Deleuze and Guattari's Process in the beginning of Anti-Oedipus explained

[TheScuSpeaks]

It's unfortunate that Deleuze never got around to writing a book on Deleuze and Guattari. Following his earlier work that maps out the history of so many indispensable thinkers, it makes any attempt to synthesize Deleuze's own work seem that much more intimidating. Nonetheless, we have to try. In the same sense that it took over a hundred years for Marx and Engels to be properly understood, maybe an equal distance from Deleuze and Guattari, (D-G), will furnish us with greater clarity as to the significance of their work; we may yet still be too close to see the full implications of this project. Although, what is immediately obvious is that even as D-G create a seemingly syncretistic alloy of Marx and Freud, there are elements left out of each system so as to facilitate the creation of a larger general abstract which is capable of emcompassing both. In other words, D-G completed the most coveted project of the 20th Century Left, they present a workable fusion of Marxism and psychoanalysis. In that they identify a larger, submerged structure beneath the two schools of thought, and due to the fact that they present an abstract meta-system, it is surprising that the question as to how they are not in some respects structuralists remains unasked, but I digress.

The astute reader of D-G will have noticed something. "But I digress." As students of philosophy and psychoanalysis, the "I" is a forever present question. In fact, is that not the very beginning of Anti-Oedipus? "It is at work everywhere, functioning smoothly at times, at other times in fits and starts. It breathes, it heats, it eats. It shits and fucks. What a mistake to have ever said the id." As students of philosophy and psychoanalysis, it should perhaps be common knowledge that in German "id" means "it". According to Kant, the basis of representation is the apperception which presupposes an "I" that presents the outside world to itself. In "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" (published in 1969), Althusser states that "you and I are always already subject, and as such constantly practice the rituals of ideological recognition, which guarantee for us that we are indeed concrete, individual, and (naturally) irreplaceable subjects". He adds, "there is no ideology except by the subjects and for the subjects." As said by D-G in "A Thousand Plateauxs," "you will be organized, you will be an organism, you will articulate your body - otherwise you're just depraved. You will be signifier and signified, interpreter and interpreted - otherwise you're just a deviant. You will be subject of the statement - otherwise you're just a tramp." In the simplest of terms, ideology functions by creating a dialogue in which the individual internalizes the idea that they are an agent of that ideology. The religion says, "You are one of God's chosen people, and you have a hand in history." The modern state says, "You are a citizen, and without you there is no state." The birth of religion; the birth of the state. As an agent of history, you internalize the rules of the given ideology.

We are given two triadic systems. Marx tells us that the base (material conditions) gives birth to a superstructure (ideological conditions), and that through the interdetermination of these two levels creates consciousness and language. This is the traditional Marxist triad: [base]/[superstructure]/[consciousness and language]. On the other hand, there is Freud. He tells us that there is an unconscious (the id) that stands opposed to a consciousness (the superego). Between the two there is a mediator, the preconscious/conscious (the ego). This is the traditional Freudian triad: [id]/[ego]/[superego]. Here is the synthesis proposed by D-G:

3. consumptive production of consumptions ... voluptas; "so it's ..."
2. disjunctive production of recordings ... numen; "either ... or ... or both"
1. connective production of production ... libido; "and ... and then"

In an effort to cover as much material as quickly as possible, the synthesis will be discussed very, very briefly. As of yet, the third synthesis is still taking shape in my mind, and I would rather sacrifice depth here for accuracy.

Initially, and in very Marxian terms, we have production. All production is desiring-production; production is initially unconscious production. Social-production is another term used to refer to the production of a real object. In other words, BMW makes cars. That is social production, (s-p), which is a specific example of the general form desiring-production, (d-p). The d-p is the production of the psychic reality behind the car. There is the idea of car, and there is the physical production of the car. Later on, we will return to this idea in the form of this formula: ([s-p]:[d-p]::[the psychoanalytic triad]:[schizoanalysis]). Returning to the initial stage, there is the "connective production of production". This is the stage in which all pieces are ordered and flow in that order. Let's say that there is a car factory. In this factory, parts are shipped in and the machines produce a product. This is the connective production of production. In the most rigorous Marxist terms, this is both [the production of production] and [the reproduction of production]. For D-G, "Everywhere it is machines." For those well versed in D-G, implicit in this is a very specific claim. There are two types of machines: energy-machines and intrupeting-machines. The example they give is the breast and the mouth. The breast makes milk, the mouth takes it and digests it. In a general economy, this is one part of an on-going process. In other words, breast to mouth to intestines to anus to toilet to sewage recycling plant. Everywhere it is two machines, and each machine is both machines. A breast receives fluids and nutrients, and at the same time it feeds an infant; the infant receives milk, and at the same time it excretes. In the "connective production of production," everything is organized and producing.

Back in our little factory, let's suppose that the foreman has just received a notice saying that half of his suppliers have pulled out their contracts. Without the necessary pieces, production cannot continue; the reproduction of production has been lost. "Everywhere it is machines." So, regardless of the fact that we cannot produce cars anymore, we still have to produce something. Production breaks down. Our sense of organization is lost. Where machine one led to machine two, and machine two led to machine three, there remains nothing but aimless desiring-machines. As D-G point out in "A Thousand Plateauxs," the organs remain, but the organism-as-a-whole is dead. We machines, but they have no purpose. At the same time, half of our other suppliers are still shipping us parts. In order to pay them and sell a product, we have to produce something. Our desire to produce continues inspite of the loss of organization. At this point, a reorganization is necessary; the breakdown necessitates a reorganization, or what is, with the loss of previous organization, a "disjunctive production of recordings". By production of recordings is meant the development of a new production. This is the Body without Organs. We have an unorganized whole, and on it we must create a new method of production. So, from the breakdown of the original organization of production, the deterritorialization, there is born an unproductive piece which will in time produce something new and unaccounted for by any possible foresight within the "production of production".

We must discuss, specifically, how the Body without Organs, (BwO), functions.

Because of the BwO, there are three new machines: the paranoiac-machine, the miraculating-machine, and the celibate-machine. As I understand it, and please make a note if I am incorrect, the paranoiac-machine and the miraculating-machine function within the "disjunctive production of recordings," and the celibate-machine fucntions within the third level, "the consumptive production of consumptions". In mentioning this third level, we will return to the formula presented earlier: ([s-p]:[d-p]::[the psychoanalytic triad]:[schizoanalysis]). Psychoanalysis is an attempt to establish a reordering of the territorialized being-in-the-world. In other words, it is an attempt to establish the reorganization of production. D-G assert that psychoanalysis is merely one specific example of schizoanalysis. Now, our formula makes sense. Social-production is one specific example, or subset, of the general abstract, or category, of desiring-production; psychoanalysis is one specific example, or subset, of the ge ral abstract, or category, of schizoanalysis. Which is to say, a car is only one type of transportation, but it is not the only type of transportation. Here I digress, and we must return to the second synthesis, "the disjunctive production of recordings". Specifically, we must discuss the paranoiac-machine and the miraculating-machine.

In an effort to continually refer back to, and reinforce the connection with, the Freudian aspect of D-G's overall project, the paranoiac-machine is Freud's primary repression. A horrible thing happens to me, I cannot assimilate that into my organized experience, so that organization breaks down. Initially, I repress the horrible thing that has happened. (i.e. "I was never molested," or "We haven't lost our suppliers! Production will continue." Inevitably, the tension of this repressed emory remains; the business begins to lose money.) This is the paranoiac machine.

As regards the miraculating machine, this is where the BwO falls back on the "connective production of production," the original organization. (i.e. "If I was never molested, why do I have this particulat conflict in my personal relationships," or "Why are we losing money?" There is a "disjunction" between the accepted organization and the repressed memory.) This produces ideology or fetish; the pressure between the tectonic plates of production procuces a change, a shift, a realignment. This is where the BwO switches from repulsion, or repression, to attraction. The process of recording begins, the reorganization, as one attempts to order the pieces. This is the miraculating-machine.

For the recording to be complete, the reorganization, (i.e. "I was molested, but here is how I will handle it," or "Since we have lost our suppliers, we have reorganized, and now we will produce this new product." There is a "consumptive production of consumptions." This is the breakthrough which says, "So it's ... X!" This is assimilation and recognition; a new recording has been produced.) there must be a new alliance between the desiring-machines and the BwO. In the text, D-G state that it is "the nuptial celebration of a new alliance, a new birth, a radiant ecstacy, as though the eroticism of the machine liberated other unlimited forces." This stage produces "intensive quantities" from the tension between repulsion and attraction. Intensive quantities, again, please make a note if this is incorrect, are the new recordings, which for D-G remain nameless. For Freud, it is the Oedipus complex. D-G do not reject the Oedipus complex as such, but they do reject the Freudian insistence that this is the sole framework for reorganization, reterritorialization. In Marxian terms, the reorganization is through ideology. The ideological superstructure produced in the transition to capitalism is the reterritorialization of ideology; the consciousness and language produced between the reorganization of economic means of production (previously present in the body of the despot, or the age of feudalism) and the ideological means of production (previously the church, now the educational system; economics is taught rather than theology). This reterritorialization is the celibate-machine.

As rigorously as possible, without sacrificing an attempt at brevity, this is system presented by D-G:

Everything is production. Certain things ensure that production will continue. Inevitably, contradictions and gaps are exposed throughout this process. This causes production to break down. Even as it breaks down, it must continue. This creates a need for reorganization. Initially the problem is ignored, but it comes back to confront the original organization. This confrontation creates a new order out of the seemingly unproductive stage of breakdown. Eventually, the new order of production becomes its own consistent method, and eventually new contradictions will arise, even newer forms of organization arise, and so on.

Within this framework sit both Marx and Freud. Both production and desire. Yet both Marx and Freud are just specific examples of a larger framework. Through what it sacrifices to create order, this new framework eliminates the waste and covers greater ground. Perhaps in time this new "consumptive production of comsumptions" will give way to yet another BwO and so on, and so on, and so on.

[BATTO]

althusser's notion of the already determined subject has been useful for many a paper. two quotes i am compelled to report. at the start of ATP, d+g write:

Why have we kept our own names? Out of habit, purely out of habit. To make ourselves unrecognizable in turn. To render imperceptible, not ourselves, but what makes us act, feel, and think. Also because it's nice to talk like everybody else, to say the sun rises, when everybody knows it's only a matter of speaking. To reach the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I. We are no longer ourselves. (3)

later:

It is not simply linguistic, lexical, or even syntactic transformations that determine the importance of a true semiotic translation but the opposite. Crazy talk is not enough. In each case we must judge whether what we see is an adaptation of an old semiotic, a new variety of a particular mixed semiotic, or the process of creation of an as yet unknown regime. For example, it is relatively easy to stop saying "I", but that does not mean that you have gotten away from the regime of subjectification; conversely, you can keep on saying "I", just for kicks, and already be in another regime in which personal pronouns function only as fictions. Signifiance and interpretation are so thick-skinned, they form such a sticky mixture with subjectification, that it is easy to believe that you are outside them when you are in fact still secreting them. People sometimes denounce interpretation yet show so signifying a face that they simultaneously impose interpretation upon the subject, which continues to nourish itself on to survive. (138)

hope this doesnt jack the focus

[TheScuSpeaks]

were the quotations given for their general badassery, or do they relate somehow? Because if the latter, I am having trouble drawing the connection.

But if the former, they rate high on badassery scale. I've always enjoyed the opening to ATP.

[BATTO]

i have no idea what badassery refers to. if it means i did this out of arrogance, no, but i am probably still an arrogant prick. it seems clear to me that d+g rupture any notion of a stable I or You, either because there are ways to exist beyond the cartesian subject, or a criticism levied against a negative ontology. did i mention i stopped reading after the second paragraph? simply out of the need to do some dishes and feed the cats. i think i just wanted to add that the question of the subject seems to be more than simply semiotics. i am totally illiterate, though, so . . .

[TheScuSpeaks]

badassery= a general sense of badassness, in this case that D&G are badasses and they say badass things.

and no, you didn't say you stopped reading after the second paragraph .

[debater4523]

Thank you, that was ridiculously helpful actually.

[WGLF]

VACUOUS

[SaturnDavis]

Originally Posted by WGLF

VACUOUS

This guy cracks me up...

I haven't posted here for a very long time, but I figure what the heck.

James, I thought your explanation of L'anti-oedipe (or analysis of desiring-production, if you wish) was good... but... for me it lacked something. (hahahaha... how ironic - lack.) You could have been more specific in regards to how the axiomatization of Capitalism de/re-territorializes the codes and flows of the machines according to its BwO, capital. Such a specific explanation would lend incredible help to those who struggle to understand or explain it (myself falling into both categories). And also give more understanding/leverage for a Kritik. And moreover, you could have described the "fascism within" that is indicted in the book, perhaps also going over schizoanalysis, and what that means in materialist terms (again for those who struggle).

Additionally, I was REALLY hoping you'd continue into Mille Plateaux (sorry, but I think the french is cool). I think that the schizoanalytic project begun in AO is only so effective for resistance against self-fascism, especially in light of ATP being written. I mean, come on - how to become a BwO, the nomadic war machine, the rhizome, and oh so much glorious more. Perhaps you could treat us all?

Then again, I've not read the books for some LONG time now... I may have no idea what I'm talking about. As they say in portuguese, Pois e'.

Skip

[TheScuSpeaks]

Sorry, when I said the process as the beginning go A-O, I really did mean at the beginning, that little essay is meant to cover the first 25 or so pages of A-O. Simply the process as explained at the beginning, nothing else.
Thanks though.

Love
TheScuWondersIfTheScuCouldEvenSummerizeTheWholeOfCapitalismAndSchizophrenia

[TheScuSpeaks]

Originally Posted by WGLF

VACUOUS

Nopers.

[Lazzarone]

1. scu : "In the simplest of terms, ideology functions by creating a dialogue in which the individual internalizes the idea that they are an agent of that ideology."

desiring-machines operate on a deeper level than ideology: "how poorly the problem of literature is put, starting from the ideology that it bears, or from the co-option of it by a social order. ... as for ideology, it is the most confused notion because it keeps us from seizing the relationship of the literary machine with a field of production, and the moment when the emitted sign breaks through this 'form of content' that was attempting to maintain the sign within the order of the signifier." (p133)

one of the main lines of thought that anti-oedipus pursues is, 'why do the masses desire fascism?' and "it is not a question of ideology" (p104) - that's only the crust of the bread of production: "libidinal economy is no less objective than political economy, and the political no less subjective than the libidinal, even though the two correspond to two modes of different investments of the same reality as social reality. there is an unconscious libidinal investment of desire that does not necessarily coincide with the preconscious investments of interest, and that explains how the latter can be perturbed and perverted in 'the most somber organization,' BELOW ALL IDEOLOGY." (p345)

this would also be d&g's response to a book like 'what's a matter with kansas?', which claims that rural folk have been duped into voting against their own interests: "that is why, when subjects, individually, or groups act manifestly counter to their class interests - when they rally to the interests and ideals of a class that their own objective situation should lead them to combat - it is not enough to say: they were fooled, the masses have been fooled" (p104) - interests and ideologies always come after the infrastructure of desire.

2. there's no distinction between desire and social production. the 'idea behind the car' is the very platonic idealism d&g wish to smash. desire is merely objective (immanent): "there is no particular form of existence that can be labeled 'psychic reality'. ... there is no such thing as the social production of reality on the one hand, and a desiring-production that is mere fantasy on the other. ... desiring-production is one and the same thing as social production." (p27, 28, 30) - as such, there's no individual fantasy, only group fantasies that have grown in particular individuals. this turns psychoanalysis on its head and points towards a 'material psychiatry', or schizoanalysis.

3. scu : "As I understand it, and please make a note if I am incorrect, the paranoiac-machine and the miraculating-machine function within the "disjunctive production of recordings," and the celibate-machine fucntions within the third level, "the consumptive production of consumptions"."

the paranoic machine operates through a *connective* synthesis, the miraculating machine a *disjunctive* synthesis, the celibate machine a *conjunctive* synthesis. (you mix up the first two again in the paragraph equating the miraculating with the connective. for a good review, see pages 36-41.) -- this correlates to marx's three-part dissection of capitalism - production, distribution, and consumption. d&g update this a little, however, putting production in all parts of the process, and reconstituting distribution as 'recording' and consumption as 'consummation'.

{one might ask how all this avoids becoming a hegelian dialectic (thesis-antithesis-synthesis)? in fact, one of the objections deleuze ran up against was 'he's so anti-hegel he reifies hegel'. -- d&g would respond that all three of these parts are syntheses, and that they all occur simultaneously. they'd also say there's no evolution toward a harmonious whole, no final completion of the process (p42 - 'we believe only in totalities that are peripheral'; p43 - 'the whole itself is a product, produced as nothing more than a part alongside other parts, which neither unifies nor totalizes'). plus, that most ideas in the book travel in threes makes it much easier to understand, once you get going and start piling the three-part distinctions on top of one another (as we will below).}

4. scu : "Intensive quantities, again, please make a note if this is incorrect, are the new recordings, which for D-G remain nameless. For Freud, it is the Oedipus complex. D-G do not reject the Oedipus complex as such, but they do reject the Freudian insistence that this is the sole framework for reorganization, reterritorialization. In Marxian terms, the reorganization is through ideology. The ideological superstructure produced in the transition to capitalism is the reterritorialization of ideology; the consciousness and language produced between the reorganization of economic means of production (previously present in the body of the despot, or the age of feudalism) and the ideological means of production (previously the church, now the educational system; economics is taught rather than theology). This reterritorialization is the celibate-machine."

intensive qualities correlate to the celibate machine (paranoic being repulsive, and miraculating attractive); it's the miraculating machine that produces recordings; and reterritorializations and deterritorializations can occur at all levels of the process (although you're onto something because territorialization/reterritorialization/deterritorialization isn't a bad way to map this [footnote 1]). i realize this is all jargon if you haven't walked through the text, so let me try a(n overly-)simple metaphor:

imagine you're in a dreamless sleep. this equates to the body without organs. pure unproductivity.

then BAM!, an alarm clock machine interrupts you. suddenly a slice of reality pierces your BwO, and you can't stop the 'and ... and then ... and then'-nature of what's happening. and this is where your libido kicks in, probably wanting to throw the clock out the window, because under the burden of waking up early everyday, you've developed a constant sense of paranoia about the sudden withdrawal from your sleep.

then sleep begins to attract you again, and you start to detach yourself from the necessity of waking up on-time, drifting off in half-dreams. maybe you even imagine yourself waking up, going about your daily routine, as a way of avoiding it. you record these different dream-scenarios, delaying : 'either i get up, or i go back to sleep,' [five minutes pass] 'either i don't shower, or don't eat,' [ten minutes pass] 'or i create an impossible world without time, hmmmmm' - 'either... or... or... or...'.

these two machines working you over are in opposition: first you're connected into reality against your will (connective synthesis) and the next thing you know you're using your will to disconnect from reality (disjunctive synthesis); first you're like someone with o.c.d. next to an un-flushed toilet (neurotic) and the next thing you know you're a pervert in line at the titty bar (psychotic)... what brings together these two opposing forces?

the answer is the same person who is telling the story - a subject. this subject doesn't pre-exist the story, but they are produced as one part alongside the others. at the same time as it consummates the process, a subject is only a residual effect; it's a totality alright, but at the periphery (conjunctive synthesis). 'so it's.... so it's... (me!)'. now you're the schizo who finally has awakened to go for a walk.

{of course, the above is only a metaphor, about a book constantly advising us to discard metaphors. for one, i put the events in a linear order of clear separations when reality doesn't work like that - all parts of the process really occur at the same time, overlapping and interrupting one another. and i also kinda mis-situated the body without organs, since it's the force that's repelled by the alarm clock. and so on.}

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

regardless, it's all just a way of simplifying these these equations:

a. paranoic machine
= production = connective synthesis = flow (hyle) = withdrawal/selection (prevelevement) = neurosis = libido = 'and ... and then'

b. miraculating machine
= distribution (recording) = disjunctive synthesis = code (chains & schizzes) = detachment = perversion = numen = 'either.. or...'

c. celibate machine
= consumption (consummation) = conjunctive synthesis = subject = residue (residuelle) = schizophrenia = voluptus = 'so it's...'

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

also important to keep in mind is that a machine is a system of interruptions, machines make patterned breaks in energy flows, that's all. i'd like to add digressions into detail here, but this is close enough for government work. [footnote 2]

5. anyway, to return to the original quotation from scu - i would say that d&g do in fact reject the oedipus complex as such : "it is not a question of denying the vital importance of parents or the love attachment of children to their mothers and fathers. it is a question of knowing what the place and the function of parents are within desiring-production, rather than doing the opposite and forcing the entire interplay of desiring-machines to fit within the restricted code of oedipus. ... by boxing the life of the child up within the oedipus complex, by making familial relations the universal mediation of childhood, we cannot help but fail to understand the production of the unconscious itself, and the collective mechanisms that have an immediate bearing on the unconscious... the unconscious is an orphan ... insofar as psychoanalysis cloaks insanity in the mantle of a "parental complex," and regards the patterns of self-punishment resulting from oedipus as a confession of guilt, its theories are not at all radical or innovative. on the contrary: it is completing the task begun by nineteenth-century psychology, namely, to develop a moralized, familial discourse of mental pathology, linking madness to the 'half-real, half-imaginary dialectic of the family[.]' ... hence, instead of participating in an understaking that will bring about genuine liberation, psychoanalysis is taking part in the work of bourgeois repression at its most far-reaching level, that is to say, keeping european humanity harnessed to the yoke of daddy-mommy and making no effect to do away with this problem once and for all." (p50)

oedipus, no doubt, existed before psychoanalysis, and the authors have no qualms about situating it in a socio-political context; but the oedipus complex is exactly what they discuss above - a necessarily repressive project.

this brings us to marx. d&g part company with the base/superstructure approach (as well as marx's antropological elevation of man above nature) when they say "we make no distinction between man and nature... man and nature are not like two opposite terms confronting each other - not even in the sense of bipolar opposites within a relationship of causation, ideation, or expression (cause and effect, subject and object, etc.); rather they are one and the same essential reality, the producer-product." (p4)

that, and capitalism in its postmodern form has no need of ideological belief anymore : "above all, there is no longer any need of belief, and the capitalist is merely striking a pose when he bemoans the fact that nowadays no one believes in anything any more. language no longer signifies something that must be believed, it indicates rather what is going to be done, something that the shrewd or the competent are able to decode, to half understand." (p250)

this reveals the brutal, amoral relationship between deterritorialization and reterritorialization, where (schizophrenic) capitalism desires the absence of limits, and this is crucial to texts such as hardt&negri's empire. the superstructure falls into the base of material production - why revert to myth (dreams, fantasy, ideology)? ... hence the need to destroy the illusions: "destroy, destroy. the task of schizoanalysis goes by way of destruction - a whole scouring of the unconscious, a complete curettage. destroy oedipus, the illusion of the ego, the puppet of the superego, guilt, the law, castration. ... schizoanalysis must devote itself with all its strength to the necessary destructions. destroying beliefs and representations, theatrical scenes. and when engaged in this task no activity will be too malevolent. ... the task of schizoanalysis is that of learning what a subject's desiring-machines are, how they work, with what syntheses, what bursts of energy in the machine, what constituent misfires, with what flows, what chains, and what becomings in each case. moreover, this positive task cannot be separated from indispensable destructions, the destruction of the molar aggregates, the structures and representations that prevent the machine from functioning. ... the task of schizoanalysis is that of tirelessly taking apart egos and their presuppositions; liberating the prepersonal singularities they enclose and repress; mobilizing the flows they would be capable of transmitting, receiving, or intercepting; establishing always further and more sharply the schizzes and the breaks well below conditions of identity; and assembling the desiring-machines that countersect everyone and group everyone with others."

and this explains why i wouldn't call them structuralists, since they wish to destroy 'oedipus-as-structure' (p107) - post-structuralists perhaps?

.k (kevin.sanchez@gmail.com)


[1] see, the trouble is that capitalism is only a relative deterritorialization, not an absolute one like schizophrenia. capitalism reterritorializes with one hand what it deterritorializes with the other (p257). but this reterritorialization isn't the same as that done by the despotic state, although the state can also serve this function (as a neo-archaism). rather it's a question of the axiomatic (p233), and this relates to the work marx did in deriving the laws of capital. also see p246.

[2] later (see p261) this three-part distinction maps onto types of social organization: an underlying territorial machine (earth), a trascendent imperial machine (despot), a modern immanent machine (capital). you can trace the development of our history with this model: first there's territorial codes [primitive and savage], then the universal state (urstaat) over-codes [imperial and barbaric], then schizophrenic money de-codes ['civilized' and capitalist]. "Fetishes, idols, images, and simulacra - here we have the whole series: territorial fetishes, despotic idols or symbols, then everything is recapitulated in the images of capitalism, which shapes them and reduced them to the Oedipal simulacrum". (p267) see also p35 - the neurotic, the pervert, the schizo (and p66).

_____

appendix - it also may help to explain the various fallacious conclusions of psychoanalysis which d&g call 'paralogisms' (following kant). the first three each deal with a synthesis respectively. misusing the connective synthesis is extrapolation - this means extrapolating a partial object into a transcendent one. e.g. a child rolls a model train into a tunnel, and the shrink says, 'so you wanna fuck your mom?'. when you keep to the partial and nonspecific use of this synthesis, then you're keeping things real; but when you get global and specific (reducing everything to the parental and conjugal), then you're illegit.

secondly, misusing the disjunctive synthesis is a double-bind, setting up a contradictory situation. 'you can choose any color, so long as it's green'. wrongly this is exclusive and restrictive - imaginary and symbolic; rightly this is inclusive or nonrestrictive.

thirdly, there's application. this equates to applying a mis-identification to someone: 'you're one of us'. wrong : segregative and biunivocal - segregative and familial; right : nomadic and polyvocal.

there's two more paralogisms - displacement and afterward. displacement is like a forbidden fruit trick. you're prohibited from doing something in order to persuade you that your true desire is to break the prohibition. "the law tells us : you will not marry your mother, and you will not kill your father. And we docile subjects say to ourselves: so *that's* what I wanted!" (p114). on p115, three terms help explain things (which i won't go into) : repressing representation, repressed representative, and displaced represented.

afterward is the devilishness of cartesianism: all things become charted on a grid where oedipus comes first and 'actual factors' (symptoms of neurosis and psychosis, problems of living, etc.) come after. it's a way of prioritizing myth and treating units of desiring-production afterward. d&g claim that even jung, adler, and reich do this, whatever their disagreements with freud; the authors argue instead that oedipus is purely reactionary, that oedipus depends on the actual factor of desiring-production, not the other way around. see p127-9. so the oedipus complex doesn't explain neurosis. to the contrary, neurosis explains why we continue to depend on the oedipus complex.

so these are the paralogism (or tricks, if you like) that you'll continually run into when you're being oedipalized by anyone - doctors, teachers, parents... they'll take one tiny object and blow its meaning out of all proportion - extrapolation (which equates to the notion of 'ontological lack'). they'll give you a contradictory choice - 'only you can stop yourself from misbehaving' (meaning we respect your power to choose, so long as you choose the way we want you to) - double-bind (which equates to law and guilt). they'll identify you in structures which have little bearing on who you are - 'c'mon, you're better than this; you're a <insert your family name here>' - application (which equates to signifier and signification). they'll use their prohibitions to prove you wanted to break them - displacement. and if all else fails, they'll just presuppose whatever problems you're having result from whatever system they use to diagnose those problems - afterward.
_

[justink]

bump, for anyone reading through the begining of anti-oedipus and wishing to get a better grasp on what they're reading this is a great thread. james and kevin rock.

[Lazzarone]

wealth of outlines, lectures, and other assorted goodies on d&g's 'capitalism and schizophrenia' here :

http://www.protevi.com/john/DG/

[antigone]

i realize i'm somewhat late on this, but i'm interested in starting an A/O reading group on this forum for those that are new to the text (and i hope james and kevin can guide us intermittently along the way).

i think the site kevin posted above is a great resource for building a background on d&g (and their lacanian/freudian influences) and determining an outline for discussion. i realize the dangers we may face in losing people with disparate backgrounds in philosophy and psychoanalysis, but i think the more interactive and organized we are, the easier it should be to keep everyone up to speed with the book.

is anyone interested in helping to put this together?

[Forget Foucault]

I would be interested, antigone...


Just a little more badassery (which doesn't really relate at all, Scu)






http://www.generation-online.org/p/pdeleuzeguattari.htm


edit: the only person who makes less sense upon the first read than D&G is Brian Massumi: http://www.anu.edu.au/HRC/first_and_...everywhere.htm

[TheScuSpeaks]

huh, that was a stupid little essay I posted, oh well, got to start somewhere.

If you people want to start a reading group on AO on this forum, that is cool with me.

I don't have time to keep up with it, but I will try to drop in occasionally. My suggestions: make another thread and announce it, announce the start date, and then set bench marks of how much people are suppose to have read. Keep it small and slow. Post shit like I did above, expect correct shit. (ie, make connections, articule what was said in your own words, define terms from D^G, etc.). I'll try to keep a careful moderation of the thread so that people who are like: "d00d, how does this win db8 roundz" will be dealt with.

and remember how Althusser opens up Reading Capital: "But as there is no such thing as an innocent reading, we must say what reading we are guilty of."

Good luck.

Love
TheScuHopesItWorks

[Chaos]

BUMP. Found this while searching the site, and it's super helpful. D&G are starting to make sense. Didn't want it to get "lost", because it is so old.

[TheScuSpeaks]

I don't know about the original piece (but thanks for the shout-out) but the idea of cross-x.com reading groups still seem like a good idea.

If anyone wants to do the books I am currently, I can actively participate in it, otherwise I think people should organize their own groups, and the same deal as above stands.

[Kunzelman]

I just wrote a paper about D+G and the rhizomatic nature of comic books.

As in, I finished mere moments ago.

[TheScuSpeaks]

Originally Posted by Kunzelman

I just wrote a paper about D+G and the rhizomatic nature of comic books.

As in, I finished mere moments ago.

Congrats, writing is hard (I mean this sincerely, I have the biggest trouble writing things in a formal way).

[Jehuis Rad]

Originally Posted by TheScuSpeaks

I don't know about the original piece (but thanks for the shout-out) but the idea of cross-x.com reading groups still seem like a good idea.

If anyone wants to do the books I am currently, I can actively participate in it, otherwise I think people should organize their own groups, and the same deal as above stands.

I actually think that would be a wonderful idea, PM me what you are reading.

[TheScuSpeaks]

Originally Posted by Jehuis Rad

I actually think that would be a wonderful idea, PM me what you are reading.

I'm currently reading Hardt and Negri's Commonwealth, I need to finish that up at a quick pace and write my review of it.

Then I will start Esposito's Communitas, and will start the new Cary Wolfe book What is Posthumanism? whenever that gets in.

[retired]

Originally Posted by Kunzelman

I just wrote a paper about D+G and the rhizomatic nature of comic books.

As in, I finished mere moments ago.

hook it up

[Fels]

Originally Posted by TheScuSpeaks

Esposito's Communitas.

I'm not sure about the mechanics of a reading group, but this book looks badass.

[TheScuSpeaks]

Originally Posted by Fels

I'm not sure about the mechanics of a reading group, but this book looks badass.

I am not dedicated to doing reading groups. Whatever people want. I just think they are really useful (especially in person) of trying to understand books. If you are trying to understand Anti-Oedipus, the best thing you can do is not do it by yourself.

And yes, the new Esposito book looks really cool. Really really cool.