1 For more on this subject, see Emilie Hache, Ce à quoi nous tenons: Proposi-
tions pour une écologie pragmatique (Paris: Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond,
2 Beyond the purely philosophical sphere, I am thinking of works such as Con-
rad Hal Waddington, The Strategy of Genes: A Discussion of Some Aspects of
Theoretical Biology (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1957); Joseph Need-
ham, The Refreshing River (Nottingham, UK: Spokesman, 1943); and also
Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers, La Nouvelle alliance: Métamorphose de
la science (Paris: Gallimard, 1986).
3 For more on this, see Isabelle Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011).
4 This is a notion that I have taken from Deleuze’s description, in The Fold,
of Leibniz’s approach as a philosophy of manners. “The Stoics and Leibniz
invent a mannerism that is opposed to the essentialism first of Aristotle and
then of Descartes. Mannerism as a composite of the Baroque is inherited
from a Stoic mannerism that is now extended to the cosmos. A third great
logic of the event will come with Whitehead”; Gilles Deleuze, The Fold (Lon-
don: Athlone Press, 1993), 53. Deleuze also cites an extract from Leibniz’s
New Essays on Human Understanding in which Leibniz writes, “The kinds
and degrees of perfection vary up to infinity, but as regards the foundation
of things. The foundations are everywhere the same; this is a fundamental
maxim for me, which governs my whole philosophy. But if this philosophy
is the simplest in resources it is also the richest in kinds [of effects]” (Fold,
150). In this sense, I have no hesitation in situating this project in a mannerist
philosophy in the forms of the neo-­monadology that can be found as much
in Whitehead as in Tarde or Ruyer.
Previous Page Next Page