http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2014/10/mary-beth-mader-whence-intensity-deleuze-and-the-revival-of-a-concept/ http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/archive/audio/2014_10_16/2014_10_16_Mary%20Beth%20Mader_talk.mp3 Q&A: http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/archive/audio/2014_10_16/2014_10_16_Mary%20Beth%20Mader_questions.mp3 So this is fascinating and I hope that folks with more time/understanding in Deleuze studies might pitch in, my limited sense of this is along the lines of what Malabou counter-poses which that if this concept-ion is somehow extra-scientific is it not something like spiritual/theological speculations and Mary Beth’s response in the Q&A to this line of objection seems to be that what is beyond science is human-experience, is this what Deleuze was after?
synthetic zerØ 
But what she misses is that in positing endo-consistency among components, or in congealing together components into a concept, a plane of immanence is laid out or projected. This ensures that concept is in communication or resonates with occurrences on the plane– both conceptual and non conceptual. I think this ties right in to what RSB was saying vis a vis fichte and interpretative parsings that lead to differing transcendental deductions. Just take Heidegger as an example. Both Heidegger and Husserel have phenomenological conceptions of time, but internal time consciousness in Husserel, a concept which may resonate or communicate with Heideggers ekstatic temporality, doesn’t yield or even imply the Heideggerian conception. There is no logical inference from Husserels endo-consistency to Heidegge’s endo-consistency, because their references are endogenous to how they lay out their own planes of immanence, and there may be certain points of contact where there is indiscernability, such as via a notion of horizonality which intersects their respective planes. I just think casting this in terms of ‘self reference’ occludes some of these points that they make clear in What Is Philosophy, and elsewhere.
hey Jozsef, what do you make of her point (pace DeLanda, Protevi, etc) that this is not reducible (perhaps not even naturalizable as Malabou notes in the Q&A) to science/engineering principles/practices?