[OPE-L:7881] Re: John Holloway on time

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 31 2002 - 16:38:40 EST

>     Many thanks for your comments.
>     I haven't read Bergson, but have been aware that I ought to. I hope I
>can get around to it soon.
>     In relation to value, it does seem to me that the labour theory of value
>is above all a critique of the object's negation of the subject which
>created it. (If the recently much discussed VFT - value form theory - does
>not mean this, then surely it ought to.) This surely also means a critique
>of the notion that an object has a durable existence independent of the
>labour which creates and re-creates it (through use), a critique, therefore
>of duration. I suspect the critique of value can be extended to a critique
>of nouns in general, since nouns deny the verbs which constitute them. This
>would make communism the movement of verbs against nouns - a
>self-determining society, in other words.
>     John

Dear John,
I am wondering  whether this critique of nouns and of perduring 
things derives in any way from the process philosophy represented by 
thinkers from Heraclitus to Bergson: the sun is not a thing but a 
flaming fire, a river is not an object but an everchanging flow.  I 
have not myself read Nicholas Rescher's book on process metaphysics, 
though it was cited in the mss I was reading.
Having read Hardt and Negri's Empire, I was struck by its underlying 
process metaphysics which seems to have been derived from the 
idiosyncratic Bergsonian Gilles Deleuze.
If I can find the time, I would like to think through whether and how 
you and Hardt and Negri have worked through the tradition of process 
metaphysics in your respective ways.

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 00:00:01 EST