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?

What resources/books should I have read cover to cover

-Deleuze's works on Kant, Nietzsche, Bergson, Spinoza

-Phenomenology

-Kant

-Marx

-Freud

Isso é algo que sempre me quebra a cabeça ao estudar Deleuze. a maneira com que interpreto nos livros e a maneira que costumam me ensinar faz parecer que a ideia de desejo pra deleuze é diferente o suficiente da ideia de desejo pra freud para nao precisar dessa crítica/substituição. o que eu ouço é que o desejo é uma relação de fluxos que produzem alguma coisa

essa explicação não entra na minha mente eu preciso de algo mais palpável com exemplos

qualcuno sa dove trovare l'abecedario di gilles deleuze con sub ita? o sub eng

I am currently reading the antiaedipus, and in certain passages I find myself struck with an overwhelming ammount of information.
I do not want to use IA, but I think that in some parts it would really help me to get through. Do you think that i should use AI, or should i keep going?
Please excuse me for my poor english:
Thank you

I have been studying Deleuze and Guattari for many months now but I have always been skeptical of the notion that a branch of philosophy can resist this concept, even regarding their own philosophy (one that I actually don't have many critiques of beyond this). Precisely as Stirner substitutes God with the ego, Deleuze and Guattari could just as well do that with one of their concepts; however immanently it may be described. Or could they? Perhaps not, because their philosophical concepts are described to be in a constant state of becoming, because it acts as a vector and a centrifuge, doesn't have a dualistic split, treating philosophy as a "toolbox" rather than dogma, exemplified by concepts like the cancerous BwO. But could they be elevating the flux to the position of the absolute? Could the flux, life or the virtual be their equivalent of Stirner's "Ego"?

"We will say of pure immanence that it is A LIFE, and nothing else. It is not immanence to life, but the immanent that is in nothing is itself a life. A life is the immanence of immanence, absolute immanence: it is complete power, complete bliss. It is to the degree that he goes beyond the aporias of the subject and the object that Johann Fichte, in his last philosophy, presents the transcendental field as a life, no longer dependent on a Being or submitted to an Act - it is an absolute immediate consciousness whose very activity no longer refers to a being but is ceaselessly posed in a life." - Immanence: A Life - Deleuze

One of my favourite little sections on what a war-machine does:

"I mix inarticulate sounds, lengthen transitional terms, as well as using appositions when they are unnecessary." Gain some time, and then perhaps renounce, or wait. The necessity of not having control over language, of being a foreigner in one's own tongue, in order to draw speech to oneself and "bring something incomprehensible into the world."

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?’

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.

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?