Deleuze despre funcţionarea unei cărţi, afirmaţie adevărată

Gilles Deleuze proposed changing the primary question that we ask of a book from an interpretive to a pragmatic one—from “What does it mean?” to “Does it work and, if so, how?” It is with this latter question in mind that Deleuze called ...

How do Deleuze and Guattari describe their writing? (1601, lines of articulation or segmentarity, strat and territories) The nature of a book itself? (1602, assemblage, connected with other assemblages, we will never ask what a book means)

Throughout the book, and later, in Foucault, Deleuze uses the concept of the fold to describe the nature of the human subject as the outside folded in: an immanently political, social, embedded subject. In addition, in The Fold, we see a remarkable cross-section of Deleuze’s whole work, expressed in a new way through the material that he analyses.

Ultimately, then, Difference and Repetition will show that the individuation of entities is produced by the actualization, integration, or resolution (the terms are synonymous for Deleuze) of a differentiated virtual field of Ideas or “multiplicities” that are themselves changed, via “counter-effectuation,” in each individuating event. Chapter 3 lays out 8 postulates of the “dogmatic image of thought.” Between the first four and last four postulates we find a theory of the faculties, which is thus at the crossroads of both the chapter and the book.

The analysis of film music is emerging as one of the fastest-growing areas of interest in film studies. Yet scholarship in this up-and-coming field has been beset by the lack of a common language and methodology between film and music theory. Drawing on the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, film studies scholar Gregg Redner provides a much-needed analysis of the problem which then forms the basis of his exploration of the function of the film score and its relation to film’s other elements.

The phenomenological analysis of the body, Reynolds concludes, functions as a kind of Aristotelian mean capable of moderating the extremes of poststructuralism and analytic philosophy (229). Reynolds' book thus derives a certain coherence from the overall trajectory of his project: to first expose the inadequacies of certain representatives of analytic and poststructuralist philosophy with regard to time and politics (while at once acknowledging their relative strengths), and then to show how phenomenological analyses of the body could serve as a remedy to those inadequacies or "chronopathologies."

Here too, as Williams shows (30), Deleuze appropriates the Kantian concept of synthesis by modifying its status: in Kant, syntheses are activities undertaken by the mind or the subject, whereas in Deleuze, by contrast, they are passive processes that are constitutive of both minds and subjects -- and indeed, of objects as well (32). Summarizing his thesis, Williams writes: "Every determinate thing is a combination of singularities, forming a multiplicity that is changing in multiple ways according to the syntheses of time" (187n10). The heart of the book, however, lies in its central chapters (two through five), where Williams expands on the concept of synthesis, and presents detailed analysis of the three fundamental types of temporal syntheses proposed by Deleuze: habit (present), memory (past), and the new (future).

Anti-Oedipus (“It is at work everywhere…”). This seems to miss completely · the thrust of Deleuze and Guattari‟s thought. Especially central to these · books is a strong critique of anthropocentrism – evident in their general

Kafka by Walter Benjamin, in which we can read these decisive words: "There · are two ways to miss the point of Kafka's works. One is to interpret them natu- rally, the other is the supernatural interpretation. Both the psychoanalytic and · the theological interpretations equally miss the essential points."1 In 1974, when · Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari devoted a book ...