I know they go into music heavily in Of the Refrain, and I'm sure there are a plethora of music recommendations there. I know that the implications of this chapter involve more than just music like territoriality, but let's stick with the music here.

Apart from this plateau, is there any place where they discuss the politics of music, like jazz or punk for example?

What if they were alive today? What music would they be into? What music is revolutionary and what is reactionary?

Have any artists taken inspiration from them? As someone who reads Deleuze and Guatarri, do you have any music recommendations?

Edit: Thanks everyone for the recommendations. I found this music on Spotify, created explicitly for Deleuze: https://open.spotify.com/album/6T0wcJZHkiGkZAt3si4zJA?si=QcE1KeLfR3anAfNX2SjKTA

How do D&G read literature? By this I mean, what is the process they use in their analysis of works of fiction?

How is this different from someone like Derrida, whose aim is to deconstruct the text, where the goal is to show that the meaning of a work is unstable and could have multiple or alternative meanings?

Do they treat books as assemblages, where you can plug in other machines (other texts or works of philosophy) into the book? What does their process look like?

Is the book just a tool and one interpretation/reading just one among many uses of that tool? I know they're distancing themself from interpretation which is a psychoanalytic tool. So maybe another approach?

And in Anti-Oedipus (it's probably from Chapter 4 because I haven't read that one yet since I'm in Chapter 3), perhaps they give a schizoanalytic approach for reading texts? What is this? Can anyone explain?

My main question is how can we learn from Deleuze and Guatarri to read texts the way they read texts?

How much do their views on psychology differ from each other?

Initially, I was looking for material about Jean Baudrillard's views on psychology/psychoanalysis/Freud, but some of the stuff I came across included references to Deleuze and Guattari, which made me feel like finding out more about their thoughts on it too, as well as about how their perspectives compare to Baudrillard's.

In case you're interested, here's some of what I found regarding Baudrillard:

Baudrillard: Theorist of Alienation (Interview with political theorist Andy Robinson)

Foucault, Baudrillard and the History of Madness (by Dr. John Iliopoulos, published in The International Journal of Baudrillard Studies)

It was just released and seems like a very important approach to the shift from the primacy of judgement in german idealism to experience, sense, differance, and intensity that characterized 20th century french philosophy, including Deleuze of course. Henry Somers-Hall does cover german idealism (Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Hölderlin) and then moves on to explicate some figures in french philosophy, including Bergson, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, and Derrida.

Thanks in advance!

I've been confused about this for a while and thought I should ask here

How do one emit particles of movement and rest that enter in contact with a microfeminity? What is a microfeminity?

I know there's a whole chapter in ATP, which I've read, but I'm looking for ways in which this is attempted practically.

I can think of one way (correct me if in wrong): playing existing music (lodging oneself in a stratum) and slowly improvising the song until something completely new is produced (the line of flight out). But I don't feel like I've reached the BwO (of course one cannot since it is a limit that we are forever reaching but I don't know if I've ever come close).

What is the process supposed to look like? Is it dismantling the self? Is it destroying instinctive forces and replacing them with transmitted ones? Is it just experimenting with random things? How do I fabricate the BwO and circulate intensities on it? Am I already doing it? Is it so simple that it's right in front of me and I'm missing it?

Have any of you practiced this, with at least some success? What do you think a BwO is anyway?

What is so bad about Hegel that Deleuze didn't make a monstrous offspring with him? What made him make an 'account of the enemy' with Kant but not Hegel? I know Difference and Repetition are substitutes for Identity and Negation and that the book probably goes into Deleuze's aversion to Hegelianism, but, for someone who has not fully engaged with it, what exactly makes these two philosophers different?

Was reading Badiou's little essay on "The Event in Deleuze" and was struck by Badiou's characterization of Deleuze's thinking here. Admittedly I have not read Logic of Sense, but to say that "the event is [for Deleuze] the ontological realisaion of the eternal truth of the One" and that "it is in no way a void, or a stupor, separated from what becomes" struck me as deeply strange. I think in particular of Deleuze's treatment of Proust, where he is continuously stressing the ways in which thought is prompted—by an act of violence—by that which stands outside of it. To me this would imply that the event in Deleuze is a rupture of sorts—if not in the One that Badiou foists on Deleuze, then at the very least in our habits. Anyways, just was curious to see if anyone else had any insights on this interpretive debate.

I don’t know as much as I’d like to know about Deleuze, but someone I know who is an avid reader of him brought up the concept of a rhizome, and my immediate thought was that it was pretty much exactly the kinds of objects studied in graph theory. Is there a connection here, perhaps even known to Deleuze, or is his concept something to which applying graph theory would only obscure?

Hiya! I'm working on modernist novel and decided to tackle the simply impossible subject of everydayness. My definition is two-fold: firstly I wonder whether everyday life is something outside of us that can be experienced, captured and described (time as repetition, space as home, modus as habit?); secondly I wonder whether everydayness isn't actually our natural way of experiencing the world, our relation to the world, our understanding of language and time itself (which would make hermeneutics of everydayness a tautology of sorts; I got it from phenomenology, broadly speaking).

To be completely honest I'm simply fishing for inspiration (should be writing today but eh...); I'm not very much into/don't know that much about later Deleuze (I'm using his early books on Bergson and Proust in my project though!), but I got very cool advice from this sub before so here I am once again asking for your support :) If you have any loose ideas or thoughts about something in Deleuze or elsewhere, any references or thoughts would be super helpful, thanks in advance!

D&G have are really invested in portraying a vivid depiction of the Despot, in a way that none of the people in their sphere seem to. People like Bataille and Foucault are more interested in the medieval version of sovereignty and people like Nietzche are more infatuated with the greek, in general in philosophy this image of the Despot seems absent.
Or at least I've never seen it anywhere else. My question is where are D&G getting this image of the Despot from, is it their own invention based in history or are they poaching it from someone else. That's my question I guess.

Does anyone know from where is Deleueze's statement on Heidegger becoming old and a "hollow head" or something along those lines? How he should've retracted from philosophy earlier... It might've been on Sartre actually, but I really can't remember.

Such is the link between imperceptibility, indiscernibility, and impersonality—the three virtues. To reduce oneself to an abstract line, a trait, in order to find one's zone of indiscernibility with other traits, and in this way enter the haecceity and impersonality of the creator. One is then like grass: one has made the world, everybody/ everything, into a becoming, because one has made a necessarily communicating world, because one has suppressed in oneself everything that prevents us from slipping between things and growing in the midst of things. One has combined "everything" (le "tout"): the indefinite article, the infinitive-becoming, and the proper name to which one is reduced. Saturate, eliminate, put everything in.

Gilles Deleuze's 1992 essay Postscript on the Societies of Control focuses on his concept of objectile. It argues that while Deleuze suggested that the newer modulatory mode of power replaced the disciplinary mode of power identified by Michel Foucault, the two modes can actually function at the same time, through the very same writing apparatus, producing effects which may be at times complimentary, and at times quite antagonistic.

Any tips on improving your live following the ideas of deleuze?

Hiya, just finished anti Oedipus.

What sort of things does the book discuss, how does to differ from AO, what to look out for?

What is it's task, compared to anti Oedipus?

Thank you !

I know that the former is paranoiac, despotic and about deception while the latter is passional, authoritarian and about betrayals but I'm still struggling to understand what the postsignifying regime actually is. I also don't get the subject of enunciation and subject of the statement bit which I think D+G pick up from Foucault. Would appreciate any help. Would also appreciate if someone can explain how this ties in to chapter 3 of Anti-Oedipus

I am looking for a book that profoundly engages with Guattari's full work, analyzing his different proyects and epochs. Something like a sistematic analysis of all his work.

I think I may understand it, so I'm just going to say what I think it means in case I've got it terribly wrong

So the classical conception of desire is that it is negative , and therefore bad. Someone who desires is empty, and to be complete means to want nothing more.

D+G posit that desire causes us to act and produce things (both social reproduction in a wider sense , and just literally making things, like art and tools) .

So therefore the thing that desires and produces things due to that desire is the fundamentally unit of an animated world.

So trees engaged in desiring production through their want to expand , and in doing so they make more of themselves and harbour more life.

And the schizo is good because they want loads of random shit (true in my experience ) and this runs counter to the unconscious desires that cause people to reproduce capitalism . They like bring in loads of random flows of information and scramble them .

I know there have been threads asking this but actively engaging in this sorta thing is a lot more helpful for me.

I've realised as I read this book, having things as diagrams is very useful for me comprehending it. The margins of my copy is full of endless arrays of half formed nonsense machines, which have been really useful for my understanding of the work.

Anyone have any diagrams of anything in the book, any concepts? (Stuff directly from D+G is good, though nothing that's already in anti Oedipus as I have seen it)

Does anybody have the video in question? The P in his abécédaire? I was trying to watch it in SUB-TIL but it's members only and I haven't found it elsewhere.

hey guys! I'm writing a paper on film theory where I try to analyse David Lynch's films through Deleuze’s writings on cinema and aesthetics, and I would love some input from the community.

the idea first came to me while watching Inland Empire short after I finished reading Rhizome. I also encountered a meme about Deleuze being to philosophy what Lynch is to cinema, and so I decided to choose that topic for my essay.

I'll be focusing mainly on Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire, but I would love to hear any suggestions, ideas or advice from the Deleuze connoisseurs :)

Are we able to think of the body without organs- at least in some way- as skilful coping in the world?

In the Connective Synthesis of Production, D+G describe the narrator in In Search of Lost Time:

it is clear that the narrator sees nothing, hears nothing, and that he is a body without organs, or like a spider poised in its web, observing nothing, but responding to the slightest sign, to the slightest vibration by springing on its prey

From a Heideggerian perspective this example puts me in mind of skilful coping as the way in which humans engage in practical, everyday activities without reliance on mental representations of the tools and objects with which we interact.

Is this at least one profitable way through which to think about the BWO while continuing to read Anti-Oedipus?

I'm interested in Deleuze's views on de Sade's ideas and to what extent he agreed/disagreed with those who say that de Sade's writing style is terrible.

While we're at it, do you have any opinions on de Sade's ideas and/or writing style?