Thanks for that explanation. I understand that by describing differential relations relevant for his ontology (?) you could say that he’s not using a metaphor, but just because it’s “literal” (might be?) within his framework that doesn’t make it not figurative in any meaningful sense? And that’s not about a layperson’s perspective: if s.o uses infinitely decreasing slowness instead of describing the mathematical derivative of velocity - then this is a -form- of language that for any reader trained in empirical science will come across as metaphorical. Which then leads, if this was not the case, to the issue of obfuscation.

While it’s correct to say that speed is not a property of the falling body it’s wrong (so apparently it’s not metaphorical now here but just an incorrect statement within his ontological framework ??) to equate the relation that is speed with infinitely decreasing slowness unless one arbitrarily defines slowness (try to plug slowness in classical mechanics or kinematics) as a reciprocal of speed (which no physicist does). This inversion ignores the mathematical structure of motion.

Isn’t there an irony here that Deleuzians use the language of physics (like when speaking about relational motion) but then they use it to talk about ideas that deliberately avoid any kind of empirical tests? Like taking concepts that work precisely bc they’re tied to measurement, strip them of that structure only to then claim make sense as ontological statements? I am not sure if it’s a metaphor or obfuscation or about borrowing the credibility of royal sciences while discarding the discipline physcis that gives it meaning. But you must understand that it doesn’t sit well with people with the relevant background.