.
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.
Parallelism and the Syntheses
(2005) I try to show that Deleuze bases his three syntheses on Spinozas parallelism. With Spinozist Univocity, disjunction becomes a real synthesis. Univocity opens all the forms. Disjunction becomes all-inclusive.
Variety and Variation
(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.
(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.
Univocity Versus Analogy
(2009) Analogy is equivocal being said of the univocal. Univocity is the reverse. It is univocal being said of the equivocal.
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.
Philosophy is Univocity
(2010) Univocity is the answer Deleuze and Guattari give to their question 'What is Philosophy?' Whenever philosophy is thought in the image of Representation, it comes into crisis which can only be settled by a relativism of opinions. Deleuze and Guattari reformulate the problem. Univocity is their answer to the crisis of Representational Phiosophy.
Univocity and Structuralism (Part 1)
(2008) There seems to be some ambiguity about Deleuzes assessment of Structuralism. How can his Univocity shed light on this ambiguity?
Univocity and Structuralism (Part 2)
(2010) In Deleuzes article How Do We Recognize Structuralism? he criticizes the old structure of structuralism and foresees the new structure of univocity. I attempt to address the confusion that results when Lacans disciples project notions of the old structure into their reading of Deleuze.
Sub-representative Domain (Part 1) Individuation
(2010) We cannot reach Deleuzes univocity unless we reach his sub-representative domain of univocality. Singular individuation is pre-individual. It is a process beneath the forms and substances of representation. The plane of representations must always remain open to its sub-representative transcendental source, not in negative opposition but in vice-diction.
Sub-representative Domain (Part 2) Deleuze-Spinoza
(2010) Deleuzes univocity must include the sub-representative domain if it is to reach real difference. I believe we can best understand this through Deleuzes Spinozism. Difference is modal, not substantial. To reach this modal difference, we must reach the sub-representative plane that Deleuze finds in Spinoza.
Sub-representative Domain (Part 3) Perspectivism
(2010) Deleuzes perspectivism is the truth of the relative, not the relativity of truth. But we can reach this perspectivism only if we reach Deleuzes sub-representative plane of univocality. I explore the example of two critics of Deleuze, Badiou and Hallward, to ask if they are reaching his perspective.
Sub-representative Domain (Part 4) Intensity
(2011) Intensity is pure difference in itself. But we cannot reach this difference if we are still thinking in terms of concepts bound by extensive relations. We must reach a sub-representative domain of intensity.
Univocity vs. Phenomenology
(2011) Consciousness is a double of something. Deleuzes reading of Foucaults univocity shows that consciousness is a statement where a prior doubling makes it flush with the real. Consciousness as a statement is said in one sense. But consciousness has real difference on different historical strata (e.g. the stratum of phenomenological intentionality or the stratum of univocity).
Genesis: Ontological and Logical
(2012) It is a serious, yet common, misunderstanding of Deleuze's univocity to assume that it describes a simple correspondence between the singularity of the individual and the generality of the logical proposition.
Hyppolite and Hegel
(2012) Hyppolite credits Hegel with the insight that philosophy must be an ontology of sense. However, Deleuze notices a problem that Hyppolites's Hegelian bias won't permit him to see --- a problem that prevents both Hyppolite and Hegel from reching an ontology of sense.
Numerical and Real Distinction
(2012) Deleuzes Spinozist univocity is offered as a solution to the problems of Representational philosophy. But it is not simple to reach the real distinction of Deleuzes sub-representative virtual. In this article, I try to make the case that Deleuzes univocity is really different from the Representational interpretations that are so prevalent. I contend that commentary on Deleuze never escapes Representational Thinking because it still confuses numerical distinction of substances for real distinction.
How Can We Avoid Relativism?
(2013) This article is in response to those who accuse Deleuze of being an "intellectual imposter" of postmodern relativism. In particular, this is in response to 'Fashionable Nonsense' by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont; and 'Postmodernism Disrobed' by Richard Dawkins.
Widders Genealogies of Difference
(2003) Nathan Widder remains in Representational thought. He does not reach Deleuzes Univocity.
Levi Bryants Difference and Givenness
(2011) Difference and Givenness, by Levi Bryant is a traditionally strucutralist reading of Deleuze. He believes that we can reach an understanding of Deleuze by way of the structural relations of structuralism. However, I see Deleuze as going beyond traditional structuralism in order to reach a more truly anti-essentialist structure.
Zizeks Organs Without Bodies
(2012) Zizeks structural relations of elements (organs without bodies) prevent him from reaching Deleuzes intensive forces of difference (bodies without organs). As long as Deleuze is read from a classical perspective, a Unifying One-ness will be the only possible way to understand him. However, once we finally reach Deleuzes plane of univocity, we can see that Deleuzes forces never approach Univeralizing Unity. Deleuze says that univocity is the only ontology of immanence, because it is not a unifying theology of transcendence.