I think people recommend this book:
(PS, don't buy from Amazon :))
I think all INTPs should read it. You will see oedipalization everywhere and live more freely.
Easier to start here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0415113199/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_T0ZqybJ9BY7CT
I'll try to answer these questions, but I'm doing it out of order.
>Okay, same idea as above. Same question though: What is power? Why not be enamored with it?
Foucault gives a nice description of what he considers power here. For Foucault "Power is anything that tends to render immobile and untouchable those things that are offered to us as real, as true, as good." So, power is those things that make the world "rigid" or "striated". Power is "bad" (though I'm not sure that 'bad' is the right term to use) for Deleuze because it limits the flows of desire.
So power, for Deleuze, is the suppression of unconscious desire which occurs because of the false outer limit of capitalism – Oedipus. For Deleuze, Oedipus suppresses our desire so that we desire fascism. I think that this means presenting desire as lack. This is what Oedipus does. It presents desire as lack.
>What does 'the individual is a product of power' mean?
For Deleuze the individual only exists because of repression, because of the social machine or the socius. For Deleuze, the plane of immanence is desiring machines. These molecular machines should not be thought of as individual machines, but a single thing (think Spinoza). Individuals are molar aggregates, they are things that have been determined through social machines. They are not primordial. The individual only exists because of the repression of these machines. The socius is a power structure, thus the individual only exists as a product of power.
Now, what about the de-individualize part. For Deleuze, the individual is not a single entity, but a series of molecular machines. While the molar individual might be, say heterosexual, the molecular is homosexual, heteosexual, bisexual, transsexual. For Deleuze, the project of schizoanalysis is to go through a process of "becoming" within the molecular. This idea of becoming is really explored in A Thousand Plateaus. But, for AO, the de-individualization is a process of deterritorializing the self, and becoming schizophrenic. (deterritorailizing the repression of unconscious desire that the socius has placed on the body without organs). (I'm sorry if I'm just making things all the more confusing).
>Why is creation better than destruction, in this sense, in his mind? And what is he saying with difference v. uniformity? And flows v. unities? And mobile arrangements v. systems?
I think that, in order to grasp this, one should probably understand Deleuze's vocabulary. THe two that make the most sense to me are flow v. unity & mobile v. system. A unity/system suggests a rigidness, which for Deleuze is always 'bad' and for Foucault is sometimes 'bad'. These systems fix desire in rigid ways, which creates alienation of desire and doesn't allow the desiring machines to function 'properly'. The flows are more schizophrenic. They travel along the desiring machines, along the body without organs and allow their desire to flow, and function properly. This is mobility or flow.
> What is subdivision and pyramidal hierarchization and how do you develop desires out of them?
This is actually pretty big from Deleuze, and I think that the answer to this is probably what is confusing you the most, and impacting your other questions. So, for Deleuze the socius or social machine (there are three stages, primitive, despotic and capitalistic) creates hierarchies. In the primitive socius these are gift giving economies, that repress desire through cruelty. Each member of the tribe's desire is fixed by the rigidness of the tribe. This is where 'power' occurs, the BWO or socius or social machine is written along the earth.
In the despotic socius, the hierarchy is more evident. Desire is fixed through terror of the despot. The BWO is written on the body of the despot (or God). So, desire is repressed because of fear of the despot or god. I can only desire xyz, or else the despot will get mad and kill me. So this is how, in the despotic socius, desire is repressed through hierarchy.
Capitalism is different though. Capitalism deterritorializes the rigid territories of the despot. In doing this, capitalism awakens the deterritorialization of all flows (schizophrenia). But what capitalism does is is recodes everything, axiomizes everything, and puts Oedipus up as an outer limit so that desire will continue, so that people will desire the social machine, or socius of capitalism. Oedipus presents the familial as the heart of desire. That everything comes out of the familial, all is explained by the familial. Oedipus is able to shape desire as lack. There is still a despot there (through religion, or patriotism, or something), which creates hierarchies that shape how we think. But at the same time, there is no hierarchy because everything is reduced to money through commodification.
I don't know if this helped or confused you more. Likely the latter. If you really want to understand these concepts, I would recommend reading Eugene Holland's Anti-Oedipus which is available on library genesis, if you don't want to buy it/pick it up at a library. Then I would read Anti-Oedipus itself. It's a really interesting book. the Holland book will help you understand the vocabulary better, but the book itself is just masterful.