On Immanence

Reply to an orthodox Deleuzian who has read only a few Deleuze (I guess):

“The ‘deepening of immanence’ is too rhizomatic to overcome the circularity of the reflexivity of becoming. Deleuze, in his early work, Difference and Repetition, attempted to disambiguate this immanent reflexivity of expressionism. Via Spinoza, he sought to re-inscribe the Spinozist substance within the context of ‘repetition and eternal return’, by “[making] the substance turn around the modes” (Deleuze 1994, 304), thereof, as he would expand in his later work (with Guattari), the necessity of a transversal subject (always in motion) to make this actual turning-around a return of identity “as a secondary power” (Deleuze 1994,41). This power is a modal power behind the “invention of new concepts” (Smith in Bryden 2001, 180) integral to the ‘deepening of immanence’ in terms of “a power series” (Duffy 2006, 223). This power series is the global expansion of the deterritorializing modes of rhizomatic becoming, the becoming reflexive of the schizoid without necessarily escaping that space of difference that separates the world from ‘us’. It merely “turns around the different” (Deleuze 1994, 41). Reflexivity is the commitment to ‘turn the modes repetitively.’”