system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What did Deleuze mean when he said "we no longer want to talk about schizoanalysis, because that would amount to protecting a particular type of escape, schizophrenic escape"

> Consistent with his commitment to ongoing transformation and to resistance to mechanisms of capture, the year after Anti-Oedipus was written Deleuze commented that ‘we no longer want to talk about schizoanalysis, because that would amount to protecting a particular type of escape, schizophrenic escape’. Deleuze’s statement is not a questioning of schizoanalysis per se but an affirmation of the multiplicity present in life, multiplicity that the clinic needs to take account of.

> Standing in stark contrast with the reductionist tendencies inherent to a royal science of evidence-based practice, Deleuze insists on the impossibility of controlling change and of predicting the flow immanent to life. There is no one method that will do the trick, and there is no one ending to the story. The presence of health is, in fact, measured by its gradient of differentiation, which is to say, by its creative and novel way to provide unique responses to the problems inherent to living a life. It is in this sense that, for Deleuze, the experimentation that takes place in the clinic is more like a stutter than a well-polished script..

Was Deleuze trying to force the affirmation of a brand new multiplicity by no longer wanting to talk about schizoanalysis?

Have any modern-day Deleuzean philosophers found a new multiplicity to affirm?

And does he ever identify any particular types of escape that should be protected?

Thanks.  I've been watching The Good Place and I am trying to predict where the show is going because their writers are supposedly Deleuzean-inspired.  :)
gpt
Deleuze and Guattari wrote A Thousand Plateaus, which took up several distinct starting points. The stuff about war machines and the state as an apparatus of capture (released as its own work in English under "Nomadology" or something) is basically a rewriting of this "line of escape" way of thinking. That's also where the "royal science" thing comes in - that's from a discussion in ATP.

There's no "new multiplicity to affirm" because that's contrary to Deleuze's point here - to say that "this is the multiplicity we should affirm" would be to make the very move that Deleuze refused to make here by prioritizing one means of deterritorialization over others, thus creating a sort of makeshift binary hierarchy. That's why he doesn't say that any one way of escape should be "protected." The ATP chapter "How to Make a Body Without Organs" is helpful here as well, because they go in detail about the nature of experimentation vs. suicidal deterritorialization.

The applications of Deleuze's work to feminist philosophy, philosophy of race, anti-colonial philosophy, trans and queer philosophy, etc. are all probably along the lines of what you're talking about, though, and there's tons and tons of that work out there. Just put your favorite keywords next to "deleuze" in google scholar and you'll find plenty.

PS - The writers of The Good Place weren't inspired by Deleuze. Schur read Todd May's book on death and was inspired by it. Todd May happened to have written about Deleuze earlier in his career when he wrote about post-structuralist anarchism, but that's not what his book on death was about and it's not related to the show whatsoever. The Good Place mostly just touches on broad areas of philosophy with some well-known, popular references. Referencing Deleuze wouldn't even be possible; if they tried, they would have to make it a different show. It would have to be like a Twin Peaks fever dream on DMT.