Thank you! Absolutely, I think Deleuze got some of his original insights on difference from Bergson, whereas Whitehead seems to have come only later to his attention. Both are qualified as "vitalists" by Deleuze somewhere, but it's true that they differ in many ways--would be a cool research topic.

Thanks Leonard, appreciate it! It's a great suggestion, I'd love to work on these two books and certainly will in the not-too-distant future.

Thanks a lot Kyle, appreciate it!

Thank you for the kind words Ilya, I really appreciate it!

Glad you liked it, thank you for watching!

Great idea, thanks for the suggestion. I definitely would consider a video on semiotics/linguistics, one of the things that made Deleuze so relevant to me is his commentary on Peirce. Mumford sounds great as well, I wanted to read him for a long time. Is there a book of his that you would recommend?

When it comes to Hjelmslev, did Deleuze use him as much in his solo works as with the stuff he did with Guattari? I really need to dive deeper into Deleuze’s semiotics.

@@schizoanalyticOnion Good question, I think Hjelmselv was more of a focus for D&G than for Deleuze. For example in the books on cinema Deleuze focusses almost entirely on Peirce (I remember a quite good commentary explaining the reasons why Deleuze only went so far with Hjelmslev, unfortunately I cannot remember who or where I saw it). That would make for some quite interesting content indeed!

Thank you, I appreciate it!

Thank you very much and congrats on your upcoming projects, that's super exciting stuff! Well, my understanding of the relation between D&R and LoS is that LoS is essentially "applied D&R". The virtual/actual dichotomy is what Deleuze calls "expressionism", and it's the central topic of his secondary thesis (Expressionism in philosophy: Spinoza) which he wrote along with D&R (i.e. his primary thesis), so I would not argue that there is a gap in the 68-69 period. Some say that LoS actually marks the end of Deleuze's first period, which makes sense. I'm not familiar with Kleinherenbrink's argument and I could be completely wrong, but he appears to say that singularities can't be reduced to an abstract continuity? That's certainly the case, but I don't see what's new here (which is what makes me think that I'm probably misunderstanding his argument). It's true that you can't reduce singularities to a hypostatic or abstract continuity, or "flux", out of which they're extracted somehow; rather you must explain how singularities appear, and how continuity is formed, which is what Deleuze does both in D&R and LoS. A "flux" doesn't explain anything, it's what must be explain. But similarly with singularities, understood as "differenciated" objects. This is the idea of immanence, or explaining a problem in its own terms. Also, I'm not sure you can put Deleuze in the "speculative realism" team, even as a precursor. I think Badiou and Meillassoux both misunderstand Deleuze (though for good reasons). Funnily enough, I was thinking of making a more "relaxed" and less technical video on Badiou/Deleuze, so that might be a good opportunity. Sorry for the long text--hope it makes sense a little.

@@deleuzephilosophyA video on Deleuze and Badiou would be superb. Maybe Meillassoux could be discussed in a video in the future?

@@IamLordGriffith It's funny you should mention this because I just wrote a short article on the human aspect of the Badiou-Deleuze relation, but I didn't publish it because it's quite unflattering for Badiou. Maybe I should turn it into a video. But a video on Meillassoux's criticism is definitely a great idea, I'll be checking for "mental pop ups" about speculative realism in the future!

Cheers Daniel, appreciate it! I think "Process and reality" is a good place to start, it's mentioned on a few occasions by Deleuze in the seminars and in the texts as well. It's likely the main text Deleuze read from Whitehead. From what I recall it's technical but still accessible, so definitely worth a look, especially for the part on convergence. Personally if I had another lifetime I'd definitely read the "Principia" just for the bit on the impersonal pronoun, but I think it's quite advanced formal logic.

Thank you :)