>>24791356
In the simplest sense, he's trying to break down a lot of traditional conceptual thinking because he sees it as too stifling to creative acts and intellectual development. He also sees it as responsible for fascism, marxism, and lacks the capacity to describe capitalism accurately. As you mention, heg doesn't account for man's radical freedom, which was definitely the background for deleuze as frenchies around him started to read kierke, heidi etc in an existentialist framework.
You'd think that thought would be the first and primary domain of radical freedom, but he observes how much this is not so. If you're constantly referring to representations, negating them, saying the opposite, countering them, trying to "picture them", trying to see what is identical with what, trying to break things down into their smaller components or enlarging things via a chain of identities, you end up being stuck every time you try to do something genuinely different. In other words, doing something different is very stifled. Perhaps the game was rigged from the start.
With respect to what you were saying - intensive magnitudes actually are proof of a non-dialectical (looking at you
>>24791225 here as well), difference/transformation. The key thing to note is to move away from the primacy of identity in the thing being magnified. I think this generally makes sense if you start from an obvious point, namely that there are no actually identical things anywhere. You can extend this fact to there being no identically thought concepts. Shadows then, are obviously not the identical thing themselves moving nowhere, but are rather a flimsy, small movement that circles around, not going very far. Deleuze has respect for Kant actually, in that he says he accurately recognizes illusions of identity, and just didn't take his thought far enough.
I think music is useful as a metaphor here. You have the classical tradition, and things that engage with it, which does produce decent music, obviously. But the people who study classical theory are rarely if ever actually good musicians. They write "soulless" shadows of what was radically asserted hundreds of years ago. Compare instead to how new music genres today come from radically ignorant people, punk, trap, nightcore, etc. They're classically untrained, often retarded, but they intensely pursue something. Yes, these things that are done can be mapped onto classical theory via chord progressions, or rhythmic notation (which amounts to what
>>24791225 will argue for). but classical theory isn't giving us hiphop, it's not giving us punk, it's stuck repeating shadows, with little movement to speak of. And philosophy too, best moves by radically doing something new, rather than constantly mucking about in shadows.
