However, despite his paradoxical contradictions, I think that there’s far more continuity than discontinuity in his work, though it’s the continuity of a constantly transforming mode of thought rather than any particular set of fixed propositions that one might attack or defend.

With relatively few exceptions, you can find something in his texts that seems to at least partially contradict a statement he makes elsewhere. He refuses to be pinned down to static, isolated positions. He’s far more interested in what a concept renders thought capable of.

I agree!

Yes, I think he similarly reads Bergson more carefully and creatively than the conventional, reductive image of him as a vitalist who simply privileged intuition over intellect. CE is my favorite, but Deleuze especially loved Matter and Memory. The Creative Mind is probably my second favorite.

Are you trying to be annoying, or does it just come naturally?

Not exactly, no.

To my mind, a primary task of all great philosophers, including the Stoics, Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Deleuze, is to create novel concepts in the interstices of conventional conceptions, rendering those conceptions more subtle and profound by means of problematization and paradox.

Ok, maybe one more.

Of course you can have some good interactions here, but there’s several orders of magnitude more interaction going on for me over there. I gave this place a solid chance, but it’s just not worth my time right now, though maybe that will change at some point. Bon chance!

I honestly just get a lot more engagement over there.

The key to this reading, rendering the disparate systems of these texts pervasively resonant, is that the pure Aionic surface of LoS paradoxically corresponds, by means of an inversion envisageable as a Mobius strip or mirror, to the intensive depths of the eternal return in DR.