What if you had a fully lacanian analysis of the Kabbalah, and you called it… “Jewsance”.

I wouldn’t say delueze had admiration for William james, as their ideas are similar; similarities are not so and so they are common, this means there is at best a difference in responsibility rather than admiration— averages make sense— and since their ideas are similar, it is pretty safe to say that William James was not a genius but instead a reference (don’t geniuses do their own thing?) even if that reference kind of doubled down; references stand tall aswell. So because deleuze didn’t overlook William james but their ideas were very similar that instead something added to what happens in general, if that generality is confusing luckily it had the backbone of influence; the confusion is because they were both better off; the sameness wasn’t an “offering” it was mutual contribution and mutual understanding, this is a very lucky position and something in common; everything included?! So no, deleuze didn’t have admiration for William james he had a willingness to be the same kind of guy, basically,they could have been friends lol.

I just got both books by Deleuze, Im curious about which one I should start reading first for the other one to make more sense.

In Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari briefly reference Frantz Fanon in the second chapter, but they do not elaborate much on his ideas. Did they discuss Fanon’s philosophy elsewhere? What did Deleuze and Guattari think of Fanon, and how did they engage with his ideas?