The Deleuze Connections

by John Rajchman

The first book to present Gilles Deleuze's philosophy in language the nonphilosopher can understand. This book is a map of the work of Gilles Deleuze—the man Michel Foucault would call the "only real philosophical intelligence in France." It is not only for professional philosophers, but for those engaged in what Deleuze called the "nonphilosophical understanding of philosophy" in other domains, such as the arts, architecture, design, urbanism, new technologies, and politics. For Deleuze's philosophy is meant to go off in many directions at once, opening up zones of unforeseen connections between disciplines. Rajchman isolates the logic at the heart of Deleuze's philosophy and the "image of thought" that it supposes. He then works out its implications for social and cultural thought, as well as for art and design—for how to do critical theory today. In this way he clarifies the aims and assumptions of a philosophy that looks constantly to invent new ways to affirm the "free differences" and the "complex repetitions" in the histories and spaces in which we find ourselves. He looks at the particular realism and empiricism that this affirmation implies and how they might be used to diagnose new forces confronting us today. In the process, he explores the many connections that Deleuze himself constructs in working out his philosophy, with the arts, political movements, even the neurosciences and artificial intelligence.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

176 pages, Paperback

First published October 23, 2000

Reviews

[Kamakana · Rating 4 out of 5]

280718: later review. ok enough laziness! there are ideas here of some density, but in most of the philosophy i have read, immediately when finished i try to write a review, try to summarize for myself if no others the ‘style’ if not a ‘positive’ certainty of the thought found... in this case, not following a lot of phenomenology, but following the 'anti-canon', the 'minor' key authors: Spinoza, Nietzsche, Bergson.. and then the abstract on the back of this book gives me a bit more confidence even as if i am a 'nonphilosophical thinker', to whom this intro is encouraging, partly in readability with few neologisms, in clear and consistent freedom from structure, in which the contents are themes simplest to follow: 'connections', 'experiment', 'thought', 'multiplicity', 'life', 'sensation'. this is from 2000... and his work from fifties sixties seventies and eighties...

'connections' is possibly the best first concept eg. 1) requires style of thought to be 'empiricist’ and 'pragmatic', where names include descartes, hume, kant, and insistence in his creative logic of 'and...and...and...' rather than 'is/is not' 2) these are by the new definition 'machines' which are not predictive but reactive, following no superior 'schemata', 3) these logical moves of connections 'must be made', created, invented, rather than found or discovered, and leads to pragmatic 'event' rather than abstraction of 'being', though all that phenomenology i have read is not useless, for i am familiar with 'precognitive' experience and it seems useful, it seems like that creation of thought has set where deleuze's work starts... 4) 'classical' philosophy created in opposition of superstition and error, not even now can we say it is exhausted, gone, forgotten, but there is the threat of 'stupidity', which is only defeated when thought is no longer considered only 'rational' rather than the effort to simply even 'think' 5) continues d's strategy of deploying the arts against 'communicational stupidity’ (eg. 'control' in ws burroughs) and against the futile research to create an artificial brain, though in fact d did not see the human mind according to the 'computational model' of ever-more great complex of the usual bits and bytes, 6) all these threads of connections are never between equals but always with 'greater' and 'lesser', as the mind is not scalable, as the created connections are multiple and constant, as 'micro' and 'macro', of 'individuals', before they are 'anonymous' and somewhat acting without any sort of 'map' but continually responsive, constantly trying to carry thoughts to the correct 'plateau' and then, not in this book but read somewhere else, it is asserted that d is operating with a sort of 'trinity': spinoza, nietszche, bergson, as spinoza offers ‘invention’, as nietzsche ‘affirms’, as bergson finds ‘duree’ in time... d rewards further reading, already i think of how ‘philosophy’ or particularly ‘metaphysics’ is ‘over’ apparently a common refrain, that is about as meaningless as literary people claiming the novel is ‘dead’...

first review: as this is my 24th book on or by or invoking deleuze you would think perhaps there is some sense, some style, some things or thoughts, that has been uncovered, however abstract or confusing, but this hope is not completely answered for me. then again... as this is a short book it may require much reading and much studying the man himself, all the books of his thoughts, but the main takeaway for me is focusing on any particular one, the reader must risk other previous or subsequent thoughts to glide by and escape on its ‘line of flight’, and yet this book may be better than the introductory work i have read, this book certainly affirms how much the man has read, so the four is more reflection of my ignorance than his writing...

i have decided to read this slowly, over some days, hoping in this way to allow previous sections to sediment and water to clear, but i have been reading other works, other genres, other authors, and to get into the flow, onto the plateau, of his works has necessitated reading a few paragraphs again, and while the author has admirably extracted the thoughts, while maybe what makes a five for me is just how he is compelling and clear and concise. i am reading this slowly because in some ways i am slow some ways i am quick in other ways, but his books have not all been read, ideas not yet clear, but as always i continue to not understand yet enjoy not understanding. and this secondary work suggests how much i have to read...
Deleuze
Nietzsche and Philosophy
What Is Philosophy?
Gilles Deleuze: Key Concepts
Bergsonism
Bergson-Deleuze Encounters: Transcendental Experience and the Thought of the Virtual
Deleuze, Bergson, Merleau-Ponty: The Logic and Pragmatics of Creation, Affective Life, and Perception
Gilles Deleuze: Cinema and Philosophy
Deleuze on Cinema

[Andrew]

I should start by saying that, as far as I can tell, Rajchman gives an excellent explication of Deleuze's theories. When Rajchman uses a piece of Deleuzean terminology without explaining it, he's using a milder form of the obnoxious rhetorical strategy that Deleuze himself employed, but it's far more readable in this context.

It's been a long, long time since I was 21 or so and read a great many of the works of Gilles Deleuze and was amazed. Now that I'm revisiting Deleuze's ideas a bit more sober, a bit more adult, and while I find them no less provocative, I'm more and more aware that they are an untenable basis for any real program of political or social change. Now, Deleuze may have argued that his ideas should stand on their own merit, without any intent towards changing the world. If that's the case, then, why does he always get lumped in with the world of French militant philosophy? They're still brilliant ideas, but they fail to form a basis for a systematic "practical philosophy" that Deleuze was so insistent on moving towards. Rather, we get an onslaught of concepts-- multiplicity, rhizome, etc.-- that may provoke us towards some interesting ideas, but are signposts as opposed to actual arguments.

[Uğur · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to take steps in philosophy and create a map of the "city of reality" in your mind by straying into unfamiliar paths in philosophical thought, as Deleuze said, philosophy cannot be done without creating concepts. There is a huge area of information that exists but has not yet been known, noticed or named by people. Since Deleuze saw this vast universe, he has drawn maps for himself to explore it, and while doing so, he proceeded by naming the streets and streets he discovered.

In its simplest form, this way I can tell rajchman penned and pretty heavy on the practice described using a language of Deleuze academic philosophical, transcendental empiricism, Deleuze philosophy questioning the context of the molds should be destroyed quite old with a chest within the framework of the philosophy of Nietzsche by evaluating the occurrence of posture by taking the restructuring of destruction followed by transfer (poststructuralist thought) to explain the function of art within the scope of being carried over it with a new interpretation of the philosophy of art take, referring to reification and alienation and anti-oedipus, our author has embarked on a great interrogation on almost all the concepts of Deleuze's philosophy.

It's a pleasure to read the book, but I can't say that it's an ideal book for those who don't want to bother with analyzing it, because the language is quite heavy. For those interested, it is a very ideal book. Have a pleasant reading.

[Miklós · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very concise, and good for those seeking to approach Deleuze from without philosophy. It's far less in-depth than Young or Parr's introductions, but still well written and fairly comprehensive.

[HugoWonderstruck · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my first foray into Deleuze so I cannot say exactly how faithful Rajchman is. This is a great introduction that paints a general picture while giving space for the reader to wonder and look for more.

[Luke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lots out there who don't really understand Delueze. Pretty sure even Delueze didn't always understand Deleuze. But this analysis territorializes all the relevant political information to tell a believable story. Rajchman can stick to his guns from whichever perspective you want. Interesting that anything this concise can be spelled out about Deleuze really. I think he would appreciate it. The future is art for Delueze. Metaphor presents itself temporally when you can more concisely define your spatial terms I suppose.

[William West]

I should really delve deeper in to Deleuze. But I just don't want to.