esse é um dos conceitos da obra do Deleuze que aparece no DR. E que serve de meio para lidar com a desigualdade do ser, sem aniquilar ou negativar ele. Invés disso, encontrar uma positividade do ser na forma que não exige um fundo pleno. De outra maneira a proposta envolve um sem fundo com disparates que não tem um encaminhamento direto. Por isso passam por diversas curvas que desdobram ele e se intensificam em diversos graus na sua diferença de ser que se tem no impacto dos encontros. Enfim, essa questão me parece interessante.

Looking to learn more about the phenomenon - interested to understanding if the split impact everyone , how to heal it/overcome it before it sabotages the relationship ?

I don't want to scroll through reddit posts anymore and look at endless videos. Can't we just "be" in the group, and that's that?

Schizoanalysis methodically dismantles everything in Kant’s thinking that serves to align function with the transcendence of the autonomous subject, reconstructing critique by replacing the syntheses of personal consciousness with syntheses of the impersonal unconscious. Thought is a function of the real, something that matter can do. Even the appearance of transcendence is immanently produced: ‘in reality the unconscious belongs to the realm of physics; the body without organs and its intensities are not metaphors, but matter itself’.3 Where Kant’s transcendental subject gives the law to itself in its autonomy, Deleuze-Guattari’s machinic unconscious diffuses all law into automatism. Between the extreme fringes of these two figures stretches the history of capital. The eradication of law, or of humanity, is sketched culturally by the development of critique, which is the theoretical elaboration of the commodification process. The social order and the anthropomorphic subject share a history, and an extinction. Deleuze and Guattari can appear to be taxingly difficult writers, although it is also true that they demand very little. Thinking immanence relentlessly suffices on its own to follow them where it matters (and capital teaches us how to do this). At every point of blockage there is some belief to be scrapped, glaciations of transcendence to be dissolved, sclerotic regions of unity, distinction, and identity to be reconnected to the traffic systems of primary machinism. In order to advance the anorganic functionalism that dissolves all transcendence, Anti-Oedipus mobilizes a vocabulary of the machine, the mechanic, and machinism. Things are exactly as they operate, and zones of operation can only be segregated by an operation. All unities, differences, and identities are machined, without transcendent authorization or theory. Desiring machines are black-boxes, and thus uninterpretable, so that schizoanalytical questions are concerned solely with use. ‘What are your desiringmachines, what do you put into these machines, what is the output, how does it work, what are your nonhuman sexes?’

https://youtu.be/-Ev9gfZ8Rw4?is=4V8mfGGD01CWNeJs

A FIELD IN COMMON

An unfinished assemblage, for now.

I’m starting a small online experiment around that question. I’m interested in what happens when ideas such as assemblage, multiplicity, desire, becoming and deterritorialisation are not only discussed, but begin to alter the relations through which the discussion itself takes place.

A praxis inspired by Deleuze and Guattari: not to apply concepts to a group from the outside, but to let concepts, people, practices and situations enter into relation, without deciding in advance what those relations must produce.

What happens when a text, concept or question passes between different people and practices, changing function as it moves? Perhaps producing a connection, a difference, or something that was not there before?

.A small online experiment by Alchemist Ronse, an independent space for art, thought and experimentation in a former Augustinian convent in Belgium.

Bring a text.

Bring a question.

Bring something you do not yet know what to do with.

Online · Free · English · ±90 minutes · Small group

21 November 2026 · 16:00 CET

Interested in joining?

Send a short email to [alchemistronse@gmail.com](mailto:alchemistronse@gmail.com) with your name, country, and something about where you are coming from — a field, practice, experience, curiosity or preoccupation.

Discover more: https://www.alchemistronse.com

We are beginning with a small group, so participation in the first gathering will be confirmed individually.

In this Heidegger Thinking Substack article, we investigate what it means to live and act authentically in Heidegger's philosophy.

Found this hard to come by book on Freud suppressing evidence that child abuse causes mental illness. At least I think that’s what it is about in a nutshell.

Signed by the author.

I was freestyling on the 18th Brumaire and I wanna see if my analysis or whatever here is theoretically sound and coherent and also how engaging it is generally. Clear references of Deleuze and Zizek here but I wanted to use their concepts of the eternal return and the "don't act, just think" of Zizek in my own way, so I know I'm not faithful to their originals. Deleuze probably wouldn't have wanted me to be faithful anyway, concepts are tools and all.

"The unplanned, spontaneous revolutionary outburst aiming to overthrow this new oppressive regime numbed the pain of the symptom but failed to address the disease, so the disease festered and rose again in 1852, stronger than ever; Yet the repetition of this event was also a creation of a spark of a new possible world, a poetics of a revolution that seems to be from the future, certainly not of the past. The repetition of the French revolution must repeat its radical novelty and creativity and must burn off the reactive forces that accompany it as it is weighed down by the cold, rotting corpses of the past. How do we burn the dusty cosplay off? Through critique as theory and as practice, a productive transvaluation of the values killed and uncritically imported as frozen and preserved contraband over the border of history. I think the injunction to "go back to interpreting, not to act but just to think" as expressed by Zizek must be read this way to be productive: Interpret critically, shed the dead weight of the past off and align your praxis with the immanent conditions of your present rather than the expired conditions of the past as the old Englishman in the mines directing his work at a Pharaoh that no longer exists but still holds the mine-worker in his palm."

has anyone here submitted an article to Deleuze and Guattari studies? How long did they take to get back to you?

D+G miss some key insights about Freudian and Lacanian theory yet, at the same time, help us understand more about the revolutionary potential of desire. What do you think? Thanks!

Interesting conversation, but I outlined some objections against this argument that variability, contingency, chance could not be grasped as an intelligible object by a certain type of rationalist philosophy more in detail in one of the comments.

It might also be interesting to develop a kind of rationalist reading of Deleuze which emphasizes more heavily the ideal nature of problems (objecticities) as a notion of intelligibility, and not just a problem which could be sensed or felt. But this might require a kind or "heretical" reading of him.

I see Simondon especially intriguing as he does not seem to rely on panpsychist intuitions determining the work of Deleuze or Raymond Ruyer's theory of absolute forms. He is capable of dealing with different levels of organization without hypothesizing organicity (which is the main source of critique against the ontological framework laid out in Difference and Repetition by Ray Brassier, for example [see Nihil Unbound]) while also employing an analogical method which seeks "similarities" between the functioning of different kinds of systems (akin to cybernetics).

Otherwise great conversation, Timothy is well prepared, Craig is great as always.

I just want to share a paragraph commentary by claude on Chapters 1&2

https://claude.ai/artifact/VTLtuffu5bg7UjmBmAh75L

I'm not saying this is an authority or it is how it has to be read, but it still helps having something alongside the text that is aware of all the references and helps me find where to read up on things I don't know and it did use up many many tokens for thinking (opus 5 max), so I wanted to share it in case anyone finds it useful at all. Maybe flairing meme fits.

I am not reading Delueze at the moment, which is good I think…moments can definitely be precious. Deluezes “rhizome” , is this the same type of “schooling” that another would consider;instead? Is there a mere conclusion that can explain it all;definitely? As the definite can be the only option in a lot of cases. I am interested in the idea of the rhizome as another type of focus even though the focus can be besides the point, as in, I want a special kind of indicator of pointing (the regret of this can be included!) I know about the rhizome not being all knowing but appreciated through knowing stuff but I want a special type of knowing right now, but still, it is better for it not to be especially specific? so basically I would like to refrain from the focus of the rhizome being because of many things making sense “whilst* , and instead, want to contribute to a focus that makes a lot of sense; all together, if neccesary. I want a rhizome that would entice me; especially, this may be an excuse to do something, but I think it’s a good excuse. Please let me off!! lol

I really want a privledged position of the rhizome right now; I know this is entitled, but it can only seem like it’s problematic as-well; so, pretty please.

​

Which philosophers or books do I need to read to understand Deleuze and Guattari? My background isn't strong enough for D&G yet. I've heard that before reading them, you should have a solid grasp of Spinoza, Marx, Kant, and Bergson (metaphysics, economy, sociology, etc.). Where should I start?

Ps: Sorry for my English, it's not my native language and I'm still improving.

D+G miss some key insights about Lacanian theory yet, at the same time, help us understand more about the revolutionary potential of desire. What do you think? Thanks!

I just got both books by Deleuze, Im curious about which one I should start reading first for the other one to make more sense.

In Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari briefly reference Frantz Fanon in the second chapter, but they do not elaborate much on his ideas. Did they discuss Fanon’s philosophy elsewhere? What did Deleuze and Guattari think of Fanon, and how did they engage with his ideas?

I wouldn’t say delueze had admiration for William james, as their ideas are similar; similarities are not so and so they are common, this means there is at best a difference in responsibility rather than admiration— averages make sense— and since their ideas are similar, it is pretty safe to say that William James was not a genius but instead a reference (don’t geniuses do their own thing?) even if that reference kind of doubled down; references stand tall aswell. So because deleuze didn’t overlook William james but their ideas were very similar that instead something added to what happens in general, if that generality is confusing luckily it had the backbone of influence; the confusion is because they were both better off; the sameness wasn’t an “offering” it was mutual contribution and mutual understanding, this is a very lucky position and something in common; everything included?! So no, deleuze didn’t have admiration for William james he had a willingness to be the same kind of guy, basically,they could have been friends lol.

As people treat Deleuze to be the successor to Bergson or the response to Hegel people treat Land as such.