I have not published anything on the subject of the Deleuze/Hillman convergence, despite having been quite inspired by it at a key period in my life..
I first became interested in the Deleuze/Hillman convergence in the late 1970s. I read Hillman first, in 1976 and sought out everything he had published.
In my quest to find similar material I tumbled on Deleuze’s work in 1978, and so I read it through Hillmanian spectacles.
I moved to France in 1981 and found further proof of my hypothesis of the convergence in Deleuze’s seminar. To my surprise, Deleuze had just begun talking about the cinema, and had moved to an image-based ontology, like Hillman’s.
At the time I could interest no one in this convergence neither the Theory crowd, nor the Jungian crowd, nor even the cineasts. So I never wrote it down, it all happened inside my head.
Forty years later it seems to have become timely, but I myself no longer have the time to do the bibliographical research, and I have moved on to other problematics.
I tried to interest Lyotard in Hillman’s psychology, when he was still going through his paganism/polytheism phase, but he didn’t care.
I mentioned Jung to Michel Serres but he just replied « I’m not interested in psychology » and stuck with his reductive Girardian paradigm, enriched with a little Dumézil.
I remember saying to Lyotard that Deleuze and Guattari’s body without organs is a new version of the alchemical philosophers’ stone, but he merely replied that this is the problem with their, that they are still « too much in the signified ».
So I did try to get people interested in the convergence, but the circumstances were not favorable. Eventually I got tired of my words falling on deaf ears and moved on to other projects. The only record that remains from that period is an article I published in 1986 in TENSION magazine:
https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2014/09/02/nothing-to-declare-the-language-of-becoming/
AGENT SWARM 
Isn’t it interesting how something that seems so obvious, and that should be obvious to certain people, once you talk to those people about your discovery, they seem to be completely oblivious or uncaring about it .
On one hand I think it speaks to plurality of being, particularly how I read Lyotard as essentially describing the situation of no communication between subjects. But if I was to ask him or tell him about this discovery or how I am reading him, I wonder if he would agree with me.
Interesting that you saw correlation between Hillman and Dulruze. I can dig that. But it also seems to show me just how stupid and closed minded the people who I might think are so great, actually are.
How do you take it?
.
J’aimeJ’aime
And on another note: your brief comments post here seems to describe the situation that I’m always complaining about philosophers not being involved with their own philosophy. Because, to my mind, the only way that a philosopher could be so dense as to not be interested in psychology is to believe their own script against the evidence that’s right in front of them.
I think it’s ridiculous for people to stick to their discipline, so to speak, as if their work is “actually true” such that any other discipline which might draw into question they’re great work must necessarily be incorrect or not considerate of the facts or the matter at hand so to speak.
Michael series, from what tiny bit I’ve read about him circulating lately on WordPress here, doesn’t impress me very much, for as much as he supposed to be some great philosopher a great thinker somehow. And then your, it just kind of confirms to me that the dude is a fucking idiot. 🤣
But that’s just me not taking peoples bullshit. I wish I could be more open minded.
J’aimeJ’aime
I can imagine both of them appreciating: http://previous.focusing.org/apm_papers/lingis.html
J’aimeJ’aime
Ping : BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MY WRITINGS (10): Deleuze and Jung (and Hillman) | AGENT SWARM