THE UNIVOCITY
OF DELEUZE
by Beth Metcalf
bmetcalf.ma.ultranet@rcn.com
1.
Widder’s Genealogies of Difference
Nathan Widder remains in Representational thought. He does not
reach Deleuze’s Univocity.
2. What is Univocity?
Spinoza’s Univocity is the key in the understanding of
Deleuze. Univocity differs from any Representational ontology of
classification according to genus and species.
Univocity overcomes all
opposition of many/one with Multiplicity (real distinction,
ontologically singular).
4. The
Immanence of Univocity
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
Ideas are the sub-representative internal relation of difference
without a concept. Ideas must not be confused with concepts.
6. Transcendental
Empiricism
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
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
Deleuze-Spinoza’s Univocity is an ethics of difference. It
is not a metaphysics of moral generality.
9. Logic of Sense
Univocity is the expressive logic of sense. It is not to be
confused with the Representational logic of signification.
10. Bergson and
Univocity
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
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
In order to understand Nietzsche’s Univocity, we must know
the active forces that appropriate it.
13. Deleuze Versus
Hegel
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
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.
We reach real difference only if we reach the virtual forces of intensity. The virtual is actualized in varieties of singularity.
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
There seems to be some ambiguity about Deleuze’s
assessment of Structuralism. How can his Univocity shed
light on this ambiguity?