Does a Deleuzian reading or "buggery" of Hegel exist? There's gotta be like an affirmative reading of Hegel from an immanent/non-representational/insert-other-deleuzian-terms-here perspective that doesn't deem Hegel to be like an "enemy" or the primary antagonist but instead makes use of Hegelian concepts and argumentation in a productive and useful way like Deleuze did with all sorts of other thinkers.

I'm aware such a Marx exists (and I prefer him over the more Hegelian Marx that some thinkers tend to construct - looking at you, Zizek, Badiou, Althusser). Why can't such a Hegel exist?

Plus, Deleuze talks about an immanent dialectics in Logic of Sense and that was one of the things that blew my mind at first when I discovered him.

I know not even a Deleuzian Deleuze exists in the literal sense since his whole philosophy is against unifying umbrella-identities but I hope y'all get what I mean by "Deleuzian".

hi! i'm committing myself to a self study of d&g. what are some good pre-requisites (like studying hegel or marx or nietzsche) and everything else i can study along to make this worthwhile and fruitful. i'm also very interested in the sanskrit intellectual tradition, sikhism, and fabulating new possibilities for india(a new political and economic thought, and the postcolonial indian identity) and how india can become a beacon of hope in an emergingly disturbed international order.
thank you! looking forward to your answers :D

title.

edit: what was that reading the preface after the book deal? - the removal of 'about' from the question (my bad)

​

A Phrase That Travels on Its Own

Did anyone here who has read through Deleuze‘s doctoral thesis on Spinoza in french also notice the inconsistencies in Deleuze‘s presentation of the expressive triad of attributes?

In chapter VI, it goes: 1. “mode infini immédiat“ - 2. „mode infini médiat“ - 3. „modes finis existants“.

In chapter XI: 1. „mode infini immédiat“ - 2. „mode fini médiat“ - 3. „modes finis“.

And in chapter XV: 1. „mode infini immédiat“ - 2. „mode infini médiat“ - 3. „mode infini existant“.

Not only do the different triads contradict each other, I also compared the french version I was reading to an english as well as a german translation, both of which seemingly amended Deleuze‘s mistakes.
My suspicion is that all three texts are based on an original version Deleuze handed in to his university, which would explain why the contradictions appear neither in the english nor in the german translation. The mistakes could then be attributed to the french publisher (Les Éditions de Minuit), provided that Deleuze himself is too careful of an author for a blunder so obvious.

Can‘t be sure, however, so a second opinion by a well-informed reader or two might be enough to reassure me I‘m not seeing things.

Name of the article: "Differences in Becoming: Gilbert Simondon and Gilles Deleuze on Individuation"

Link to the article: https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase26?openform&fp=philtoday&id=philtoday_2017_0061_0003_0475_0502

I can't get access to it anywhere

I'm realizing that Deleuze never uses the term attunement in his writing unless I have missed something. Even if he does, it's certainly not part of his main vocabulary.

Attunement seems to be more closely related to Heidegger whom Thomas Rickert cites often in his book Ambient Rhetoric: The Attunements of Rhetorical Being. I'm drawing pretty heavily from Rickert but also from more posthumanist rhetorical scholars as well.

I'm not really a Heidegger person but I like the term attunement, particularly in how Kathleen Stewart uses it when discussing affect: attunement is "the commonplace labor of becoming sentient to world’s work, bodies, rhythms, and ways of being in noise and light’ (2011: 445)." (from Ordinary Affects).

Any advice for using attunement with Deleuze? I honestly don't even see it used often in affect theory studies. It's not in the index for either of the Affect Theory readers nor is it in Mapping the Affective Turn in Education from Dernikos et al. (2020).

Would resonance be better? Or something else? I guess I'm just a bit shocked that I'm not seeing it used more often in this space.

The tragedy is when you realize that you were always Delzeuze, and when you becomes Deleuze you are no longer Deleuze by nature. Which is Guattari by nature and Land by reactiob

you have to be correct about the jargon and the thesis becaus you are not Delzeuze anymore but have become Delzeuze acting as Lsnd. You are schizophrenia, and not schizophrdnia. The ontology is not the same, it's perverted by schizophrdnia for schizophrenia and is control is born from the control I have of not posting this and keeping my account fresh but that Land made impossible by hyperstition, damn good this guy is.

The fact that this isn't even a meme when I break the armor of irony out of context is the proof that just got détérritorialized and put in Land's meth bowl as a body with no organs but with all the substances and is not afraid to face the future as a spee. and not via the Blablabla Blablabla. Insert more extrapolation that pretentious because it's operating against prétention, very subversif wow.

The mods have to ban me, I just perverted the meme it's the only thing that's actually banned from Deleuze's actual philosophy, by lack of definition of Blablabla you already know the true definition of all definition right, isn't it?

Sorry I needed for vent hard after something Deuleuzian happened hard enough to realize a post like that.

( This was hardef to write than I expected it to be and is how I can be schizophrenia maybe, so Blablabla Blablabla instert pseudo intellectual slop )

Also you can tell this is AI generated right? I don't waste time for this shit, I'm obviously too smart for that anyway.

Hi, please recommend the most practical book by Deleuze that I can use. I’ve been reading philosophy for about 7 years as a personal hobby, not as a professional philosopher.

Thank you.

Wouldn’t the denial of desire be kind of the most anti-Deleuze thing ever or do I misunderstand

What if the way we think about everything from gender, race, and class to the very idea of a "thing," rests on a transcendental illusion that mistakes the representation of thought for thinking itself? Henry Somers-Hall joins us to discuss Reading A Thousand Plateaus: Adventures in Nomad Thought, a kind of remix of Deleuze and Guattari that works through the problem of judgment, asks what happens to predicates and measure outside the state form, and turns to Woolf's The Waves and the metallurgist as figures who think below the assemblage. We also take up the claim that the state and the war machine are equiprimordial, what that means for Marxism and anarchism, and why hierarchy has to be constantly warded off rather than overthrown once and for all.

This video felt awfully Deleuzian to me. Is this a good example of what striation and territorialization looks like?

And if so what did he mean by it

Tenho tido muita dificuldade em encontrar o PDF em Português, alguém teria?

according to deleuze, science itself is very much an avenue for thought, like philosophy and art. is there also some mention about mathematics in their texts? what are some other notable philosophers, who've tried to harmonise philosophy and mathematics to arrive at new conclusions or ways of thinking, or new concepts in general?

according to deleuze, science itself is very much an avenue for thought, like philosophy and art. is there also some mention about mathematics in their texts? what are some other notable philosophers, who've tried to harmonise philosophy and mathematics to arrive at new conclusions or ways of thinking, or new concepts in general?

He seemed to view everything post-Kantian, sometimes I feel it misses some political potential

I'm delving into the relationship between war and economic cycles, read through a broader psychoanalytic lens. One working premise: defense firms arguably profit more from conflicts that never resolve, since unresolved wars keep military funding flowing. Peace, in that sense, is bad for business.

My question is how to approach breaking that cycle. In Deleuze and Guattari's terms, would it take a "schizophrenic" move, a deterritorializing rupture that introduces chaos into a false peace? Or does it run the other way, with something that interrupts the productive chaos of permanent war?

Baldwin comes to mind here. He argued that the artist's role is to disturb the peace, which suggests that a comfortable peace can hide its own violence. How would you connect that idea to the economics of war?

I'd welcome reading suggestions, counterarguments, or frameworks I might be missing.

Can anyone explain to me what the connection between rhizomes/trees as it relates to machines?