6990077 deleuze derrida towards an almost imperceptible difference

872019 6990077 Deleuze Derrida Towards an Almost Imperceptible Difference

httpslidepdfcomreaderfull6990077-deleuze-derrida-towards-an-almost-imperceptible-difference 119

DELEUZEDERRIDA TOWARDS AN ALMOST

IMPERCEPTIBLE DIFFERENCE

by

KIR KUIKEN

University of California Irvine

ABSTRACT

This paper approaches the problem of the relation between Deleuze and Derrida byfocusing on their respective readings of Heideggerrsquos interpretation of Nietzschersquos eter-nal return It argues that the diff erence between Deleuze and Derrida cannot be mea-sured in terms of their explicit statements about Heidegger but in terms of how theyrelate their own readings of Nietzsche to Heideggerrsquos positioning of him as the lastmetaphysician The paper focuses on Deleuzersquos brief analyses of Heidegger in Di ff erence and Repetition and Derridarsquos numerous references to the eternal return throughout his

oeuvre particularly in the essay Di ff eacuterance I argue that Deleuze and Derrida articulatetwo diff erent relations to the simulacrum through the way in which they position theirown work in relation to Heideggerrsquos understanding of Nietzsche

If the simulacrum is ever going to occur its writing must be in the inter-

val between several styles And the insinuation of the woman (of ) Nietzsche

is that if there is going to be style there can only be more than one

The debt falls due At least two spurs [ eacuteperons ] The anchor is loweredrisked lost in the abyss between them

Derrida

The simulacrum is the instance which includes a diff erence within itself

such as (at least) two divergent series on which it plays all resemblance

abolished so that one can no longer point to the existence of an original

and a copy

Deleuze

[I]n the beyond across the line that is in the space on this side of and

on the other side of the line you speak the same language

Heidegger

The title of this paper ldquoTowards an Almost Imperceptible Diff erencerdquo

is taken from an essay by Jacques Derrida entitled ldquoEllipsisrdquo He writes

there concerning the link between a necessary repetition and certain clo-sure ldquoOnce the circle turns once the volume rolls itself up once the

Research in Phenomenology 35copy Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden The Netherlands 2005



book is repeated its identification with itself gathers an imperceptible

diff erence which permits us efficaciously rigorously that is discreetly

to exit from closurerdquo1 Only a few lines down from this passage that

opens the thought or the possibility of an exit Derrida invokes thefigure of the eternal returnmdasha kind of lsquopure repetitionrsquo that opens an

interval between the identical and the same This is a question that

itself is a repetition having taken the form of Heideggerrsquos lsquoconversa-

tionrsquo with Hegel2 There this distinction (between the Identical and

the Same) is what prepares the way for an attempt to think the onto-

logical diff erence that the Identical lsquoforgetsrsquo As Heidegger insists in

the section titled the onto-theo-logical constitution of metaphysics the matter

(Sache ) of thinking (in relation to Hegel) is the lsquoSamersquo which attempts

to think ldquothe diff erence as diff erencerdquo3 That is it attempts to think

diff erence without its having been reduced to (and forgotten by) an

Identity (absolute thought) that determines it It is in and through a

repetition of this distinction in Derrida and Deleuze that this paper

will attempt to pose the question of the relation or nonrelation of thetwo thinkers of the title This paper might as well have been titled

ldquoTowards an Almost Imperceptible Diff erenceor a Nearly Total

A ffinityrdquo4 citing again Derrida this time in the only text that directly

addresses the other5 and that marks a relation of proximity to the other

around the question of an ldquoirreducible diff erence in opposition to

dialectical oppositionrdquo6 Who would be able to judge such a diff erence

or relation a charting of two diff erent yet proximate pathways to thelsquoexitrsquo For the question of thinking an lsquoalmost imperceptible diff erencersquo

necessarily entails the question of territoriality that is the question of

the space or site in which an encounter between Derrida and Deleuze

could be staged without the mutual eff acement of the other in and

through a supposedly neutral terrain The question amounts to the prob-

lem of how to measure a diff erence that is still a proximitymdashthe

diff erence between the identical and the same7 or even between two

diff erences without passing through an already determined identity or

territory that would be able to measure the diff erence or proximity

between them in advance8

Things are made quite difficult in this regard in that their respec-

tive writings rarely if ever turn to reflect on the other With the

exception of Derridarsquos text on Deleuze their references to each otherin their major works tend to be limited to brief footnotes These lap-

idary points of contact hardly constitute a dialogue and one is tempted

to say that they constitute something closer to a cryptography or the

291



remains of a conversation that will not have taken place The foot-

notes take no distance from the other they elicit almost no com-

mentary nor do they affirm anything in the other Derrida in his

eulogy to Deleuze suggests some indications for this conversation thatwill never take place He insists on a lsquonearly total affinityrsquo with Deleuze

around his lsquothesesrsquo and yet insists on lsquovery obvious distancesrsquo with

regard to the lsquogesturersquo the lsquostrategyrsquo ldquothe manner of writing of speak-

ing of reading perhapsrdquo9 What on the face of it might look like a

classical gesture (the distinction of what is being said from how it is

being said) in fact acts to foreclose the possibility of making this dis-

tinction too precipitously In short it forecloses any attempt to treat

their texts as sets of propositions that could be extracted to a neutral

ground or territory and compared And yet Derridarsquos gesture here

insists on the irreducibility of a diff erence of strategies of gestures of

manners of reading and writing In short Derridarsquos initial gesture in

relation to Deleuze also forecloses the possibility of reducing these

diff erences to questions of lsquomere methodrsquo as though this could bereduced to something extraneous or peripheral It will be a question

of diff erences of strategies of gestures then Which is to say that what

is at stake here is the question of relation of a connection or lsquoaffinity-

towardsrsquo (or to use Heideggerian language of a lsquobeing-towardsrsquo) rather

than any specific set of assertions about relation

What other strategy then could one employ to attempt to chart

this lsquoirreducible diff erencersquo of strategies or to put it another way howdoes one begin to read the lsquoterrainrsquo of this cryptography Perhaps (and

this will constitute a certain starting point that cannot be justified) it

begins with the question of reading itself of a relation to the lsquoterri-

torialityrsquo of the other The impossible task set before us is therefore

this to attempt to open the question of a proximity that is still an

irreducible diff erence by a passage to the other or rather through a

reading of Deleuze and Derrida reading the other Starting with

Derridarsquos stated lsquoaffinityrsquo with Deleuze around an ldquoirreducible diff erence

in opposition to dialectical oppositionrdquo10 the measure of this affinity

must pass through their respective relation to Heidegger (the particu-

lar lsquootherrsquo in question)11 It is a question here of the ways in which

they position themselves vis-agrave-vis Heidegger and more specifically

Heideggerrsquos reading of Nietzsche Each at a certain moment attemptsto read an act of reading to strategize a relation to a certain strategy

of reading through Heidegger and Nietzschersquos lsquodoctrinersquo of the eternal

return In each instance the focus of their commentary on Nietzsche

292



and Heideggerrsquos interpretation of the doctrine of the eternal return

centers on the question of its role in delimiting the lsquoforgettingrsquo of

diff erence and on the distinction between the Identical and the Same

And it is this same relation that seems in part to furtively coordinatethe cryptology of the irreducible diff erenceaffinity between them

Derrida to begin with touches specifically on Deleuzersquos reading of

Nietzsche in his essay ldquoDiff eacuterancerdquo around the necessity of thinking

the di ff erential relation of forces After a brief citation of Deleuze Derrida

goes on to ask the question ldquoIs not all of Nietzschersquos thought a cri-

tique of philosophy as an active indiff erence to diff erence as the sys-

tem of adiaphoristic reduction or repression Which according to the

same logic according to logic itself does not exclude that philosophy

lives in and on di ff eacuterance thereby blinding itself to the same which is not

the identicalrdquo12 And then only a few lines later Derrida finds the

question of di ff eacuterance appearing lsquoalmost by namersquo in Nietzsche once

again linked to the figure of the eternal return ldquoAnd on the basis of this

unfolding of the same as di ff eacuterance we see announced the sameness of di ff eacuterance and repetition in the eternal returnrdquo13 This elliptical reference

to the figure Deleuze repeatedly puts to work to define a lsquodiff erence

in itself rsquo in the second chapter of Di ff erence and Repetition will be our

starting point It is at once the question of the delineation of a strat-

egy of reading and writing as Derrida makes clear in his homage to

Deleuze Our strategy will be no diff erent it will thus attempt to stage

this proximity and diff erence with respect to Heideggerrsquos reading of Nietzschersquos eternal return through a brief analysis of two short pas-

sages from Deleuzersquos Di ff erence and Repetition and through scattered ref-

erences to it throughout Derridarsquos corpus At stake will be an attempt

to stage a proximity between Derrida and Deleuze that is still a

diff erence between the Same and the Identical in and through a read-

ing (and thus a certain repetition) of the way in which diff erence is

decided in the eternal return

To begin to stage this we must turn first to a discussion of the gen-

eral outline of Heideggerrsquos reading of Nietzschersquos eternal return

Throughout Heideggerrsquos lecture courses on Nietzsche he is everywhere

insistent on at least two major theses concerning the lsquodoctrinersquo of the

eternal return First of all he insists on the necessity of thinking

Nietzsche as the lsquolastrsquo metaphysician insofar as he engages in an over-turning of Platonism through its inversion14 And second Heidegger

insists that the eternal return is the fundamental doctrine of Nietzschersquos

philosophy and as such is a fundamental decision concerning the Being

293



of beings It contains in eff ect an assertion about beings as a whole15

At work in each of these propositions is the attempt to think both the

unity and the singularity of Nietzschersquos thought which as a fulfilled

unity constitutes the culmination the final moment or epoch of Westernmetaphysics And the eternal return as the lsquofundamental thoughtrsquo of

Nietzschersquos philosophy is what gives it over to this epoch It is what

places it within the unity of a history namely the history of the for-

getting of Being In chapter 22 of the second volume of the Nietzsche

lectures Heidegger poses the question of the unity or con fi guration (Gestalt )of the doctrine of the eternal return ldquoBefore we try to define the

configuration of the doctrine of return we shall have to ask whether

it possesses any configuration at allrdquo16 Heidegger makes it clear that

by configuration he means the lsquoinner structurersquo that is pre figured

(vorgeziechneten ) in the doctrine What lsquounifiesrsquo the doctrine then is not

something exterior to it (in the sense of something that provides it

with a reason) For Heidegger the basis of the eternal return lies in

its determination of Being as becomingmdashand it is this unity that placesit within the closure of metaphysics As Heidegger insists ldquoA thinking

of this thought holds firm in being as a whole in such a way that for

it the eternal return of the same serves as the Being that determines

beingsrdquo17 But as the fundamental and culminating metaphysical posi-

tion according to Heidegger it continues to think Being (and thus

ontological diff erence) under the aspect of the as It thus forgets

diff erence even as it preserves it as forgottenIt is precisely on the matter of Heideggerrsquos reading of the Nietzschean

eternal return that Deleuze explicitly attempts to take his leave of

Heidegger to put some distance between him through Nietzsche His

lsquodisagreementrsquo with Heidegger (if one can call it this) pertains to the

relation between diff erence and diff erentiation in the eternal return

In a long note on ldquoHeideggerrsquos Philosophy of Diff erencerdquo in the sec-

ond chapter of Di ff erence and Repetition18 Deleuze proceeds through as

he sees them the major lsquothesesrsquo of Heideggerrsquos philosophymdashconcern-

ing the quasi-negative character of the ontological diff erence It is in

the fourth thesis that Deleuze turns towards an affinity with Heidegger

around the irreducibility or lsquocorrespondencersquo between the question of

diff erence and questioning itself between ontological diff erence and the

being of the question Deleuze writesUnderstood in this manner diff erence is not an object of representation

As the element of metaphysics representation subordinates diff erence to

294



identity if only in relating it to a third term as the center of a com-

parison between two supposedly diff erent terms (Being and being) But

metaphysics is unable to think diff erence itself or the importance of that

which separates as much as of that which unites (the diff erenciator) Thereis no synthesis mediation or reconciliation in diff erence but rather a

stubborn diff erenciation This is the lsquoturningrsquo beyond metaphysics [quot-

ing Heidegger] lsquoBeing itself can open out in its truth the diff erence of

Being and beings preserved in itself only when the diff erence explicitly

takes placersquo19

Deleuzersquos insistence that metaphysics cannot think this diff erence as

such or lsquoin itself rsquo again repeats a double separating and uniting There

is no diff erence between Being and beings there is rather the strange

lsquounityrsquo of a di ff erenciation Deleuze here states this and comes close to

making his own this statement that he gives to Heidegger But between

those two words (between the di ff erenciator and di ff erenciation ) lies a tak-ing leave of Heidegger through Nietzsche For in the following para-

graph which consists in the commentary on the relative unity of thetheses he gives to Heidegger Deleuze poses the question ldquoDoes

[Heidegger] eff ectuate the conversion after which univocal Being belongs

only to diff erence and in this sense revolves around being Does he

conceive of being in such a manner that it will be truly disengaged

from any subordination in relation to the identity of representationrdquo20

This question amounts to asking does Heidegger by opposing the

identical to the same think diff erence radically enough Does this strat-egy or this gesture prove capable of thinking diff erence beyond the epoch

of representation Deleuzersquos answer is as absolute as it is elliptical He

insists at the very end of his commentary on Heidegger that ldquoIt would

seem not given his critique of the Nietzschean eternal returnrdquo21 What

aspect of the interpretation of the eternal return Deleuze is referring to

might be said to be in question but it is clear that the interpretation

itself places Heideggerrsquos reading within a certain limit The strategyremains for Deleuze incomplete it does not overturn or twist free from

Platonism from the world of identity and analogy set up by the rela-

tions between models and copies22 It is a divergence with Heidegger

therefore which does not pass merely through a dispute over the quasi-

negative character of the ontological diff erence but rather takes place

over the relation between the Same and the Identical

This divergence gets played out or articulated in Deleuzersquos reading

of the eternal return It is as though Heidegger and Deleuze stand on

two sides of a line marked by it Heidegger in eff ect places the eternal

295



return within the unity of a history of metaphysics as the culminationthe last moment of an inverted Platonism that as such is still a

Platonism Deleuze starting with his reading of the eternal return as

the affirmation of chance pushes the figure closer to the lsquoexitrsquo Deleuzersquosreading privileges two major themes (1) The doctrine of the eternal

return is first of all a test of the will that is primarily selective It affirms

only those forces which are active affirmative ones It is in this sense

that Deleuze asserts that it is an lsquoethicalrsquo principle Like a shadow of

the categorical imperativemdashit functions as a principle of selection in

relation to the will23 (2) The other theme Deleuze insists on concerns

the relation between Being and Becoming that is articulated in the

eternal return For Deleuze as with Heidegger the eternal return

names the Being of Becomingmdashbut in the sense that the same is said

only or exclusively of diff erence It in short eliminates the negative

closes the gap or opening that makes possible the world of resem-

blances and identities It extricates the Same from a diff erence that

organizes the relation between things and simulacra models and copiesmdash and what it repeats is the movement of a becoming lsquoin itself rsquo In an

early text24 the eternal return is explained through the metaphor of

the game of the dice-throw The first moment that Deleuze analyzes

is the affirmation of chance the throw of the dice The second moment

is the return of the dice that lsquofall backrsquo For Deleuze the return to

the same the dice which lsquofall backrsquo do so only on the basis of the

exclusion of the negative The first is a moment of indetermination orchance the second is the moment of selection and affirmation of that

which diff ers As Deleuze puts it later ldquoReturning is being but only

the being of becoming The eternal return does not bring back lsquothe

samersquo but returning constitutes the only Same of that which becomes

Returning is the becoming-identical of becoming itselfrdquo25 The eternal

return thus functions according to the logic of exception that which

returns the diff erent is everything of the diff erent except the one the

identical the necessary etc If diff erence according to Deleuze lies

between two repetitions then one must equally say that repetition lies

between two diff erences The eternal return eff ects a kind of decision

it cuts between a diff erence thought in terms of resemblance and a

lsquopurersquo diff erence that emerges out of the return of the dice that lsquofall

backrsquo Repetition in short acts as the di ff erenciator of diff erence and isthe Being of becoming only in this way

The world of resemblances thus falls with and in the eternal return

If for Heidegger the ontological diff erence withdraws lsquoinrsquo it insofar as

296



it falls back or lsquoout of rsquo the eternal return for Deleuze diff erence only

begins at the moment when a secondary diff erence withdraws in and through it eliminating the presupposition of representation that orga-

nizes a lsquosecondaryrsquo diff erence a diff erence thought in terms of iden-tity The eternal return thus affirms a diff erence in-itself the universal

lsquobecoming simulacrarsquo of a world of images without likenesses the world

or universe of Michel Tournierrsquos ldquoFriday or the other Islandrdquo26 It

acts as the affirmation or becoming-active of an lsquootherwise than otherrsquo

through the exclusion or elimination of the structure-Other that ldquoassures

the margins and transitions in the world He [the Other] is the sweet-

ness of contiguities and resemblances He regulates the transformations

of form and background and the variations of depthrdquo27 In the world

without the other ldquoNothing subsists but insuperable depths absolute

distances and di ff erences or on the contrary unbearable repetitions look-ing like precisely superimposed lengthsrdquo28 Thus the eternal return

decides between these two diff erences a diff erence that does not pass

between the identical and the same but rather between ldquothe ident-ical the same or the similar and the identical the same and the

similar understood as secondary powersrdquo29 Secondary powers that is

of a diff erence that ldquohas assumed the whole of Beingrdquo30 The eternal

return thus furnishes a simulated identity of the diff erent in the return

or repetition of that which diff ers even from itself As simulacrum31

the eternal return decides between an image endowed with resem-

blance (the copy) and an image without resemblanceDeleuzersquos lsquostrategyrsquo with regard to Heideggerrsquos reading of Nietzschersquos

eternal return might be said to be one of repetition and displacement

He does not call into question that the lsquodoctrinersquo remains a funda-

mentally metaphysical one that is that it constitutes a decision about

the Being of what is What Deleuze attempts to displace is the rela-

tion between the Identical and the Same by situating a diff erence lsquofur-

ther backrsquo from the ontological diff erence In short the ontological

diff erence according to Deleuze maintains a relation in and through

its withdrawal to the Identical Heidegger in short does not think

diff erence radically enough he does not ldquoconceive of being in such a

manner that it will be truly disengaged from any subordination in rela-

tion to the identity of representationrdquo32 Not unlike Heidegger who

attempts to think the ontological diff erence as other than the not-yetpresent-absolute in Hegel Deleuze repeats this gesture by insisting on

a reading of repetition in the eternal return as the lsquodiff erence of

diff erencersquo by insisting that another diff erence lying lsquofurther backrsquo

297



which fissures ontological diff erence from within breaks its relation to

the Identical One might say that what is involved here is a diff erent

reading (between Deleuze and Heidegger) of the second moment of the

return of the dice that fall back Insofar as the eternal return affirmsthe Being of becoming for Heidegger it remains a decision that for-

gets the ontological diff erence lsquoDiff erencersquo withdraws in the return of

the dice that fall back a withdrawal that nevertheless preserves it as forgotten A certain memory or trace of diff erence lsquotakes placersquo in this with-

drawal Insofar as the eternal return affirms the Being of becoming

for Deleuze on the other hand it is not Identity or for that matter

lsquoforgettingrsquo that returns Identity rather constitutes ldquothe fact of return-

ing for that which diff ersrdquo33 It should be noted here that that which

returns and the fact of returning remain essentially distinct which is

to say that a lsquodiff erence in itself rsquo presents itself in and through the

eternal return only as simulacrum

It is precisely around the question of the simulacrum and of a strat-

egy or gesture of reading that one can begin to situate Derridarsquos rela-tion to the Heideggerian reading of the eternal return In the first

chapter of Of Grammatology Derrida begins to outline such a strategy

which is above all the question of a strategy of reading ldquorather than

protect Nietzsche from the Heideggerian reading we should perhaps

off er him up to it completely underwriting that interpretation with-

out reserve in a certain way and up to the point where the content

of the Nietzschean discourse being lost for the question of Being itsform regains its absolute strangeness where the text finally invokes a

diff erent type of readingrdquo34 The first thing to note here is that Derrida

off ers very little in the way of a counter-interpretation of the eternal

return though a diff erence is affirmed Heidegger loses Nietzsche he

lsquoforgetsrsquo something in him (his lsquoabsolute strangenessrsquo) Later in the

only text by Derrida to my knowledge that deals explicitly with

Heideggerrsquos reading of the eternal return35 he is even more explicit

There he insists that ldquoThe idea of the eternal recurrence is not

a thought about totality But Heidegger presents it as a thought about

totalityrdquo36 In other words when Heidegger insists that Nietzsche thinks

eternal return in relation to the whole of beings this is what precisely

gives him back over to the very history that he reads or delimits in

Nietzsche Everything revolves here for Derrida around Heideggerrsquosthesis that a thinker has one great thought and that the name lsquoNietzschersquo

names this thought The twin Heideggerian themes that Nietzsche

thinks the totality of beings in the eternal return and that insofar as

298



he thinks this he forgets the ontological diff erence form the back-

ground on which Derrida positions himself in relation to Heidegger

(through Nietzsche)

This functions most explicitly in the essay ldquoDiff eacuterancerdquo at the momentwhen having introduced di ff eacuterance through a discussion of the Nietzschean

di ff erential of forces37 Derrida turns to the Heideggerian circumscrip-

tion of the forgetting of the ontological diff erence Having just sug-

gested that di ff eacuterance appears lsquoalmost by namersquo in Nietzschersquos text

Derrida poses the question ldquoCan di ff eacuterance settle down into the divi-

sion of the ontico-ontological diff erence such as its lsquoepochrsquo in par-

ticular is thought lsquothroughrsquo if it may still be expressed such Heideggerrsquos

uncircumventable meditationrdquo38 While the eternal return has been left

from the discussion at this point Derridarsquos question implies Heideggerrsquos

interpretation insofar as he includes it within the metaphysical epocheacute

of the forgetting of Being It thus remains a question of how a read-

ing of the eternal return gives itself back over to the lsquoabsolute strange-

nessrsquo of di ff eacuterance of how a reading of it would return to the question(lsquoanalogousrsquo to Deleuzersquos) of a di ff erence of di ff erence a diff erence lsquofur-

ther backrsquo than the ontological diff erence Derrida at once in a ges-

ture of absolute economy simultaneously takes Nietzsche out of the

Heideggerian epocheacute and reinscribes Heidegger (and the question of

the history of Being) within an other (hypothetical) lsquohistoryrsquo one in

which the very concept of the epocheacute itself is delimited (and which

therefore means that it is not a history properly speaking) Derridawrites

Perhaps we must attempt to think this unheard-of thought this silent

tracing that the history of Being whose thought engages the Greco-

Western logos such as it is produced via the ontological diff erence is but

an epoch of the diapherein Henceforth one could no longer call this an

ldquoepochrdquo the concept of epochality belonging to what is within history

as the history of Being Since Being has never had a ldquomeaningrdquo has

never been thought or said as such except by dissimulating itself in

beings then di ff eacuterance in a certain and very strange way (is) ldquoolderrdquo than

the ontological diff erence or than the truth of Being39

What is proposed then is a strange double dissimulation (Derrida will

later on in the essay call this a lsquotrace of the tracersquo) Remaining irre-

ducible to the dissimulation of the ontological diff erence and the for-getting of Being diff eacuterance becomes simulacrum otherwise than as the

dissimulation of the ontological diff erence under the aspect of the as (as epermildow as will to power etc)

299



Everything here hinges around Derridarsquos delineation of the lsquoman-

nerrsquo or lsquogesturersquo of reading Heidegger reading Nietzsche Derridarsquos

quasi-epochal determination of a trace of the trace of a di ff eacuterance lsquoprior

torsquo the ontological diff erence in eff ect circumscribes Heideggerrsquos owncircumscription of Nietzsche as the last metaphysician on the basis of

the fact that the gesture or manner of reading Nietzsche in terms of

the lsquounique unityrsquo of his thought surrenders itself precisely to the epocheacute

that it attempts to delimit The attempt to read the eternal return as

the culmination the last moment of a history of Western metaphysics

itself succumbs to a dream of metaphysics of a metaphysics dream-

ing its own unity as completed One index of Derridarsquos displacement

of Heideggerrsquos reading of the ontological diff erence in Nietzsche might

be found in his resistance to the naming of diff erence or to the ques-

tion of the unique name of Being Di ff eacuterance as Derrida has repeatedly

insisted lends itself to numerous and non-synonymous substitutions it

is the object or the qualifying term of a strategy not the unique name

of Being which it only lsquoisrsquo by being forgotten Minimally put the strat-egy involves bracketing a thought of the ontological diff erence that gov-

erns the history of Western metaphysics and makes of it the history

of a covering over of what dissimulates itself there This latter would

redouble the forgetting that the lsquoconfrontationrsquo with the history of phi-

losophy had meant to recover precisely insofar as it decides deter-

mines delineates the forgetting itself of diff erence as a forgetting One might

be tempted to say quickly that Derridarsquos strategy attempts to think diff erence past its withdrawal in the (redoubled and redoubling) crypt of a dissimulation of a trace that is not a presence but is the ldquosimu-

lacrum of a presence that dislocates itself refers itself it properly has

no sitemdasherasure belongs to its structurerdquo40 In short this means that

between the trace and the trace of the trace between the trace and

its forgetting in the text(s) of metaphysics there is no diff erence

At stake then is a discourse on the limit on the determination

delineation or (to keep with the Heideggerian language) the decision of

the limit whether it is between the Identical and the Same or between

the Same and the Identical and the Same and the Identical thought

as secondary powers or between the ontological diff erence and a

di ff eacuterance that displaces it If as we had suggested before Deleuze and

Heidegger stand as though on two sides of a line determined by theeternal return the one insisting that it constitutes the last provision of

Platonism the other reading it as a doctrine of its overturning Derridarsquos

indeterminate and obscure reading of the eternal return gives rise to

the problematic of the limit and of the decision that would draw the

300



line between the text of metaphysics and its other It is at once the

question of the very drawing of the line and of the ldquosamerdquo that returns

within the very delimitation of its outline As Heidegger insists in the

epigraph above the same is spoken both lsquoon this side of and on theother side of the linersquo The term lsquoundecidablersquo might be used here if

it were not too overdetermined (and too often misunderstood) What

is at stake is as much the determination of a decision (in the sense of

decidere lsquoto cut off or awayrsquo) as a relation to the limit that it sets

Derridarsquos reading of the eternal return (if it takes place at all) does so

under the condition that it remain lsquode-limitedrsquo (to substitute for the

term lsquoundecidablersquo) Which is to say that the eternal return does not

constitute or act properly speaking as a limit or proper margin In

short this means that the text(s) of metaphysics is traversed rather than

surrounded by its limit The limit redoubles itself automatically in

almost machine-like fashion as though having located and affirmed

the limit that it sets (and which is its own desire precisely for clo-

sure) metaphysics could dream nothing but its diff erence from itself in the form of the eternal return

To think a proximity and a diff erence or a lsquonearly total affinityrsquo

between Derrida and Deleuze requires a measure or a lsquoterritoryrsquo on

which to stage it And yet the territory (namely the eternal return)

redoubles divides and returns only as simulacrum Moreover what can-

not decide the diff erence or proximity is the content of a reading As

Jean-Luc Nancy suggests in his essay ldquoThe Deleuzian Fold of Thoughtrdquowhat takes place on both sides (or both readings) is a lsquoleaping in placersquo

that does not take us elsewheremdashand we must add concerns a ges-

ture or strategy with regard to the limit of a relation to the limit Which

means that having not yet pierced the limit but having doubled or

redoubled a fold that simulates the simple unity of a line41 it is the sec-

ond moment or lsquoreturnrsquo that is lsquodecisiversquo A reading of the simulacrum

in Derrida and Deleuze along with its relation to the return or the

dice that lsquofall backrsquo therefore becomes necessary In short the ques-

tion would remain how do Derrida and Deleuze each take into account

the simulacrum and its affirmation We can at best suggest the gen-

eral outlines of such a question here but its contours could begin to

be sketched by the extent to which the simulacrum is linked with the

decision that the eternal return eff ectuates in Deleuzersquos reading and theextent to which it is detached from a phenomeno-logic in Derrida

The simulacrum in short according to Deleuze produces an e ff ect In the first appendix to the Logic of Sense Deleuze articulates the begin-

ning of the overturning of Platonism in the eternal return as the rising

301



up of the simulacrum of a power that denies both the original and

the copy of the world of Platonism Simulation ldquoin this senserdquo that

is according to the logic of the production of e ff ects is according to

Deleuze the expression of a ldquoprocess of disguising where behind eachmask there is yet anotherrdquo42 The simulacrum then is irreducible to

the mask that it produces but is rather the lsquopowerrsquo of production

that strictly speaking does not lsquocausersquo the mask or appearance The

simulacrum is nothing but the mask and the sheer production of masks

or their eff ects which affirm their lsquorightsrsquo against the world of mod-

elscopies It is this eff ectuation (of the simulacrum) that Deleuze goes

on to link to the eternal return ldquoSimulation understood in this way

is inseparable from the eternal return for it is in the eternal return

that the reversal of the icons or the subversion of the world of rep-

resentation is decided Everything happens here as if a latent content

were opposed to a manifest contentrdquo43 Deleuze goes on to insist that

the manifest content of the eternal return acts in conformity with

lsquoPlatonism in generalrsquo In short it subordinates the image to resem-blance But this is merely the e ff ect of the simulacrum a manifest content

that must be lsquopassed throughrsquo to the lsquolatent contentrsquo wherein the same

and the similar is not presupposed but rather simulated produced oth-

erwise The eternal return once again produces the only same of that

which diff ers a ldquoresemblance of the unmatchedrdquo44 And yet every-

thing here depends on the reading of the lsquoas if rsquo of the above citation

According to Deleuze the eternal return simulates simulation It pro-ceeds as though there is a diff erence between manifest content and latent

content between Identity and the Same and Identity and the Same

thought as secondary powers The eternal return then in fact is the

Same and the Similar but only as simulated Yet Deleuze goes on to

insist that in the moment of the eternal return what does not return

is the Same lsquoitself rsquo What is selecteddecidedexcluded in the return

is precisely a return of the presupposition of the same Deleuzersquos read-

ing therefore requires and forecloses in advance the distinction between

the lsquomanifest contentrsquo (Platonism) and the lsquolatent contentrsquo (its over-

turning) of the Same There is no diff erence between resemblance agrave

la Plato and resemblance lsquoof the unmatchedrsquo there is only the repe-

tition or the becoming-simulacra of the dice that lsquofall backrsquomdashin the

second moment of return which produces and denies the distinctionThough Derridarsquos discussion of the simulacrum does not emerge

explicitly in relation to his reading of the eternal return its relation

to the quasi concept of the trace brings it back into contact with his

302



entire strategy or gesture with regard to Heideggerrsquos reading of the

eternal return And it is precisely around the question of the redou-

bling or refolding of the trace (in the lsquotrace of the tracersquo) in di ff eacuterance that Derrida begins to approach the question of dissimulation and rep-etition The trace Derrida repeatedly insists is not a presence but ldquothe

simulacrum of a presencerdquo45 It dislocates itself bends back upon itself

and this lsquoimmediatersquo folding back upon itself causes it to disappear in

its appearance Citing Heidegger Derrida writes

It is certain that the trace which ldquoquickly vanishes in the destiny of Being

(and) which unfolds as Western metaphysicsrdquo escapes every determi-nation every name it might receive in a metaphysical text It is shel-

tered and therefore dissimulated in these names It does not appear in

them as the trace ldquoitselfrdquo But this is because it could never appear itself

as such There is no essence of di ff eacuterance it (is) that which not only

could never be appropriated in the as such of its name or its appearing

but also that which threatens the authority of the as such in general of

the presence of the thing itself in its essence46

That the trace never appears lsquoas suchrsquo does not make it the object of

a negative theology precisely because it does not lie lsquoelsewherersquo Its

not appearing lsquoas suchrsquo relates to the lsquoas suchrsquo and not its non-appear-

ance In short it does not appear as such because there is no lsquoas suchrsquo

(or lsquoin itselfrsquo) of di ff eacuterance only dissimulation or sheer dislocation And

here once again the simulacrum is measured in terms of its eff ectsThe fact that the name lsquodiff eacuterancersquo remains nonetheless a necessarily

metaphysical name is itself carried off by the lsquodi ff eacuterance e ff ect rsquo the eff ect

of a continual dissimulation It is here that the e ff ect however is tied

to the moment of return in a barely perceptible manner The eff ect

is precisely reinscribed in the name As Derrida goes on to insist it is

itself lsquoenmeshedrsquo ldquojust as a false exit is still part of the gamerdquo47 The

dissimulation in eff ect redoubles itself in the return in its reinscrip-tion Having already been a dissimulation without an lsquoelsewherersquo with-

out a Being that is dissimulated di ff eacuterance appears as other than it

lsquoisrsquomdashwhich is nothing but dissimulation Dissimulated in the name the

name ldquodi ff eacuterance rdquo attempts to bear an erasure without return inscribed in

its simulated affirmation of itself in and through the name which is

still of the order of the Same (or of metaphysics)

In both readings we are borne between two diff erences that remain

irreducible precisely in the moment of a return that simulacrizes diff erence

If Derrida is the one to insist on the reinscription of the simulacrizing

303



eff ect of its return in the necessary and irreducible undecidability of

a dissimulation of dissimulation Deleuze insists precisely on the decid-ability of the simulacrum Between a copy of a copy and an image

without resemblance a decision lsquotakes placersquo across this line of demar-cation The simulacrum of the return of the Same is a simulacra of the disparate of an internal diff erence that produces a becoming sin-

gular (without model) If in the Deleuzian reading of the eternal return

a series of pure diff erences is affirmed without passing through a

diff erence organized in terms of resemblance it is precisely in the read-

ing of the eternal return where the division that Nancy attributes to

this gesture or strategy is determined48 As Nancy insists ldquoDeleuzersquos

thought is not played out in a being-in-the-world but in the eff ectuation

of a universe or of severalrdquo49 The eternal return would constitute

perhaps one of the few reflexive moments in Deleuze (precisely because

it considers the notion of return ) where the relation between a being-

in-the-world of resemblances and a virtual universe of singularities (of

lsquoresemblances without resemblancersquo) is contemplated The eternal returnwould then be the site place or territory where the discord between a

lsquobeing-in-the-worldrsquo and a lsquovirtual universersquo a universe of pure inten-

sities and the world that it eff ectuates diff erently is decided It in

eff ect draws the line or realizes this diff erence But as the site where

this decision lsquotakes placersquo it is not as Nancy goes on to suggest onlyan lsquoeff ectivity without eff ectuationrsquo Between the lsquovirtual universersquo and

a lsquobeing-in-the-worldrsquo this decision eff ectuates a passage across theline And it is perhaps in the barely perceptible relation to this passage

that a diff erence comes to be marked

Across this lsquolinersquo having passed over to a diff erence that appears

to approach the lsquoresemblance without resemblancersquo or the complete

and total nonrelation of the simulacrum something comes to lsquore-(as)sem-

blersquo itself A redoubling or second repetition dissimulates this lsquoautonomous

universersquo (to use Nancyrsquos term) As Nancy asserts ldquoThe world thus

eff ectuated is at the same time very like ours and yet altogether

diff erentrdquo50 the lsquoaltogether diff erentrsquo here having first been determined

by the lsquovery like oursrsquo and the lsquoat the same timersquo in the eff ectuation

of the eternal return The lsquoterritoryrsquo of the lsquovirtual universersquo thus

eff ectuates itself as a simulacrum of the world However in the moment

of decision mdashin the passage across the line in the movement towardsthe outerinner territory of the universe of lsquodiff erences in themselvesrsquo

a secondary gap or fissure returns To put it another way one might

304



say that a proximity returns within the very distance that separates

Deleuze and Heidegger around the question of the Being of becom-

ing and of the identity of the diff erence that is articulated there51 For

in the dice that fall back in the lsquoreturnrsquo as Deleuze insists in the lastpages of Di ff erence and Repetition the eternal return must lsquosimulatersquo the

identical Or in Deleuzersquos own words it ldquoproduces an image of resem-

blance as the external e ff ect of the disparaterdquo52 The exit is immediately

reinscribed the simulacrum immediately redoubles itself so that one can

only insist on the e ff ect of the simulacrum through a sleight of hand

since there is strictly speaking no e ff ectuation Between a lsquodiff erence in

itselfrsquo and a lsquodiff erence of resemblancersquo lies nothingmdashonly the simu-

lacrum of a diff erencedi ff eacuterance that endlessly reproduces itself in the

undecidability of a simulation of the limit And it is doubled simulated

reproduced lsquoagainrsquo between a diff erence of diff erence and the trace

of the trace in its repetition A proximity therefore returns in the

very drawing of the line in the very decision that both Heidegger and

Deleuze find at work there and whose delimitation Derrida reconsti-tutes in its quasi suspension In what way does the eternal return eff ect

this passage As Heidegger writes in the second volume of the Nietzsche

lectures ldquoThe thought of the eternal return of the same is only as this

conquering thought The overcoming must grant us passage across a

gap that seems to be quite narrow The gap opens between two things

that in one way are alike so that they appear to be the samerdquo53 A

total simulacrum of identity thereforemdasha diff erence that only appears to be the same carved out and decided by Heidegger and Deleuze

within the space of the eternal return And thus a lsquoleaping in placersquo

that does not take us elsewhere except in simulation A total simulacrum

of diff erence therefore which is to say and this is to say the same

thing an almost imperceptible diff erence

WORKS CITED

Baross Zsuzsa ldquoDeleuze and Derrida by Way of Blanchot An Interviewrdquo Angelaki 5no 2 (August 2000) 17ndash41

Boundas Constantin ldquoGilles Deleuze The Ethics of the Eventrdquo In Joyful Wisdomedited by David Goicochea and M Zlomislic St Catherines Ontario ThoughtHouse 1992

Deleuze Gilles Di ff erence and Repetition Translated by Paul Patton New York Columbia

University Press 1994 mdashmdashmdash The Logic of Sense Translated by Mark Lester with Charles Stivale edited byConstantin Boundas New York Columbia University Press 1990

305



mdashmdashmdash Nietzsche and Philosophy Translated by Hugh Tomlinson New York ColumbiaUniversity Press 1983

Derrida Jacques The Ear of the Other Edited by Christine Mcdonald Lincoln Universityof Nebraska Press 1985

mdashmdashmdash ldquoInterpreting Signatures (NietzscheHeidegger) Two Questionsrdquo In Nietzsche A Critical Reader edited by Peter R Sedgwick 53ndash68 Oxford Blackwell Publishing1995

mdashmdashmdash Margins of Philosophy Translated by Alan Bass Chicago University of ChicagoPress 1982

mdashmdashmdash Of Grammatology Translated by Gayatri Spivak Balitmore The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press 1976

mdashmdashmdash Of Spirit Translated by Geoff rey Bennington and Rachel Bowlby ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press 1989

mdashmdashmdash Spurs Nietzschersquos Styles Translated by Barbara Harlow Chicago University of Chicago Press 1978

mdashmdashmdash The Work of Mourning Edited by Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael NaasChicago University of Chicago Press 2001

mdashmdashmdash Writing and Di ff erence Translated by Alan Bass Chicago University of ChicagoPress 1978

Hardt Michael Gilles Deleuze Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press 1993Heidegger Martin Identity and Di ff erence Translated by Joan Stambaugh New York

Harper and Row Publishers 1969 mdashmdashmdash Nietzsche Vols 1 and 2 Translated by David Farell Krell San Francisco

HarperSanFrancisco 1979 mdashmdashmdash Nietzsche Vols 3 and 4 Translated by David Farrell Krell San Francisco

HarperSanFrancisco 1982 mdashmdashmdash The Question of Being Translated by Jean T Wilde and William Kluback New

Haven College and University Press 1958Lawlor Len ldquoA Nearly Total A ffinity the Deleuzian Virtual Image Versus the Derridean

Tracerdquo Angelaki 5 no 2 (August 2000) 59ndash71Nancy Jean-Luc ldquoThe Deleuzian Fold of Thoughtrdquo In Deleuze A Critical Reader edited

by Paul Patton 107ndash13 Oxford Blackwell Publishers 1996

NOTES

1 Jacques Derrida ldquoEdmond Jabegraves and the Question of the Bookrdquo in Writing and Di ff erence 295

2 See Martin Heidegger Identity and Di ff erence 3 Ibid 45

4 Len Lawlor takes ldquoA Nearly Total A ffinity the Deleuzian Virtual Image Versus theDerridean Tracerdquo as the title of his paper on the relation between Derrida andDeleuze Lawlor emphasizes the diff erence between Derrida and Deleuze as adiff erence between a priority of form and language lsquoversus tendency and intuitionrsquoThis essay however attempts to think the simultaneity of affinity and diff erence theseare not necessarily opposed

5 See Derrida ldquoI am Going to Have to Wander All Alonerdquo in The Work of Mourning 192ndash95

6 Ibid 193

7 For a discussion of this distinction and of the attempt to think a diff erence withinthe same see Heidegger ldquoThe Onto-Theo-Logical Constitution of Metaphysicsrdquo inIdentity and Di ff erence 42ndash76 There Heidegger attempts to think the unthought of Hegel in a lsquoconversationrsquo with him that explicitly tries to distinguish the matter of

306



thinking for Hegel and the matter of thinking lsquo for us rsquo which amounts to thinking lsquothe Samersquo

8 For a discussion of a strategy of reading (and writing) the relation between Derridaand Deleuze see Zsuzsa Baross ldquoDeleuze and Derrida by Way of Blanchot An

Interviewrdquo There she argues for the strategy of the inter-view in the hyphenatedsense of a narrative that would attempt to put on view the lsquobetweenrsquo to solicitlsquosomething elsersquo While this paper stays closer to the more conventional strategyof commentary it nevertheless attempts to draw on this notion by neither lsquochoos-ing a sidersquo nor reducing the relation to a lsquocomparisonrsquo

9 Derrida The Work of Mourning 19310 Ibid 19311 Len Lawlor (ldquoA Nearly Total A ffinityrdquo) suggests at the end of his paper that the

lsquonearly total affinityrsquo between Derrida and Deleuze is owed to their appropriation

of ldquoHeideggerrsquos ontology of the questionrdquo (67) While Deleuze explicitly appropri-ates the Heideggerian privileging of the question (see below) Derrida is more cau-tiousmdashsee Of Spirit particularly chapter 2 While this paper concurs on theirreducibility of Heidegger for Deleuze and Derrida the affinity perhaps passesthrough Heidegger elsewhere that is through an affinity (and diff erence) over hisreading of Nietzsche

12 Derrida ldquoDiff eacuterancerdquo in Margins of Philosophy 1713 Ibid14 See Heidegger Nietzsche vol 1 esp chap 1 ldquoNietzsche as Metaphysical Thinkerrdquo

3ndash6 and chap 24 ldquoNietzschersquos Overturning of Platonismrdquo 200ndash21015 See Heidegger Nietzsche vol 2 esp chap 1 ldquoThe Doctrine of Eternal Return as

the Fundamental Thought of Nietzschersquos Metaphysicsrdquo 5ndash816 Heidegger Nietzsche 216617 Ibid 212918 See Gilles Deleuze Di ff erence and Repetition 64ndash6619 Ibid 6520 Ibid 6621 Ibid22 For a discussion of this distinction and its relation to Platonism see Gilles Deleuze

The Logic of Sense in particular section one of the first appendix ldquoPlato and theSimulacrumrdquo 253ndash66

23 See Michael Hardt Gilles Deleuze particularly chap 2 section 5 ldquoThe Being of Becoming the Ethical Synthesis of the Efficient Willrdquo 47ndash50 for a discussion of the selection of affirmative will as an ethical principle

24 See Deleuze Nietzsche and Philosophy25 Deleuze Di ff erence and Repetition 4126 See Deleuze Logic of Sense appendix 2 section 4 ldquoMichel Tournier and the World

without Othersrdquo 301ndash21 For a discussion of the elimination of the lsquostructure-otherrsquo and its relation to Deleuzersquos reading of the eternal return as an ethical prin-ciple see Constantin Boundas ldquoGilles Deleuze The Ethics of the Eventrdquo

27 Deleuze Logic of Sense 30528 Ibid 307 (my emphasis)29 Deleuze Di ff erence and Repetition 30130 Ibid31 Deleuze citing Klossowski in the first appendix to The Logic of Sense insists that

ldquoKlossowski is right to say of the eternal return that it is a lsquosimulacrum of a doc-trinersquo it is indeed Being (Ecirctre ) but only when lsquobeingrsquo (eacutetant ) is the simulacrumrdquo(264)

32 Deleuze Di ff erence and Repetition 66 (my emphasis)33 Deleuze Nietzsche and Philosophy 48

307



34 Derrida Of Grammatology 1935 DerridaldquoInterpreting Signaturesrdquo36 Ibid 6637 Derrida writes ldquoForce itself is never present it is only a play of diff erences and

quantities There would be no force in general without the diff erence betweenforcesrdquo (17) One line later he cites Deleuzersquos Nietzsche and Philosophy on the char-acterization of the diff erential of forces

38 Derrida ldquoDiff eacuterancerdquo in Margins of Philosophy 2239 Ibid40 Ibid 2441 The term here is Derridarsquos In ldquoInterpreting Signaturesrdquo he compares Heideggerrsquos

thesis on the lsquounique unityrsquo of Nietzschersquos thought to ldquothe simple unity of a linecreated by a foldrdquo (54)

42 Deleuze Logic of Sense 26343 Ibid (my emphasis)44 Ibid 26545 Derrida ldquoDiff eacuterancerdquo in Margins of Philosophy 2446 Ibid 25ndash2647 Ibid 2748 I am indebted here to Zsuzsa Barossrsquo analysis of Nancyrsquos distinction (between a

being-in-the-world and a virtual universe) in her essay ldquoDeleuze and Derrida byWay of Blanchot An Interviewrdquo

49 Jean-Luc Nancy ldquoThe Deleuzian Fold of Thoughtrdquo 11150 Ibid 11051 Deleuze writes in Logic of Sense that the eternal return ldquois the unique phantasm of

all simulacra (the Being of all beings)rdquo (265)52 Deleuze Di ff erence and Repetition 30153 Heidegger Nietzsche 2182

308



book is repeated its identification with itself gathers an imperceptible

diff erence which permits us efficaciously rigorously that is discreetly

to exit from closurerdquo1 Only a few lines down from this passage that

opens the thought or the possibility of an exit Derrida invokes thefigure of the eternal returnmdasha kind of lsquopure repetitionrsquo that opens an

interval between the identical and the same This is a question that

itself is a repetition having taken the form of Heideggerrsquos lsquoconversa-

tionrsquo with Hegel2 There this distinction (between the Identical and

the Same) is what prepares the way for an attempt to think the onto-

logical diff erence that the Identical lsquoforgetsrsquo As Heidegger insists in

the section titled the onto-theo-logical constitution of metaphysics the matter

(Sache ) of thinking (in relation to Hegel) is the lsquoSamersquo which attempts

to think ldquothe diff erence as diff erencerdquo3 That is it attempts to think

diff erence without its having been reduced to (and forgotten by) an

Identity (absolute thought) that determines it It is in and through a

repetition of this distinction in Derrida and Deleuze that this paper

will attempt to pose the question of the relation or nonrelation of thetwo thinkers of the title This paper might as well have been titled

ldquoTowards an Almost Imperceptible Diff erenceor a Nearly Total

A ffinityrdquo4 citing again Derrida this time in the only text that directly

addresses the other5 and that marks a relation of proximity to the other

around the question of an ldquoirreducible diff erence in opposition to

dialectical oppositionrdquo6 Who would be able to judge such a diff erence

or relation a charting of two diff erent yet proximate pathways to thelsquoexitrsquo For the question of thinking an lsquoalmost imperceptible diff erencersquo

necessarily entails the question of territoriality that is the question of

the space or site in which an encounter between Derrida and Deleuze

could be staged without the mutual eff acement of the other in and

through a supposedly neutral terrain The question amounts to the prob-

lem of how to measure a diff erence that is still a proximitymdashthe

diff erence between the identical and the same7 or even between two

diff erences without passing through an already determined identity or

territory that would be able to measure the diff erence or proximity

between them in advance8

Things are made quite difficult in this regard in that their respec-

tive writings rarely if ever turn to reflect on the other With the

exception of Derridarsquos text on Deleuze their references to each otherin their major works tend to be limited to brief footnotes These lap-

idary points of contact hardly constitute a dialogue and one is tempted

to say that they constitute something closer to a cryptography or the

291







































292







































293





































294










takes placersquo19




























295






































296





































297






































298





(through Nietzsche)

































299







































300







































301







































302





































303



































304





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308







































292







































293





































294










takes placersquo19




























295






































296





































297






































298





(through Nietzsche)

































299







































300







































301







































302





































303



































304





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308







































293





































294










takes placersquo19




























295






































296





































297






































298





(through Nietzsche)

































299







































300







































301







































302





































303



































304





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308





































294










takes placersquo19




























295






































296





































297






































298





(through Nietzsche)

































299







































300







































301







































302





































303



































304





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308










takes placersquo19




























295






































296





































297






































298





(through Nietzsche)

































299







































300







































301







































302





































303



































304





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308






































296





































297






































298





(through Nietzsche)

































299







































300







































301







































302





































303



































304





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308





































297






































298





(through Nietzsche)

































299







































300







































301







































302





































303



































304





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308






































298





(through Nietzsche)

































299







































300







































301







































302





































303



































304





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308





(through Nietzsche)

































299







































300







































301







































302





































303



































304





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308







































300







































301







































302





































303



































304





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308







































301







































302





































303



































304





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308







































302





































303



































304





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308





































303



































304





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308



































304





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308





























WORKS CITED





305



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308



















NOTES





6 Ibid 193


306



















307











308



















307











308











308

6990077 deleuze derrida towards an almost imperceptible difference

Documents