u/sgarrido85

Placing Deleuze's work on another plane, comparing it at points to mysticism, marking his difference from the actual... these claims don't go without saying, and I honestly didn't think this book would change my outlook on Deleuze as much as it is. It seems impressively well argued, and Hallward has an impressive wealth of resources to prove his point.

Yet I imagine some Deleuzians will point to Deleuze's avoidance of metaphors (or his claim to this), his insistence on the concrete, the concept of immanence and so on to show that his work is not actually concerned with something out of this world. But so far, for me, Hallward is very convincing. Just wanted to hear the other side.

Deleuze's use of planes has been intriguing me recently. Planes of composition, of reference, of consistency/immanence of course, how these crisscross and interact in zones of indetermination. I am reading about this mostly in WP but of course the terminology is distributed in so many works. So I was wondering, why use the plane? Is it because, laid out, it is a surface of absolute immanence? I also know that in French plan can refer to map. I still can't wrap my head around the choice for what is basically one of the main building blocks of his constructivism.