Thank you very much for your critique! Please understand my article is more an abstract than a paper. That said…

Some analytic philosophy is as you say, but some of it is not. Quine, Rorty and others would reject your characterization, as I indicated in the article. Quine doesn’t say “Deleuze got it right” but I don’t know what else one could conclude from Quine’s landmark paper “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.”

I put “friend” and “foe” in quotes to signal I was anthropomorphizing for brevity (and I hope clarity, but maybe not).

Similarly, with “lower” and “higher” creatures, I wanted to convey in a few sentences what I learned from Joseph LeDoux’s The Deep History of Ourselves: The Four-Billion-Year Story of How We Got Conscious Brains (2019), which is supported in books by Antonio Damasio and Mark Solms. You would not find LeDoux’s book meaningless is my guess. I’d very much welcome your brief critique of my brief interpretation of it. Again, thank you for your critique, it's valuable to me!