stankovic, sasa thesis.pdf - Atrium - University of Guelph

difference, that absolutely different from thought which nevertheless gives it thought, gives to be
thought” (DR 227). For this reason, Deleuze argues that “to restore difference in thought is to
untie this first knot which consists of representing difference through the identity of the concept
and the thinking subject” (DR 266). The Cogito must give way to the Overman in order for its
own origin to come to light. Otherwise there is no explanation for the existence of the concept
whatsoever.
The passive self moves from one living present to another by means of the power of
difference and in that way becomes the Overman. But this means that the condition of existence
of the Overman is precisely its conscious rootedness in the univocal being. In other words, if the
existence of the Cogito excludes difference, the existence of the Overman includes it. “In
consequence, the difference between presents themselves is that between the two repetitions: that
of the elementary instants from which difference is subtracted, and that of the levels of the whole
in which difference is included” (DR 84). We can put this in other words. The Overman is the
kind of individual whose individuation is never quite finished. In this sense the Overman is not
free. He cannot be abstracted. In fact just as the condition of the existence of the Cogito is its
total individuation to the point of abstraction, the condition of the existence of the Overman is
precisely its never ending individuation. In this sense the Overman can stand for the power of
individuation itself. “As for the subject of this new discourse (except that there is no longer any
subject), it is not man or God, and even less man in the place of God. The subject is this free,
anonymous and nomadic singularity which traverses men as well as plants and animals
independently of the matter of their individuation and the forms of their personality. ‘Overman’
means nothing other than this—the superior type of everything that is” (LS 107). But what does
this mean? The Overman cannot understand itself as in possession of the concept. Nothing
208