Derybos 1972 - 1990

by Gilles Deleuze, Lina Perkauskytė (Translator), Nerijus Milerius (Translator)

„Filosofija atlieka visad labai aktualią funkciją - kuria konceptus. Niekas kitas už ją šito padaryti negali. <…> Šiandien žodžius "konceptas" ir "kūrybiškas" savinasi informatika, komunikacija, komercinė reklama, ir tie "konceptų kūrėjai" - įžūli padermė, kuri pardavimo aktą pateikia kaip aukščiausią kapitalistinę mintį, prekės cogito. Tokių galių akivaizdoje filosofija jaučiasi menka ir vieniša, bet jeigu jai ir teks mirti, tai ji mirs iš juoko.

Manau, filosofijai netrūksta nei publikos, nei sklaidos, tačiau ji - tarytum pogrindinis mąstymas, nomadinė mąstymo būsena. Vienintelė komunikacija, kurios galėtume norėti, - tai Adorno modelis: butelis jūroje, arba Nietzsche's modelis: vieno mąstytojo paleista ir kito pakelta strėlė.“

„Derybos“ - pirmoji lietuvių kalba pasirodžiusi Gilles'io Deleuze'o knyga, kurioje su vieno reikšmingiausių XX amžiaus prancūzų filosofo idėjomis ir darbais supažindinama jo paties lūpomis. Knygoje surinkti 1972 - 1990 metais daryti interviu, keletas pratarmių atskleidžia nomadinį Deleuze'o mąstymą ir yra puikus įvadas į jo filosofiją, kuri padarė didžiulę įtaką tokioms disciplinoms kaip psichoanalizė, estetika, kino teorija, kultūros studijos.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Theory, France, Politics, Psychology, Essays

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1990

About the author

Deleuze is a key figure in poststructuralist French philosophy. Considering himself an empiricist and a vitalist, his body of work, which rests upon concepts such as multiplicity, constructivism, difference and desire, stands at a substantial remove from the main traditions of 20th century Continental thought. His thought locates him as an influential figure in present-day considerations of society, creativity and subjectivity. Notably, within his metaphysics he favored a Spinozian concept of a plane of immanence with everything a mode of one substance, and thus on the same level of existence. He argued, then, that there is no good and evil, but rather only relationships which are beneficial or harmful to the particular individuals. This ethics influences his approach to society and politics, especially as he was so politically active in struggles for rights and freedoms. Later in his career he wrote some of the more infamous texts of the period, in particular, Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. These texts are collaborative works with the radical psychoanalyst Félix Guattari, and they exhibit Deleuze’s social and political commitment.

Gilles Deleuze began his career with a number of idiosyncratic yet rigorous historical studies of figures outside of the Continental tradition in vogue at the time. His first book, Empirisism and Subjectivity, is a study of Hume, interpreted by Deleuze to be a radical subjectivist. Deleuze became known for writing about other philosophers with new insights and different readings, interested as he was in liberating philosophical history from the hegemony of one perspective. He wrote on Spinoza, Nietzche, Kant, Leibniz and others, including literary authors and works, cinema, and art. Deleuze claimed that he did not write “about” art, literature, or cinema, but, rather, undertook philosophical “encounters” that led him to new concepts. As a constructivist, he was adamant that philosophers are creators, and that each reading of philosophy, or each philosophical encounter, ought to inspire new concepts. Additionally, according to Deleuze and his concepts of difference, there is no identity, and in repetition, nothing is ever the same. Rather, there is only difference: copies are something new, everything is constantly changing, and reality is a becoming, not a being.

He often collaborated with philosophers and artists as Félix Guattari, Michel Foucault, Guy Hocquenghem, René Schérer, Carmelo Bene, François Châtelet, Olivier Revault d'Allonnes, Jean-François Lyotard, Georges Lapassade, Kateb Yacine and many others.

Reviews

[Fergus, Weaver of Autistic Webs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Experienced adults of a certain age should avoid Negotiations, for it may stimulate the formation of an acidic sort of ennui within the comfortable home base of their self-possession.

Ingenuous kids may want to pass on it too, because it could sound the death knell to to their cherished sense of personal privacy.

But for my own stressed-out middle-aged Self it heralded the advent of a new intellectual freedom of expression...

But - YIKES! - it would later have me try to save my sacred sense of decency, holding tight to my values “comme si avec les talons, la sépulcre du désaveu!”

It’s a game-changer for all, but - and here’s the rub - a victory call for the liberated kids who once flowered at Woodstock.

Who are anything BUT like I once was, for... When I was a kid in the early 1960’s I was confused. All I wanted to do was go home again, which Regression Thomas Wolfe later told me was now Impossible.

By ‘67 - with Woodstock on the near horizon - I still clung frantically to my middle-class roots. When, that February, our school band travelled to another Canadian metropolis, I found myself billeted with a upper-bourgeois family like my own.

That first night, my host’s parents got anesthetized with gin & Gini’s and listened to 40’s Big Band Music, while my 17-year old roommate fell catatonically asleep with Golden Oldies tunes on his radio.

I was getting restless in La-la Land. Was this the life I wanted?

So the next month during March Break I listened to Judy Collins and started mulling over the Existentialists. And well on my way to understanding French philosophers, though Deleuze would come later.

For I had started to THINK... I was taking my first pecks in my Self-assigned task of cracking open my eggshell.

And thinking is treacherous. It leads nowadays into the very heart of postmodernist angst.

As I grew older, though not yet a Christian humanist, I used to feel I was continually faced with the onerous task of charting a straight and narrow course between two twin rocks - to put it poetically, the modern day Scylla and Charybdis.

Remember Homer’s Ulysses?

On the right, for me - the tranquilizing, emasculating mass media. And on the left - existentialist, and later postmodernist, freewheeling thought.

Don't get me wrong: it wasn’t and isn’t easy.

If you start out this way you’re doing like Paul Goodman said we were doing - Growing up Absurd. These days it’s much worse.

But this was my own way back ‘home.’

So in the end, to finish this I found I needed as much of the kind of a grounding in the thought and traditions of the Western religious and literary canon as I could possibly manage, because I found no substance in the media, and little solidity in the postmodernists.

THAT’s the real centre - much neglected in the postmodernist era - it will pull us back if we become ‘tangled in the fallen vines,’ as Paul Simon says.

You CAN go home in the end.

But it has turned into a wider and more expansive - and more risky - kind of home than the one I started out in. Thinking, coupled with my homing instinct, DOES have its rewards.

We have to realize that as thinking, free individuals coming from a long and honourable tradition, we are set apart. Set apart from the lost times we live in and their alluring though empty emoluments.

For if we think for ourselves there can be no satisfactions in lurid vacuity.
***

Gilles Deleuze represented freedom for the kids of the sixties, my generation.

His is a philosophy of taking chances, like his peers Foucault and Derrida.

It’s also a philosophy of extremes - so it’s no wonder I ignored him till late middle age, when my sometimes-manic feelings were more comfortably settled.

When I started reading him in the nineteen-nineties, his books suggested new parameters for my own thoughts and beliefs.

I was one of the lucky ones, for my mind was still growing as I approached near-retirement age: and to me now the jarring climacteric of youth seems no more than the sudden disconnect that follows upon our collision with original sin.

So my beliefs were sufficiently grounded enough to permit a happy landing.

The poststructuralists reinvigorated my mind and pushed back the horizons of my Faith to permit wider and more inclusive vistas for my religious worldview.

So to Gilles Deleuze, and the others of that rather radical generation, thanks for making me more human - as I near the conclusion of my own Long and Winding Road.

Oh, and Gilles, thanks also to you and so many other disenchanted thinkers of your time, I’ve come to shed my broken eggshell as you once did:

And have found a deep sense of abiding peace in going without its protection.

[chea · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Repressive forces don't stop people expressing themselves but rather force them to express themselves. What a relief to have nothing to say, the right to say nothing, because only then is there a chance of framing the rare, and ever rarer, thing that might be worth saying. What we're plagued by these days isn't any blocking of communication, but pointless statements [...] You can listen to people for hours, but what's the point? ... That's why arguments are such a strain, why there's never any point arguing. You can't just tell someone what they're saying is pointless. So you tell them it's wrong. But someone says is never wrong, the problem isn't that some things are wrong, but that they're stupid or irrelevant. That they've already been said a thousand times. The notions of relevance, necessity the point of something, are a thousand times more significant than the notion of truth." (pp. 129-130)

[Skrivena stranica · Rating 1 out of 5]

I do not believe in Schizoanalysis and that's it. It seems as just another one of those idiotic ideas that are soooo revolutionary just because it turns everything we believe on it's head. Yes, for sure is the schizophrenia normal being, and everything else is a product of control by society. Schizoanalysis is just another form of anarchism, this time in psychoanalysis.
Of course, there we some interesting parts and ideas, but then again, you can find that anywhere.

[Vapula · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great little crash course of his thought, this work shows a man who's not only brilliant and introspective, but humble with a gentle and kind spirit.

[M D]

Great survey of Deleuze esp as the essays and interviews tend to be framed looking back on the evolution of his thoughts and concerns; often very lucid and generous. As of now I am onboard with him as a pragmatist and a thinker of ethics, politics, and aesthetics. Suspicious of the metaphysics (and his phil of science, epistemic program, etc). Postscript on Societies of Control is too real.

[michal k-c · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ends with his “Postscript on Societies of Control” essay so it’s got that going for it. Otherwise this is mostly for the fans — he does reveal himself to be somewhat charming and warm in an interview setting though which could persuade newcomers to Deleuze’s thought, I suppose. I will add that his interviews on cinema are actually quite useful in clarifying some thoughts and concepts from his two cinema books, so it’s not all personal ephemera collected here (though that stuff, especially the letter to a harsh critic, is pretty fun / worthwhile as well)

[Tatyana · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Your writing has to be liquid or gaseous simply because normal perception and opinion are solid, geometric. It’s what Bergson did in philosophy, what Virginia Woolf or Henry James did with the novel, what Renoir did in cinema (and what experimental cinema, which has gone a long way exploring the states of matter, does). Not becoming unearthly. But becoming all the more earthly by inventing laws of liquids and gases on which the earth depends. So style requires a lot of silence and work to make a whirlpool at some point, then flies out like the matches children follow along the water in a gutter. Because you don’t get a style just by putting words together, combining phrases, using ideas. You have to open up words, break things open, to free earth’s vectors. All writers, all creators, are shadows.
Once you start writing, shadows are more substantial than bodies. Truth is producing existence. It’s not something in your head but something existing. Writers generate real bodies. In Pessoa they’re imaginary people - but not so very imaginary, because he gives them each a way of writing, operating. But the key thing is that it’s not Pessoa who’s doing what they’re doing. You don’t get very far in literature with the system “I’ve seen a lot and been lots of places,” where the author first does things and then tells us about them. Narcissism in authors is awful, because shadows can’t be narcissistic"

"Philosophy’s like a novel: you have to ask “What’s going to happen ?,” “What’s happened ?” Except the characters are concepts, and the settings, the scenes, are space-times."

"Even when you think you’re writing on your own, you’re always doing it with someone else you can’t always name."

"We sometimes go on as though people can’t express themselves. In
fact they’re always expressing themselves. The sorriest couples are
those where the woman can’t be preoccupied or tired without the
man saying “What’s wrong ? Say something… ,” or the man, without the woman saying… , and so on. Radio and television have
spread this spirit everywhere, and we’re riddled with pointless talk,
insane quantities of words and images. Stupidity’s never blind or
mute. So it’s not a problem of getting people to express themselves
but of providing little gaps of solitude and silence in which they
might eventually find something to say. Repressive forces don’t stop
people expressing themselves but rather force them to express
themselves."

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sure Deleuze is a poststructuralist, but who really cares about that? What I found in this book of mostly interviews wasn't just a great introduction to Deleuze, but an actual usefulness, as in useful for my own thinking. The last 12 pages of the book, the interview Control and Becoming and the short essay Postscript on Control Societies was worth the price of admission. The book is set into 5 parts; From Anti-oedipus to A Thousand Plateaus, Cinema, Michel Foucault, Philosophy, Politics. It's easy to jump around and not feel lost, and I've found myself returning to this book on occasion to glean bits of the war without battles, the negotiations that happen though a lifetime of thought and fighting power.

I'll gladly lend or give this book to someone I've hugged or kissed in real life, so if you are a friend and are interested in reading this, let me know.

[Tatiana · Rating 5 out of 5]

pedir el silencio. «¡qué tranquilidad supondría no tener nada que decir, tener derecho a no tener nada que decir, pues tal es la condición para que se configure algo raro o enrarecido que merezca la pena ser dicho!» «el estilo tiene, pues, necesidad de mucho silencio...». <33

[Flora]

1a releitura e 1a leitura completa incluindo “II. Cinema”, que não havia lido antes.

[Søren K. Dick · Rating 5 out of 5]

For anyone interested, I was recommended to start with this book before tackling books like The Logic Of Sense, A Thousand Plateaus, and The Fold. I don't think it helped as much as I thought it would, but now I appreciate it immensely. This book, along with his A-Z series on YouTube, makes me feel like I've been reunited with long-lost friends from another time. His thinking resonates with me and, im sure, countless others. Maybe it's fashionable and kind of avant-garde to be into these post-structuralists, but that doesn't take away from the feeling of investigating into reality from all sides to end up in the center where the new can freely emerge. That's an incredible feeling that most people, I think, aren't confronting in these modern times

[Andrew]

Not only do we get a closer, and rather less dense glimpse at Deleuze's unusual (and in my opinion, pretty insightful/awesome) perspective, we also get an unusually good sense of Deleuze-the-human as he comes forth on a number of topics in interviews and short essays. In particular, I like the opening "Letter to Harsh Critic," which is way funnier than any other piece of critical theory I've ever encountered. For example: "Non-oedipal love is pretty hard work." Kudos.

[Alexand · Rating 4 out of 5]

القراءة لدولوز هي خروج من السلطات و الشروط الي الذات و كشف حريته دائما ما انغمس بسلطة الاوار و اطيح فيه فخاخه الصعبة و الأوامر تسلب الأنسان حضوره , اسلوبه لو كنت مفكر كبير لا ركزت غلى كيف يصبح كل منا مكتشف للغة المعبرة عن خواصه الذاتية , كيف ينتج الفكر او يعبر عنه بكل الوسائل البشرية سوى سينما , رسم ادب , فلسفة , كتابة على الجوال , مقطع , كتابة على الكبيورد , الخ , حقل فلسفي , نفسي , فلسفي , سياسي , فني , ذاتي
الخروج من العبودية و البحث عن المادة استطيع من خلاله ان اعبر عن صوتي , هي ثورة و مقاومة ضد اخطر انواع السلطة , السلطة النمطية , سلطة افعل بهل الطريقة و اقرا بهل الطريقة , تصرف كذا انت بني ادم لا تتصرف كذا و الي السوط امامك , التركيز ضد السلطات و عدم الانخداع بصورة السلطة السياسية او الحاكم فسلطة موجودة في كل مكان , و منه سلطات التواصل , و الراسمالية , تفرض على الفرد لبس معين , سيارة , معينة هاتف معين , نمط معين او عدت انماط تختزل الفرد و تنصفه كتصنيف ايت قرد موجود , التجاوز و البحث عن الادات هو قوة الفرد ضد السلطات هو فعل المقاومة الفن هو شكل ضخم ضد النمط الثقافي خرق كل تلك السلطات و اعطاء للعالم صور ذهنية , شيء يذكرني فيه دولوز دائما ان التعبير ليست ادات للعبير
بمعنى ليست السينما مجرد وسيلة للبحاث النفسي , بل السينما ادات معبرة عن ذاته بذاته , هي تخلق فكره عن طريق الصورة و الحركة و المونتاج و الزمن و الصوت , ماذا تخلق السينما اعتقد هذا السؤال ينمط السينما عندما نحدد الهدف فكل انسان يكتشف داخل التفاعل لا بفكرة جامدة قبلية كل استطيع ان افكر فيه مجموع التفاعلات سوى كانت كتب او سينما او رسم الاخر , و انتج منظور للحياة لكن مع كل تفاعل جديد اعيد نظرتي للمنظور ابني عليه او انتقد لا ان احدد الغاية المسبقة , الفكرة مخاطرة كني اقول لا نستطيع معرفة معيار مسبق للعيب و الحقيقة هي مشكلة لكنه بنفس الوقت تعيد لغات التعبير الي اخر بدال
راسمال او استهلاك يصبح كل شيء منتوج يقيم وفقة الطعم او الطلبات ليست مغامرة مع الاخر اكتشف روحه , لهذا افضل ان يكون الانسان باحث عن الاخر الذي كل ما دخل معه شعر من نمو الذات من جديد مشكلة عصرنا هو عصر التشابه القراءة المتشابهة الافلام المتشابهة , تحديد الفيلم الافضل
التنوع و التعاريف الذي لا يملك الحدود يموت التفاعل البشري و الهوية تماما , دام الاخر حاضر في كل تلك الوسائل و هو انسان
و انت بطبيعة الحال لا تجدد اصحابك بشكل يومي بل تجلس و تتفاعل و تنمو اعتقد ايضا علينا تفعيل ذلك التفاغل مع ادوات التعبير نقرا لكاتب واحد , نشاهد افلام لمخرج معين نحبه لا تحدده الثقافة نعتمد على بوصلة النمو الذاتي فقط هل انمو او استهلك من اجل استهلاك او الرضاء الاجتماعي

طلعت عن الكتاب بسبب المواضيع تشعبت في راسي و انا اقرا لدولوز و الكتاب متشعب جدا هو محاورات و على قولة دولوز دول النقد هو
ان لا يعاد صياغة الشيء بل انتاج زوجة الاخر

[TL · Rating 5 out of 5]

"It's become a commonplace these days to talk about the breakdown of systems, the impossibility of constructing a system now that knowledge has become so fragmented ('we're no longer in the nineteenth century...'). There are two problems with this idea: people can't imagine doing any serious work except on very restricted and specific little series; worse still, any broader approach is left to the spurious work of visionaries, with anyone saying whatever comes into their head.

Systems have in fact lost absolutely none of their power. All the groundwork for a theory of so-called open systems is in place in current science and logic, systems based on interactions, rejecting only linear forms of causality, and transforming the notion of time... What Guattari and I call a rhizome is precisely one example of an open system.

A system's a set of concepts. And it's an open system when the concepts relate to circumstances rather than essences. But concepts don't, first of all, turn up ready-made, they don't preexist: you have to invent, create concepts, and this involves just as much creation as you find in art and science. Philosophy's job has always been to create new concepts, with their own necessity.

Because they're not just whatever generalities happen to be in fashion, either. They're singularities, rather, acting on the flows of everyday thought: it's perfectly easy to think without concepts, but as soon as there are concepts, there's genuine philosophy. It's got nothing to do with ideology.

A concept's full of a critical, political force of freedom. It's precisely their power as a system that brings out what's good or bad, what is or isn't new, what is or isn't alive in a group of concepts. Nothing's good in itself, it all depends on careful systematic use. In A Thousand Plateaus we're trying to say you can never guarantee a good outcome.

...People sometimes criticize us for using complicated words 'to be trendy.' That's not just malicious, it's stupid. A concept sometimes needs a new word to express it, sometimes it uses an everyday word that it gives a singular sense.

I think, anyway, that philosophical thinking has never been more important than it is today, because there's a whole system taking shape, not just in politics but in culture and journalism too, that's an insult to all thinking."

"What now seems problematic is the situation in which young philosophers, but also all young writers who're involved in creating something, find themselves. They face the threat of being stifled from the outset. It's become very difficult to do any work, because a whole system of 'acculturation' and anticreativity specific to the developed nations is taking shape. It's far worse than censorship.

Censorship produces a ferment beneath the surface, but reaction seeks to make everything impossible. This sterile phase won't necessarily go on indefinitely. For the moment just about all one can do is to set up networks to counter it. So the question that interests us in A Thousand Plateaus is whether there are any resonances, common ground, with what other writers, musicians, painters, philosophers, and sociologists are doing or trying to do, from which we can all derive greater strength or confidence."






"What we call a 'map,' or sometimes a 'diagram,' is a set of various interacting lines (thus the lines in a hand are a map). There are of course many different kinds of lines, both in art and in society or a person. Some lines represent something, others are abstract. Some lines have various segments, others don't. Some weave through a space, others go in a certain direction. Some lines, no matter whether or not they're abstract, trace an outline, others don't. The most beautiful ones do.

We think lines are the basic components of things and events. So everything has its geography, its cartography, its diagram. What's interesting in a person are the lines that make them up, or they make up, or take, or create.

Why make lines more fundamental than planes or volumes? We don't, though. There are various spaces correlated with different lines, and vice versa... Different sorts of line involve different configurations of space and volume.

...We can define different kinds of line, but that won't tell us one's good and another bad. We can't assume that lines of flight are necessarily creative, that smooth spaces are always better than segmented or striated ones.

...Cartography can only map out pathways and moves, along with their coefficients of probability and danger. That's what we call 'schizoanalysis,' this analysis of lines, spaces, becomings. It seems at once very similar, and very different, from problems of history."






"What we're interested in, you see, are modes of individuation beyond those of things, persons, or subjects: the individuation, say, of a time of day, of a region, a climate, a river or a wind, of an event. And maybe it's a mistake to believe in the existence of things, persons, or subjects. The title A Thousand Plateaus refers to these individuations that don't individuate persons or things."

"...Each plateau ought to have its own climate, its own tone or timbre. It's a book of concepts. Philosophy has always dealt with concepts, and doing philosophy is trying to invent or create concepts. But there are various ways of looking at concepts. For ages people have used them to determine what something is (its essence). We, though, are interested in the circumstances in which things happen: in what situations, where and when does a particular thing happen, how does it happen, and so on? A concept, as we see it, expresses an event rather than an essence. This allows us to introduce elementary novelistic elements into philosophy."

[Adam Goddard · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5/5 - A fine introduction to all Deleuze's works (that I haven't read yet) I believe that both those who have and have not read his work will find significant value reading this the content is a series on interviews given after the subsequent books have been written. Highly Recommend for those who wish to get into his stuff.

[Julen B · Rating 5 out of 5]

Los organismos mueren, no la vida.

Deleuze, only barras.

[Fuzzy Dunlop · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps this next century will be Deleuzian?

"Philosophy has always dealt with concepts, and doing philosophy is trying to invent or create concepts. But there are various ways of looking at concepts. For ages people have used them to determine what something is (its essence). We, though, are interested in the circumstances in which things happen: in what situations, where and when does a particular thing happen, how does it happen, and so on? A concept, as we see it, should express an event rather than an essence".

"Style in philosophy strains toward three different poles: concepts, or new ways of thinking; precepts, or new ways of seeing and hearing; and affects, or new ways of feeling. They're the philosophical trinity, philosophy as opera: you need all three to get things moving".

A must read

[Eric Phetteplace · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not gonna lie, I didn't learn much about Deleuze's outlook from this book, but it was a valuable read anyways. This is one of those posthumous, grab-a-bunch-of-interviews-and-uncollected-essays type of books but it fairs better than most because Deleuze is excellent in conversation, very good at distilling his ideas down to their key concepts and combating common misconceptions. If you've read much of Deleuze or read much about him, you've probably come across some of his famous quotes which are in this volume (i.e. "the lives of academics are seldom interesting" or the bit about Foucault's "Deleuzian century" being a joke). While there is some earlier stuff in here, the focus tends to be on his later works, specifically the books on Foucault and Leibniz.
Highlights:
-Letter to a Harsh Critic
-D&G on Anti-Oedipus (& A Thousand Plateaus)
-Mediators
-Control and Becoming

[Jacques · Rating 4 out of 5]

Deleuze mówi ludzkim głosem.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Questo libro mi è piaciuto molto, in teoria è un intervista di Deleuze da parte della sua ex studentessa Claire Parnet, però legge più come un testo collaborativo a flusso di coscienza in tipica maniera deleuziana dove l'interlocutore e l'intervistato diventano la stessa persona.

Non posso che essere d'accordo con la postfazione di Antonio Negri che definisce questo libro come il divenire-donna di Deleuze stesso. Lo si può notare in come è scritto e come si legge in maniera rizomatica, ripassando e revisionando temi che lui e Guattari discutono nel Anti Edipo e in Mille Piani. E devo dire che se avete difficoltà nel capire alcuni termi che provengono da quei libri, questo è buon punto per iniziare poiché vengono spiegati e discussi in maniera informale e pur sempre filosofica. E concordo con Negri anche nel fatto che leggendo questo libro non ci si può scordare delle discussioni della vespa e l'orchidea o anche sull'anoressia di Fanny, cose che fanno riflettere e riconsiderare come uno interagisce con il mondo che lo circonda.

Mi sono un po' perso nell'appendice poiché non ho una grande conoscienza della filosofia Bergsoniana di cui invece Deleuze è un guru in tutti i sensi.

Lettura assolutamente necessaria per coloro che amano Deleuze e Guattari.

[Molsa Roja(s) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Si de Diálogos em va plaure enormement el format i l'organització, els temes de què parlaven tant Deleuze com Parnet, a Conversaciones m'he trobat amb quelcom diferent. Aquest llibre és un recull de cartes, escrits i entrevistes de Deleuze sobre un reguitzell de temes. No els he trobat -personalment- tant rellevants com a Diálogos, ni la seva pròpia expressió tan llúcida. Probablement, perquè Diálogos sorgeix de l'intimitat i això no deixen de ser intervencions publicades. Així, si bé alguns dels temes tractats m'interessen força -les reflexions sobre El Anti-Edipo i Mil mesetas, sobre Foucault i també política- d'altres, com ara les de cinema o psicoanàlisi, m'han sobrat una mica. Tot i mancar-li en certs moments l'element diferencial de Deleuze, val la pena llegir-lo.

[Navid Baharlooie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Deleuze’s way of thinking is notoriously hard to understand. I’m not sure I understand it. This book offers some good guidelines, but I wouldn’t recommend it as an introduction.

In the form of various interviews we get a different angle to Deleuze’s philosophy, such as Anti Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. We also get a sense of how Deleuze understands the nature and purpose of philosophical activity.

I really liked the interviews about his reading of Foucault. These interviews are insightful to understand concepts from Foucault’s philosophy, such as subjectivation, truth and archaeology of knowledge, as well as the intersection with Deleuze’s philosophy and connections to Nietzsche.

[Troy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Philosophy is always matter of inventing concepts. I've never been worried about going beyond metaphysics or any death of philosophy. The function of philosophy, still thoroughly relevant, is to create concepts. Nobody else can take over that function. [...] These days, information technology, communications, and advertising are taking over the words "concept" and "creative," and these "conceptualists" constitute an arrogant breed that reveals the activity of selling to be capitalism's supreme thought, the cogito of the marketplace. Philosophy feels small and lonely confronting such forces, but the only way it's going to die is by choking with laughter.

[Hugo Chávez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Compendio de entrevistas y textos sueltos de Gilles Deleuze que editorial Pre-Textos tradujo para habla hispana divididos en secciones temáticas como son: cine, Foucault, política, filosofía y el Antiedipo: "Lo que me interesa son las relaciones entre las artes, la ciencia y la filosofía. no hay privilegio alguno de una de estas disciplinas sobre otra de ellas. Todas son creadoras. el auténtico objeto de la ciencia es crear funciones, el verdadero objeto del arte crear agregados sensibles, y el objeto de la filosofía es crear conceptos".

[H. · Rating 4 out of 5]

<在哲學与藝術之间>

Deleuze unveiled the charm of philosophy - to present it as a neutral theorem by patiently unfolding/expanding dimension of social landscapes. His concept inspired a meta-theory: the algorithm that is employed to analyse algorithms.

Most of Deleuze's notions are still extremely marginal and far-reaching today. To think, is to stage timeless battle in infinity, so in a narrow sense philosophy is the saving grace of the mortal physical body.

[Felipe Takehara · Rating 2 out of 5]

Os conceitos utilizados pelo autor são complexos demais para alguém que não conhece seu pensamento, e neste livro eles são utilizados como se seu entendimento já estivesse posto, porquanto se trata de uma coletânea de entrevistas, cartas e ensaios. Não entendi muito de suas ideias, mas algumas são interessantes. Instigou-me a comprar mais livros sobre o mesmo autor.

[rod · Rating 3 out of 5]

Falou muito sobre a tríade da produção intelectual contemporânea: coisas que eu concordo, coisas que eu discordo e coisas que eu não entendo.
As reflexões sobre cinema provavelmente são melhores caso se leia os livros sobre cinema do autor.
No geral, acho que é bom para a introdução do pensamento deleuziano (sobretudo sobre o Anti-Édipo).

[Mathieu · Rating 2 out of 5]

Un corpus assez flou qui a l'avantage de couvrir de nombreux aspects du travail de Deleuze, mais qui du coup en reste à un état très superficiel. La plupart des textes sont des interviews quasi promotionnelles de ses livres, et amènent beaucoup de redites, notamment sur Foucault.
Contient néanmoins le fameux Post-Scriptum sur les sociétés de contrôle.

[bram ieven · Rating 3 out of 5]

This collection of essays by Deleuze brings together a series of minor writings, largely of interest to readers already familiar with Deleuze’s major work.

Although the essays on Foucault, Leibniz, Spinoza or film theory can be read independently from the major works, the essays collected in Negotiations are mostly additions to Deleuze’s major books on those topics rather than stand-alone essays. There are a couple of great exceptions though. For readers interested in French cinema tthere’s a gem of an essay on French film critic Serge Daney. And the final section of the book contains Deleuze’s influential short essay “Postscript to the societies of Control”

[Filipe Siqueira · Rating 3 out of 5]

O livro é bem bom, mas simplesmente não nasci pra ler entrevistas