Comments on: The Logic of Sense Discussion – Post 1 http://evanduq.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-logic-of-sense-discussion-post-1/ As The Fellow Says: "You can't learn how to swim without getting into the pool." Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:04:51 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: naisioxerloro http://evanduq.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-logic-of-sense-discussion-post-1/#comment-579 naisioxerloro Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:01:54 +0000 http://evanduq.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-logic-of-sense-discussion-post-1/#comment-579 Hi. Good design, who make it? Hi.
Good design, who make it?

]]> By: evanduq http://evanduq.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-logic-of-sense-discussion-post-1/#comment-30 evanduq Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:39:34 +0000 http://evanduq.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-logic-of-sense-discussion-post-1/#comment-30 I'm thinking that the "Logic" part of the title (if not the entire title) comes from <em>Logic and Existence</em> by Jean Hyppolite, one of Deleuze's more immediate influences who had just passed away in 1968. <em>L&E</em>, published in 1952, had apparently broke new ground in Hegel studies in France and appeared to open up all sorts of possibilities for an escape from a kind of ultra humanistic pan-Hegelianism. The book aims to reconcile Hegel's <em>Phenomenology</em> with his <em>Logic(s).p> </em> I’m thinking that the “Logic” part of the title (if not the entire title) comes from Logic and Existence by Jean Hyppolite, one of Deleuze’s more immediate influences who had just passed away in 1968. L&E, published in 1952, had apparently broke new ground in Hegel studies in France and appeared to open up all sorts of possibilities for an escape from a kind of ultra humanistic pan-Hegelianism. The book aims to reconcile Hegel’s Phenomenology with his Logic(s).p>

]]> By: Jared http://evanduq.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-logic-of-sense-discussion-post-1/#comment-28 Jared Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:02:11 +0000 http://evanduq.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-logic-of-sense-discussion-post-1/#comment-28 Well, that really depends on how long a good reading of DR will take; less than a month? Evanduq I want to notify you that I've put up a "Deleuze Carnival" through blogcarnival.com--I figure 3 is a good enough base for a carnival, and I'm sure a few others may want to join in. If there are any posts you are working on or past posts you want to submit, you can do so through the link on my blog. -Jared Well, that really depends on how long a good reading of DR will take; less than a month?

Evanduq
I want to notify you that I’ve put up a “Deleuze Carnival” through blogcarnival.com–I figure 3 is a good enough base for a carnival, and I’m sure a few others may want to join in. If there are any posts you are working on or past posts you want to submit, you can do so through the link on my blog.
-Jared

]]> By: razorsmile http://evanduq.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-logic-of-sense-discussion-post-1/#comment-26 razorsmile Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:16:43 +0000 http://evanduq.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-logic-of-sense-discussion-post-1/#comment-26 I'd hope the reading isn't over in a month so perhaps join in when you pick up. I’d hope the reading isn’t over in a month so perhaps join in when you pick up.

]]> By: Jared http://evanduq.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-logic-of-sense-discussion-post-1/#comment-25 Jared Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:50:26 +0000 http://evanduq.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-logic-of-sense-discussion-post-1/#comment-25 Exciting! Too bad I don't start reading <i>LOS</i> until next month. What do you think of the "Logic" part of the title? It obviously couldn't be some kind of formal logic--cause that ain't Deleuze--besides, in formal logic something "makes sense" if it applies all the rules correctly. Here, though, it seems "sense" happens <i>before</i> an attempt to put together an explanation. I'm just going off my memory of Deleuze's short essay on Lewis Carroll in <i>Essays Critical and Clinical</i>. Exciting! Too bad I don’t start reading LOS until next month. What do you think of the “Logic” part of the title? It obviously couldn’t be some kind of formal logic–cause that ain’t Deleuze–besides, in formal logic something “makes sense” if it applies all the rules correctly. Here, though, it seems “sense” happens before an attempt to put together an explanation. I’m just going off my memory of Deleuze’s short essay on Lewis Carroll in Essays Critical and Clinical.

]]>