The Heidegger–Deleuze relationship has attracted significant attention of late. This paper contributes to this line of research by examining Deleuze’s claim, recently reiterated and developed by Philip Tonner, that Heidegger offers a univocal conception of Being where there is one sense of Being that is said throughout all entities. Although these authors maintain that this claim holds across Heidegger’s oeuvre, I purposefully adopt a conservative hermeneutical strategy that focuses on two writings from the 1927–1928 period—Being and Time and the following (...) year’s lecture course translated as The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic—and emphasize the lesson of the ontological difference that Being is always the Being of an entity, to argue that with regards to these texts, at least, an alternative equivocal interpretation is possible in which Being is always said differently. The conclusion draws out the implications of this for the relationship between Heidegger’s fundamental ontology and Deleuze’s differential ontology. (shrink)

El objetivo del presente artículo de reflexión es hacer evidente la relación entre la categoría de performatividad en Judith Butler y el arte de la performance como una aproximación a la construcción de la memoria. Por un lado, el arte de la performance ofrece un problema en torno al registro, al archivo y a la memoria de la acción artística al considerar que el acto es irrepetible, único y fugaz. Esta discusión está vinculada con la reperformación como alternativa de memoria (...) que conserva la naturaleza de esta prácticaartística. Por otro lado, de acuerdo con Butler, la identidad es un efecto de una serie de performances regulados, esto revela cómo la performatividad sugiere un tipo de identidad no esencial donde la memoria está siempre abierta a nuevas inscripciones cuyo soporte está en la reiteración de actos discontinuos. En consecuencia, la repetición de los actos que propone Butler permite comprender que en la reperformance existe otra forma para abordar una memoria restaurada. (shrink)

While Levinas famously claims that ethics precedes ontology and emanates from the concrete experience of the other's face, it is often forgotten that Deleuze also discusses the face in numerous writings. The purpose of this paper is to briefly outline Levinas's arguments regarding the constitution of the face to chart its ethical importance, before engaging with Deleuze's critique of Levinas's position. I show that, by distinguishing between two systems of signification – the head-body system and the face system – Deleuze (...) agrees with Levinas that the face is an important signifier delineating the other, but destructs the notion of face to show that it: is more complex and multi-dimensional than Levinas realizes; emanates from a specific semiotic relationship; and emanates from specific socio-historical circumstances. Showing the face is a semiotic construct based in and emanating from a specific socio-historical configuration allows Deleuze not only to conclude that the face is related to politics not ethics as Levinas claims, but also to claim that it entails the inhuman in the human. This clarifies the nature of the face in Deleuze, offers a critique of Levinas's influential thinking on ethics, brings us to a discussion of the relationship between ethics and politics and reveals what Deleuze takes the political to entail. (shrink)