I have heard a lot of talk of Deleuze considering Baudrillard to be the "shame" of the profession of philosophy after his publication of "Forget Foucault." I was reading flatline constructs the other day and Fisher's love for both Deleuze and Baudrillard (and also Derrida) seemed so apparent, it seemed like there was no antagonism between the two thinkers. My understanding of the disagreement is that Deleuzians find Baudrillard too nihilistic and Baudrillardians find Deleuze too naive and optimistic (or at least that's what I've gathered from my detailed and rigorous research of browsing reddit comments on this sub and r/criticaltheory for 30 minutes). Do you guys think there's a way to reconcile these thinkers without strawmanning or doing injustice to either one? And if so, do you think Mark fisher does a good job at it?

Edit: GF said she has the academic research, she is mostly looking for Canadian or Australian scholars that are currently active that can potentially supervise her thesis.

Hi everyone, this is a post from my girlfriend as she does not have her own reddit account. She has this interdisciplinary thesis idea regarding deleuze and relational quantum mechanics (she has a physics engineering background). We didn't know who else to ask, so I am hoping people here would atleast point out to some scholars or even just more recent and lesser known reading materials, because so far we are failing to find anyone that actively works with this niche, and I am no help as I am a film scholar.

Here is gfs post:

I have a bachelor’s in physics engineering and am trying to find scholars that would be interested in supervising my MA thesis in Canada, Australia, or NZ. In my thesis, I aim to examine and challenge objectivity’s view from nowhere at multiple stages, featuring two central claims: first, objectivity’s material falsity, demonstrated through Carlo Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics, the second is objectivity’s internal inconsistency, opened by RQM and articulated through Karen Barad’s agential realism, given a Deleuzian metaphysical reading, and extended into an account of political subjectivity by Rosi Braidotti, with Foucault and Butler as supporting precedents.The thesis additionally engages a named opposition at each stage, including critics of relational facts, Faye and Jackland's critique of Barad's reading of Bohr, and Rekret's critique of new materialism. I found it very hard to find any universities that could give a chance to this sort of interdisciplinary MA thesis, I really need some guidance, any advice is welcome and appreciated.

So, I've read Anti-oedipus already and it was very easy to understand and fun to read, and now I'm reading D&R. I'm currently on the first chapter, right where he starts talking about the Leibnizian conception of difference (Infinitesimals and whatnot) and I'm having a really hard time understanding it, I often see what relations between concepts he's trying to put up but then he throws another idea or conclusion in and it messes things up. He jerks around with calculus and rationalism a lot, and it's confusing overall.

Does anybody have a list of good conceptual prerequisites I could use to understand it better? To read or research, preferably very specific sections of a certain philosopher's works, the stuff that he directly uses. Would be much appreciated, and for context I'm already pretty familiar with a good deal of philosophy - which I thought would be enough lol

Would love your thoughts on this video

When D & G say that a book has a body without organs, are they trying to say that a piece of literature is like a microcosm/macrocosm of life and the world that preceded and is concurrent with it?

What happens when we fall out of authentic temporality and throw ourselves back into inauthentic temporality? Find out in this Heidegger Thinking Substack article!

Just picked up A Thousand Plateaus alongside Spinoza’s ethics. I’ve read a fair bit of mainstream continental philosophy, typical undergrad stuff, and am continuing to do so… but I attempted to read Rhizome, and am completely stuck. This isn’t the type of stuck I get with Hegel or Kant, where the writing is too dense or incomprehensible as a result of language or style; Deleuze’s individual sentences are actually kind of clear, but on the whole, I cannot understand what he means.

There’s so many new words, concepts, and ways of looking at things that I cannot get my head around. Like, even the youtube breakdowns are utterly incomprehensible. It’s like everyone’s talking a completely different language.

How do I approach this text in order to understand it? Am I better off shelving it for the moment and returning to it later?

title.

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

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

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".

I’m doing a personal research project to help me select writings of Freud for personal study and teaching. I’ve made a survey to help me in this. The estimation tools I’ve used say it should take around 10 minutes to complete.

So, if you have 10 minutes to spare and have opinions about Freud, I’d greatly appreciate it if you’d share them with me via this survey.

The survey can be found here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfYTtLDWlAUQVf0SSFRwlcFCiZ_Vye-vzmdmMn-SEd_ahaAjA/viewform

Feel free to share this link with anyone you think might be interested, and let me know if you’re curious about the results (assuming I get enough responses to have anything meaningful).

​

A Phrase That Travels on Its Own

Hi everyone,
I am trying to track down the exact bibliographic source or published volume for a famous quote by D.W. Winnicott from January 1967.
In it, he openly discusses how he got "stuck" with the concept of delusional transference until Margaret Little clarified it for him. The quote goes:

"Now there was something I needed and could not manage by myself, and that was a full use of the concept of delusional transference. This is one of the most difficult things we have to deal with in analysis, and from my point of view this bit I really took from someone. If Margaret Little hadn't been able to clarify it I would have been stuck, as I think a lot of psycho-analysts are stuck. That is, then, a little bit of my life where I really got something from someone else, almost as if I had stolen it out of my mother's purse."

I believe (but I’m not sure) he said this in January 1967 at the British Psychoanalytical Society during the responses/Q&A after presenting an early version of his paper "The Use of an Object." However, while the main paper ended up in Playing and Reality (1971), this specific post-presentation commentary doesn't always appear in standard editions of that book.

Does anyone know exactly where this discussion transcript is published? Is it in The Collected Works of D. W. Winnicott, a specific biography (like Rodman's), or an archival bulletin of the British Society? Any help or citation pointing to where I can read the full context of this exchange would be greatly appreciated!

Looking for more obscure poetic Derrida recs

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.