Delueze Study:

nope lol

“Hence one is correct in speaking of a profound dissimulation of the dualism of these two forms of money, payment and financing–––the two aspects of banking practice. But this dissimulation does not depend on a faulty understanding so much as it expresses the capitalist field of immanence, the apparent objective moment where the lower or subordinate form is no less necessary than the other (it is necessary for money to play on both boards), and where no integration of the dominated classes could occur without the shadow of this unapplied principle of convertibility–––which is enough, however, to ensure that the Desire of the most disadvantaged creature will invest with all its strength, irrespective of any economic understanding or lack of it, the capitalist social field as a whole. Flows, who doesn’t desire flows, and relationships between flows, and breaks in flows?–––all of which capitalism was able to mobilize and break under these hitherto unknown conditions of money. While it is true that capitalism is industrial in its essence or mode of production, it functions only as merchant capitalism. While it is true that it is filiative industrial capital in its essence, it functions only through its alliance with commercial and financial capital. In a sense, it is the bank that controls the whole system and the investment of desire.”

–Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, pp. 229-230

Makes me wish I was presently doing an immersion in the Anti-Oedipus, Void. Good quote.

“Last but not least, the major enemy, the strategic adversary is fascism (whereas Anti-Oedipus’ to the others is more of a tactical engagement). And not only historical fascism, the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini -which was able to mobilize and use the desire of the masses so effectively- but also the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us.” -from Michel Foucault’s preface to The Anti-Oedipus

Approaching Deleuze and Guatarri’s Anti-Oedipus for the nth time (via the book itself and Buchanan’s reader guide), it suddenly strikes me how relevant the book is to the present political climate –especially in America as concerns our present president. What makes it especially relevant is how D & G stress that fascistic experiments are not the result of who happens to obtain power, but rather a social environment that is conducive to it. And let’s face it: Trump is not the cause of the problem; he is a symptom. He is, rather, little more than a node in a vast rhizomatic network of machinic production. And we cannot stress the import of this enough since addressing Trump alone (through impeachment or whatever other means (will not solve the problem.

For instance, while it is Trump who publically turns to Gordian Knot solutions, it was private citizens looking for those kind of solutions that got him in. In fact, it is this basic human need for simplicity that lies behind the whole alt-right movement and their propensity towards such solutions. And this leaves us with a vicious feedback loop (a snowball effect (that starts with Trumps simple answer to a sluggish economy: deregulation and the withdrawal from the Paris Treaty. But as most scientists note, the first effects of global warming will lie heavily on third world countries close to the equator. So what do we think is going to happen when those areas become so uninhabitable that its occupants are forced to migrate north? What it will likely do is legitimize the alt-right position (the fascism (through excessive illegal immigration. And don’t think of it as some thought-out conspiracy. Think it, rather, as ignorance propping itself up through a kind of accidental Orwellian staged event.

On the uptick, though, Trump may well end up renewing interest in the work of Deleuze and Guatarri –especially the Anti-Oedipus. It may well result in the Deleuzian century that Foucault joked about.

“To be anti-oedipal is to be anti-ego as well as anti-homo, willfully attacking all reductive psychoanalytic and political analyses that remain caught within the sphere of totality and unity, in order to free the multiplicity of desire from the deadly neurotic and Oedipal yoke. For Oedipus is not a mere psychoanalytic construct, Deleuze and Guattari explain. Oedipus is the figurehead of imperialism, “colonization pursued by other means, it is the interior colony, and we shall see that even here at home… it is our intimate colonial education.”” -from Mark Seem’s intro to The Anti-Oedipus

"Depression and Oedipus are agencies of the State, agencies of paranoia, agencies of power, long before being delegated to the family. Oedipus is the figure of power as such, just as neurosis is the result of power on individuals. Oedipus is everywhere.

“For anti-oedipalists the ego, like Oedipus, is “part of those things we must dismantle through the united through the united assault of analytical and political forces.” Oedipus is belief injected into the unconscious, it is what gives us faith as it robs us of power, it is what teaches us to desire our own repression.” -ibid

First of all, I gotta say it again: while the e-book technology is cool in how you can easily copy and paste quotes from the book, there is still something to be said for having to physically write out a quote from another writer. You just seem to assimilate the content as well as the style all that much more.

Secondly, I want to (in this window (frame these quotes in terms of a recent article I wrote for Philosophy Now (publication pending or, more likely, not gonna happen): In Defense of the Nihilism and the Nihilistic Perspective: trollersandtyrants.blogspot.com … &type=POST

It seems to me that Seem is getting at the spiritual aspect of nihilism in terms of the Anti-Oedipus. We basically broach the possibility of a Zen Nihilism when we say things like:

"To be anti-oedipal is to be anti-ego as well as anti-homo, willfully attacking all reductive psychoanalytic and political analyses that remain caught within the sphere of totality and unity, in order to free the multiplicity of desire from the deadly neurotic and Oedipal yoke.”

It’s basically what we do when we begin to tap into the underlying nothingness of things. I mean isn’t that what Zen is about? Dissolving the ego? And what would the ego dissolve into but nothingness? And in this sense, D & G work explicitly in the psychotic mode I describe in the article:

“The psychotic mode is a strategy of retreat. The individual, having no real criteria by which to judge action, recedes into their own semiotic bubble with its own vocabulary and systemic constructs –think the rules of grammar here. At its most extreme, it recedes to a point where the Symbolic Order is incapable of interacting with it while it is incapable of interacting with the Symbolic Order. The most obvious example, of course, is the schizophrenic walking down the street engaged in their own discourse, either with their self or some imaginary other. But it also takes on more watered down and socially understandable (if not acceptable) forms. Drug addicts and alcoholics, for instance, also recede into their own bubbles with their own systems of meaning (vocabulary) and rules of interaction (rules of construct). They too create their own semiotic systems that seem alien to the general Symbolic Order. We also see this at work in the more socially acceptable and productive form of the avant garde, that which addresses various conventions and power discourses and seeks to change flaws and injustices in the Symbolic Order.”

What D & G seem to be getting at (via their materialistic model (is an egoless state in which we see ourselves as nodes (not individuals with egos that might try to take control (in a de-centered system of exchange. And they do so in relation to the Symbolic Order as defined by Lacan. Once again:

“We also see this at work in the more socially acceptable and productive form of the avant garde, that which addresses various conventions and power discourses and seeks to change flaws and injustices in the Symbolic Order.”

This, of course, points to the very problem Rorty saw in the subject/object dichotomy: as long we maintain it, we continue to see ourselves as some kind of lord over the object, authorized to pass judgment on it. But by Rorty and D & G’s model, we rid ourselves of such erroneous models, and see ourselves as systems with various subsystems interacting with other systems with their various subsystems.

“It is at work everywhere, functioning smoothly at times, at other times in fits and starts. It breaths, it heats, it eats. It shits and fucks. What a mistake to have ever said the id. Everywhere it is machines -real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections. An organ-machine is plugged into an energy-source-machine: the one produces a flow that the other interrupts. The breast is a machine that produces milk, and the mouth a machine coupled to it. The mouth of the anorexic wavers between several functions: its possessor is uncertain as to whether it is an eating-machine, an anal machine, a talking-machine, or a breathing-machine (asthma attacks). Hence we are all handymen: each with his little machines. For every organ-machine, an energy machine: all the time, flows and interruptions. Judge Schreber has sunbeams in his ass. A solar anus. Judge Schreber feels something, produces something, and is capable of explaining the process theoretically. Something is produced: the effects of a machine, not mere metaphors.” -from the Anti-Oedipus

Today I want to speak from a position I am most comfortable with: that as a guy trying to be a good writer who also enjoys the philosophical process of going from empathy to outright sympathy. I’ve always kind of “gotten” the Anti-Oedipus. It’s why I’ve returned to it as well as Deleuze. (Perhaps it’s the challenge or something. And I mean it: damn the French and their weird obscure philosophies anyway!) But having approached this book for the nth time, I am starting to see how truly beautiful the writing is in this book. I would note, for instance, the disjunctive effect of:

“For every organ-machine, an energy machine: all the time, flows and interruptions. Judge Schreber has sunbeams in his ass. A solar anus.”

Here we get a dissonant effect similar to a Stravinsky or Schoenberg piece. This, to me, creates a kind of Jouissance (that kind of push/pull effect (that defines true greatness. Depth, intensity, and lightness of touch. I would also note how D & G manage a subtle humor by looping back to previous points:

“Not man as the king of creation, but rather as the being who is in intimate contact with the profound life of all forms or all types of beings, who is responsible for even the stars and animal life, and who ceaselessly plugs an organ-machine into an energy-machine, a tree into his body, a breast into his mouth, the sun into his asshole: the eternal custodian of the machines of the universe."

I would especially focus in on “the sun into his asshole” which refers back to “Judge Schreber has sunbeams in his ass. A solar anus.” We can also see this in “a breast into his mouth” which not only refers to the breast machine connecting with the mouth machine, but the complex sexuality involved as well.

The main thing to understand for now is that in order to get at the expositional aspect of the book, you first have to understand the aesthetic aspect of it. You have to turn content into form via form.

“When Claude Levi-Strauss defines bricolage, he does so in terms of a set of closely related characteristics: the possession of a stock of materials or of rules of thumb that are fairly extensive, though more or less a hodgepodge -multiple and at the same time limited; the ability to rearrange fragments continually in new and different patterns or configurations ; and as a consequence, an indifference toward the act of producing and toward the product, toward the set of instruments to be used and toward the over-all result to be achieved.”

“Hence the coupling that takes place within the partial object-flow connective synthesis also has another form: product/producing. Producing is always something “grafted onto” the product; and for that reason desiring production is production of production, just as every machine is a machine connected to another machine.” –both from D & G’s Anti-Oedipus

Of course, my method of operation (or method of madness –take your pick) is becoming more obvious here. I mean the way my trajectory is going, it may come to randomly picking a paragraph out of whatever book I’m reading and just bouncing off of it with my own thoughts. But it seems appropriate in terms of my relationship to philosophy: not as a philosopher (I simply don’t have the training), but as someone trying to be a good writer who happens to like the philosophical process: that of turning empathy into sympathy, thereby assimilating theory to the point you can play with it. In that spirit, I would ask the reader to consider everything I write (especially on these boards (as a journal entry describing a philosophical process.

I mainly bring this up because what I am about to do is relate what I get out of these quotes to articles (unpublished articles (as well as articles I want to write. This may come off as self-promoting. But that is not my intention –that is despite the fact that I will also include links to articles I have written. It is merely to point out (in a dear diary kind of way (that I am finding some support for my instincts. My appeal to authority (and that is exactly what it is), however, is not meant to confirm my conceptual play as the final word. I consider it a form of play. And that is all I ever want it to be. Anyway:

“Hence the coupling that takes place within the partial object-flow connective synthesis also has another form: product/producing. Producing is always something “grafted onto” the product; and for that reason desiring production is production of production, just as every machine is a machine connected to another machine.”

I would first reference the reader towards my concept of Efficiency: moretha.blogspot.com/2017/08/eff … ticle.html

Then I would point out that one of the main reasons Efficiency has stuck with me is that along the way is that it has found some confirmation and articulation (as well as expansion (through two of my holy triad: Deleuze and Rorty. I see it as a synthesis of the two as Deleuze (as well as Guattari (provide the de-centered, rhizomatic network in which Efficiency works while Rorty’s pragmatism (I consider myself drawn to French theory while being equally drawn to the Anglo-American style of exposition (provides a more accessible approach to it.

But the main reason I bring this quote into it is that it points to one of the main points I want to make about Efficiency: that the idea is to produce output that can produce output down the line: to produce production. This is the very point of minimizing the differential between the resources put into an act and those gotten out: to put off heat death as long as possible. There is only so much energy in the universe. So it makes perfect sense to engage in every act in a way that will ensure further acts.

“When Claude Levi-Strauss defines bricolage, he does so in terms of a set of closely related characteristics: the possession of a stock of materials or of rules of thumb that are fairly extensive, though more or less a hodgepodge -multiple and at the same time limited; the ability to rearrange fragments continually in new and different patterns or configurations ; and as a consequence, an indifference toward the act of producing and toward the product, toward the set of instruments to be used and toward the over-all result to be achieved.”

This one is dear to me because of an article I want to write on my next output phase:

Bricolage: the Ultimate Epistemology

This is Deleuze as the philosopher for which the creative act is never that far from his mind. (And let us not leave out Guattari as anyone knows who has read The Anti-Oedipus Papers.) And as Deleuze argues (via Bergson: nature, as a whole, is creative. Bricolage is the very process (by using what is at hand (by which all things change –including a creative process. As I will point out in the article, we only need look at dreams which have been scientifically pointed out to play an important role in brain plasticity. Think about it: the brain does a random inventory of its contents and randomly juxtaposes one mental element on another until it finds patterns that resonate with and seduces it. Then it stores those patterns as an element it can juxtapose with other random elements.

And let us note here the important role that chancing (as described in Deleuze’s Logic of Sense ( seems to be playing here.

“Just as a part of the libido as energy of production was transformed into energy of recording (Numen), a part of this energy of recording is transformed into energy of consummation (Voluptas). It is this residual energy that is the motive force behind the third synthesis of the unconscious: the conjunctive synthesis “so it’s…,” or the production of consumption.” -from the Anti-Oedipus

I want to return to this with different intentions than yesterday. But before I do, I want to show a little integrity in pointing out I was, to some extent, wrong when I said:

“First of all, I would thank Mr. (or is it Professor? (Dr. perhaps? (Buchanan for doing the footwork of extracting and giving me (for the mere price of a book: his reader’s guide to the Anti-Oedipus (the three syntheses of Anti-Oedipus: the connective, the disjunctive, and the conjunctive. As dialectic of the unconscious, it’s been useful to me. And it’s not like D & G make an effort to lay them out in any organized manner. They just kind of fold it all into their aesthetic approach to exposition.”

I was right to thank Buchanan for pointing out the triad to me. Without doing so, it might have passed by me yet again. Where I went wrong was:

“And it’s not like D & G make an effort to lay them out in any organized manner. They just kind of fold it all into their aesthetic approach to exposition.”

One could almost believe in a higher power in the way fate seeks to make a fool of you. And as fate would have it, I came across 4 sections: 3 of which are dedicated to each individual synthesis and one at the end to sum them up. Yes, I’m a little slow on the uptake; but at least I’m getting there.

That confession out of the way, I want to get at the element of Lacanian Jouissance involved in the three syntheses: connection, disjunction, and conjunction. But I first have to explain my understanding of Jouissance as I got it from a graphic guide: Lacan for Beginners. And thumb down your nose if you will. But I have found the concept very useful, not just in my own thought, but in the way I interpret the work of not only D & G, but Slavoj Zizek as well.

Jouissance, as many of you might know, is about sexual ecstasy: the experience of pleasure. But Lacan makes it a little more complex than that. He first points out that in the act of sex, we experience pleasure at a conscious level while experiencing discomfort at a subconscious level. The example he gives is that of engaging in sex then, right when the male is about to climax, pulling out the penis and clamping down on it. This, of course, would create discomfort –not to mention blue-balls. Then he goes on to reverse this and point out that many psychological symptoms (since they tend to be repeated (are a matter of experiencing discomfort at a conscious level while experiencing pleasure at a subconscious one. And it makes perfect sense since people with such maladies tend to repeat behaviors that give them discomfort. Why else would they?

But it goes even deeper, and more subtle, than that. If you think about it, sex is a process of working towards a thresh-hold that will take you out of a place you are really enjoying at the time. It’s like you’re going in two directions at the same time. And this can lead to a kind of push/pull experience that underlies much of what we experience, including D & G’s dialectic of the three syntheses: connection, disjunction, and conjunction. I mainly see it in the latter two. Disjunction speaks for itself. Conjunction expresses it through consumption and “consummation” –both of which feel like orgasm. As was pointed out in a footnote:

"The word consommation has a number of meanings in French, among them consummation (as of a marriage); an ultimate fulfillment or perfection; and consumption (as of raw material, fuel, or products).”

And I hope to elaborate on this. But my window is closing. Before I go, I would also note the feel of Jouissance in:

“Delirium and hallucination are secondary in relation to the really primary emotion, which in the beginning only experiences intensities, becomings, transitions. Where do these pure intensities come from? They come from the two preceding forces, repulsion and attraction, and from the opposition of these two forces.”

And it is from the opposition of repulsion and attraction that we experience Jouissance.

“How can people possibly reach the point of shouting: “More taxes! Less bread!” As Reich remarks, the astonishing thing is not that some people steal or that others occasionally go out on strike, but rather that all those who are starving do not steal as a regular practice, and all those who are exploited are not continually out on strike: after centuries of exploitation, why do people still tolerate being humiliated and enslaved, to such a point, indeed, that they actually want humiliation and slavery not only for others but for themselves? Reich is as a thinker at his profoundest when he refuses to accept ignorance or illusion on the part of the masses as an explanation of fascism, and demands an explanation that will take their desires into account, an explanation formulated in terms of desire: no, the masses were not innocent dupes; at a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they wanted fascism, and it is this perversion of the desire of the masses that needs to be accounted for.” -From D & G’s Anti-Oedipus (pg. 29)

To be honest, while this has always been a section of the Anti-Oedipus that I have assimilated the most (through both original and secondary text (in fact, one my favorite quotes (and I have quoted it often (has been and remains:

“As Reich remarks, the astonishing thing is not that some people steal or that others occasionally go out on strike, but rather that all those who are starving do not steal as a regular practice, and all those who are exploited are not continually out on strike….”

(I now have mixed feelings about it. It is, of course, a concern we all share –that is because people do seem to seek their own oppression. And I cannot speak for people in other advanced nations. But there is a lot here that does not jive with the American experience of emergent fascism –especially as it is coming to a head under Trump. It becomes immediately suspect with:

"How can people possibly reach the point of shouting: “More taxes! Less bread!””

This is by no means the call of the right. In fact, it is the opposite. And I do, without qualification, attribute the American propensity for fascism with the right. While there are fascist impulses in the left (I’ve experienced them in myself as well as others), the left simply does not have the pull with the Capitalistic regime to be as dangerous.

For the right in America, it is more about empowerment through more money in their pocket. It is more about how they could be doing great if it wasn’t for the undesirables: immigrants, welfare mothers, tax and spend liberals, etc., etc… In this sense (and at the risk of making the same mistake as Bill Maher), I would argue that Malcolm X’s house-slave dynamic actually works better in that no tyrant works in a vacuum. What they must do, rather (much as Trump is doing with the military), is create a cushion between themselves and those who will suffer with well compensated acolytes. And this worked as well for Stalin as it did Hitler. I would also note:

“….after centuries of exploitation, why do people still tolerate being humiliated and enslaved, to such a point, indeed, that they actually want humiliation and slavery not only for others but for themselves?”

The problem is that, in America, anyone who has watched the TV show COPS can see that humiliation and slavery are mainly aimed at the undesirable other: in this case, white trash and minorities –or rather non-producer/consumers. We see this at work, as well, in a guy who stood outside a Trump rally and waxed wishfully about the day he could go to the Mexican border, buy a 25$ permit and get 50$ per confirmed kill.

At the same time, I would not totally dismiss D&G’s, as well as Reich’s, deeper and more desire based understanding. It would be hard to maintain that self-interest is purely to blame when you have food stamp recipients in Louisiana expressing nothing but hate for the federal government. But couldn’t we blame that on ignorance and illusion?

The point is not to dismiss D & G’s model of social production and the folly it can lead to. I have every intention of pursuing it further myself. All I am saying is that we have to be a little wary of theoretical overreach and recognize that simpler and more accessible models (such as Malcolm X’s house slave dynamic (are as worthy of consideration, that simply because a conceptual model is more subtle and complex (the radical purely for the sake of the radical (we must accept it as the right explanation.

One of the things I’m starting to get from Eugene Holland’s reader guide to the Anti-Oedipus is the inherent opposition between desiring production and anti-production via the former’s inherent tension with social production –that is even though both are basically the same thing. On the other hand, it might be better to say that anti-production is opposed to desiring production while naturally emerging from social production. Let me explain and hope I don’t fuck it up, hope I make more sense to you than it might be making to me.

I would start by pointing out that desiring production works at a subconscious level. It works in the pings, grunts, and silences in the meat of the brain. That is the language of the brain. But evolutionary mandates require that those pings, grunts, and silences connect with other bodies -the brain basically being the ambassador of the body. It is at this point that desiring production translates into social production. But at this point, desiring production comes up against the hard reality of other bodies with their own matrixes of desiring production. Hence: anti-production –and furthermore: the disjunctive syntheses that Deleuze and Guatarri include in the triad of connection, disjunction, and conjunction.

The best analogy I can offer is a point made by Picasso: that taste is the enemy of art. But Picasso was an artist and not a man to clearly define his terms. I would argue that what he was getting at was that taste was rather a hindrance to the creative act, that which any child could engage in, and is also a form of desiring production. Art, on the other hand, is a form of social production in that it is always about group taste while the creative act still remains a form of social production in that it is desiring- production made public. Therefore, from D & G’s perspective, Art becomes a form of anti-production in the way it filters “bad art” from “good art”. From this perspective, it would have been better for Picasso to say that Art (social and anti-production (is the enemy of the creative act: desiring production.

As I have always said: the creative act never seems that far from Deleuze’s mind. Perhaps this is why I have managed to get myself trapped in the web of that goddamn Frenchman.

Dear Diary Moment/rhizome 12/21/2018:

As I make the transition to the second stage of my project (from Eugene Holland’s analysis of Schizoanalysis to Buchanan’s reader’s guide to the Anti-Oedipus), I find my initial instincts confirmed right off the bat as concerned what was to come: that I would find my immersion in Buchanan’s book a little more productive (that I would relate to it more ( in that he tends to apply the theory to more concrete situations which is the primary agenda by which I find theory useful and worth pursuing. (Hence the project I have committed to.) I mean it’s like we were separated at birth and bound to the same destiny: Deleuze.

Holland’s book was productive. It really was. But he rarely applied schizoanalysis to real world situations and preferred to work with abstract models very similar to those of Lacan. And this always leads to same old question: what does that have to do with the price of tea in China. The main thing that made it work for me was my own need to apply it to the day to day.

But Buchanan (in a Žižek-like way (goes right to references I can easily understand (including Naomi Klein who I am fully familiar with (which is important given that one of the main blocks for Americans trying to understand Deleuze (w/ & w/out Guatarri (is the references he tends to use which are generally an aspect of French culture and a general comfort with it.

At the same time, I consider the order beneficial in that I can’t wait to see how Holland’s more abstract understanding (or what I got from it (of the 3 syntheses: connection, dysjunction, conjunction (bounces off of Buchanan’s and his application of it to the movie Jaws. And I would note here that Buchanan’s understanding of the syntheses is what led me to see them as a residual effect of a basic storyline –the creative act never seeming that far from the back of Deleuze’s mind.

I’m, yet again, excited with this project (this immersion (if you can’t tell.

“connection, dysjunction, conjunction”

To wit, bijection

Dear Diary Moment/rhizome 12/23/2018:

As I go deeper into Buchanan’s reader guide to the Anti-Oedipus, I’m struck by the difference in approach he took as compared to Holland’s as concerns the model that appears to be at core of the book: the three syntheses of desire/the unconscious and the 5 paralogisms as well as the illegitimate uses of the 3 syntheses that the 5 paralogisms include. And while this might, at a more nominal level, lead to confusion, at a more personal one for me it’s kind of a relief in that (given the clear authority of Buchanan and Holland on the subject (you’re given limited license to read yourself into it. And I truly believe this was exactly the result that D&G were after: the very endgame of their use of a more obscure/oblique/even poetic style of exposition.

And in that spirit, I would like to offer my own highly blue-collarized/clearly superficial version of the model. And I would start with the 3 syntheses (and I am primarily working from its analogical connection with Kant’s 3 syntheses of understanding (apprehension, reproduction, and recognition:

The connective in which the brain (via the senses and desire (collects a series of small objects and pieces them together.

The disjunctive in which the growing complexity of the constructs evolve into conflicts and forms of anti-production.

And, finally, the conjunctive in which these disruptions come to a head and everything settles into an unstable but comparatively livable state –that which Holland described as the emergence of the subject (what we think of as the self (as a kind of aftereffect.

Next I would approach the 3 illegitimate uses of the syntheses which, again, constitute the first 3 of the 5 paralogisms of psychoanalysis:

The illegitimate use of the connective in which it is seen as working towards a fixed end.

The illegitimate use of the disjunctive in which everything is fixed into binaries: man/woman, heterosexual/homosexual, white/not-white, etc., etc…

And, finally, the illegitimate use of the conjunctive in which the subject that emerges from all this sees itself (even deludes itself on the matter (as the initial cause of the synthetic process and makes the mistake of seeing itself as a fixed thing with a fixed identity: white, black, gay, heterosexual, etc., etc…

As far as the 5 paralogisms, all that is left are the last 2:

The displacement of confusing the ban on incest as an actual description of desire: as a ban on some impulse that the subject might have had in the first place but might not have either -that is until the ban was brought to their attention.

And the top-down/backward approach in which psychoanalysis admits that there are elements of the Oedipus at work in society as a whole, but subscribe it to an aftereffect of the subject’s familial experience –Capitalism’s way of wiping its hands clean of our experiences of neurosis, hysteria, and paranoia when, in fact, it is the very source of it.

Anyway: that’s just my take. But it’s the steppingstone I have to work from.

“It is an error in logic, Deleuze and Guattari argue, to assume it is possible to deduce the nature of what is prohibited from the prohibition itself. For a start, it means assuming that what is prohibited is in fact a real desire, something that we actually long to do, and would not hesitate to do were we not restrained by law. BY the same token, it assumes that the prohibition is put in place solely to prevent or at least inhibit from being performed those acts society deems ‘improper’. But the reality is, desire is not that ‘guilty’ and the law not that ‘innocent’."-from Buchanan’s reader’s guide to the Anti-Oedipus

This, of course (at least to my fellow Deleuzians), is a reference to what Buchanan referred to as the paralogism of fictitious desire and Holland the paralogism of displacement. And it is the easiest for me to relate to. I, for instance, have never desired my mother. At most, I sympathized and empathized with her enough to make her the pole against which I opposed individual issues I had with my father –that is while actually loving him for what he did give me. It was more of a hybrid than an either/or choice. And whatever a psychoanalyst might read into this, I hardly see in it a universal justification for over-coding it with the Oedipal model, of making it about my desire for my mother. I mean while that kind of thing might work on PornHub (which usually involves a stepmother), I hardly feel the DESIRE to watch my mother have sex on video.

That said, we really get at the fault in Freud’s theory when we look at the evil spawn of the Oedipus: the notion of wish fulfillment in dream theory. And in the process of doing so, we may get at the practicality of D&G’s agenda of unleashing desiring production into social production. Say you find yourself in dream in which you’re naked in a bathtub with your mother. Freudian theory would argue that it was about some buried desire: an example of primal repression. But enter Sartre’s Vertigo of the Possible which (something you feel whenever you come to the ledge of a high place (is not so much a matter of a fear of falling as much of a fear of throwing one’s self over. It’s just a spontaneous recognition that the option is available, much as being naked in a tub with your mother is. In other words (sans the Oedipus), we can see dreams as the kind of desiring production described by D&G.

We can see it as a kind of bricolage in which the desiring productions at work randomly take various objects of the mind and juxtaposes them together, see what combinations work for it (attract to the BwO), and retain them for further juxtaposition.

One of the points that Buchanan makes in his reader’s guide to the Anti-Oedipus is that Deleuze and Guattari reverses Freud’s more arborescent model of the unconscious: that in which unruly thoughts inhabit this dark realm at the roots of consciousness and always work at (and sometimes/maybe often actually succeed at (breaking into the conscious world and manipulating it via the social and political. D&G, on the other hand, argue that it is the social and political that (mainly through the Oedipal (manipulates the unconscious by manipulating desiring production.

And there is some actual empirical backing for their position. As a New Yorker article brought to my attention, many in the mental health field have noted an increasing number of the mentally ill suffering from what has been dubbed The Truman Show Complex. Much like Jim Carrey’s character in the movie, they see their selves as always being observed. But what goes even further to the heart of D&G’s position is the conclusion this leads to (that generally accepted among the mental health community): that mental illness (desiring production completely unleashed (provides the framework while culture provides the content. It even becomes more prescient when you consider that D&G argued that the best approach to clinical schizophrenia (psychosis (was the psycho-biological and chemical. They rejected the notion that the cure simply laid in digging into the subject’s past.
*
Another way of getting at the nature of the unconscious and desiring production is to (every once in a while (just step back and look at how thought works. It’s not as organized as the analytics would have us believe. It’s more like having a flock of birds hovering safely above you and having individual ones suddenly swoop just above from various trajectories and in different combinations. Some, via language (how would I know what I thought if I didn’t write?), do seem to organize, then fall apart or trail off in order to make room for other combinations.

It only begins to feel more organized as it gets absorbed into the symbolic.
*
The thing about philosophy is that it always feels like someone on acid trying to explain their high…. … … .

Another example of Deleuze and Guattari’s reversal of Freud’s model in which the subconscious percolates up (from the bottom up as compared to D&G’s more rhizomatic model of a feedback loop between the subconscious and the social (into the social is something I have a front row seat to as a progressive living in Nebraska (and here I am inspired by Buchanan’s lean towards the political/social and our shared issues with Capitalism): the way people seem completely saturated with corporate values, the way they seem completely incapable of thinking “outside of the box”.

I mean it: every argument you hear them make for conservative values seems to assume Capitalism like some natural force or something. It’s like a Land of Lotos eaters that, when in crisis, always refer their solutions back to the Lotos. It’s like they’re watching TV ads that suggest we live in a golden age thanks to producer/consumer Capitalism, and actually believe it. Even the democrats, who show a certain degree of distance from profit seeking behaviors, still seem to succumb to market based solutions: see carbon credits and the Affordable Care Act. Still (foolishly or not), I maintain my hope in the democratic platform way over the republican which constitutes little more than lip-service to corporate values.

And this could only be if social pressures (the products of social production (had wormed their very way into the individual psyche and its underlying subconscious and manipulated the desiring production at work in it. Hence: D&G’s agenda of unleashing desiring production into social production as compared to the Freudian agenda of social production containing desiring production.

Dear Diary Moment/rhizome 1/7/2019:

Today the model/the cognitive map of the Anti-Oedipus (under the guidance of Buchanan –w/residual effects from Holland (took, yet again, another step closer to crystallization, especially as concerns the Body w/out Organs. I have already noted that the BwO emerges in the connective synthesis and initiates the disjunctive synthesis.

But what today’s reading of Buchanan’s reader guide opened me up to was the “why” of that emergence (as well as give me a better understanding (in reverse (of Freud’s primal repression which was problematic for me: in other words, I didn’t actually get it until I got D&G’s understanding of it. As Kyle from South Park put it: I had a thought today. I realized that the reason the BwO (its functional/machinic agenda (emerges in the connective synthesis is to contain desiring production in its unruly state. Hence D&G’s association of it with primal repression which makes no sense at a conscious level: has no meaning. And it is that lack of meaning that allows secondary/social forces to impose meaning on it via the binary (man/woman, straight/gay, black/white, even the subject/BwO (on/off attraction/repulsion choices that the BwO tends to work in.

In other words: this is the point at which social forces (most notably producer/consumer Capitalism (start to impose their selves on the subconscious realm of desiring production and route it into acceptable forms of social production.
*
As I said yesterday: the poetry of philosophy only really sets in when the individual has assimilated the model to such a depth that they find their selves instinctively applying it to the day to day. And I am starting to see that with the 3 syntheses.

Me writing this for instance: I saw a blank space; I had to fill it; I connected thoughts and words freely (the connective of course (until certain impasses emerged (the disjunctive:

“What am I trying to say?”

“Where am I wrong?”

“How will I correct it?”

(The BwO’s regime that emerges being to write a successful post.)

And, finally, the conjunctive experience of being done: of being able to say “I did this” when, in fact, it is the product of a lot of random forces.

the reason the BwO (its functional/machinic agenda (emerges in the connective synthesis is to contain desiring production in its unruly state. Hence D&G’s association of it with primal repression which makes no sense at a conscious level: has no meaning. And it is that lack of meaning that allows secondary/social forces to impose meaning on it.

Hello again.

Could You clarify this reasoning?

We did meet years ago and engaged earlier. I would like to re-engage.In particular, to Your phrasing, (" the reason the BwO (its functional/machinic agenda (emerges in the connective synthesis is to contain desiring production in its unruly state. Hence D&G’s association of it with primal repression which makes no sense at a conscious level:)

Could we discuss how the containment is transformed per desiring production? Is this a negation of the Freudian idea of symbolism on a sub conscious level, thereby transferring through more conscious levels? Or is it an exclusively primary process with no shadowy aspects?

To my mind, this would appear to be the crux of this argument, however I may be wrong.

And finally, would You have difficulty with partial analysis, as opposed to not having read most or all relevant interpretations by You of key relevant issues arising out of it and forming a basic outline?

I have, of late, come to question (that is in a ironic way (the internal contradictions of Deleuzianism –w/ and w/out Guattari: the sense that his work, process, and the effects of it has a way of turning on itself: autocritique as D&G put it. For instance, one of the things that Deleuze always seemed focused on was the democratization of philosophy –that is as compared to the classical hierarchical approach. Ironically, this was the point of his rather oblique and seemingly esoteric approach to exposition and meaning: he wanted us to figure it out for ourselves in our own way. The problem, however, is that much of the discourse that goes on around him tends toward the reterritorialization of Deleuze: the question of what he means. Even more significant is the way our reverence for him tends to turn him into a guru figure perfectly equivalent to the paternal in the Oedipal triad that he and Guattari attempted to undermine.

(And do not get me wrong: I still consider Deleuze a part of my holy triad along with Rorty and Žižek.)

What I am arguing here is that Deleuze wandered into the same conundrum that every thinker who works from the nihilistic perspective has: that which recognizes the ungroundedness of things –that is even if they fail to recognize it at work even though the ungroundedness of things is what undermines the dogma of the authoritarian: the nihilistic perspective’s worst enemy.

I truly believe 2 things about Deleuze. First: he truly wanted to (in a truly Promethean way (democratize knowledge and give everyone access to it. He was a lot like Marx in that sense. And despite popular notions: there was hardly an elitist bone in his body. Secondly: he wanted to do it in a rockstar/Promethean kind of way. His ego was there. And it is the legacy of that ego that left us with the paradox of being a liberating force (the Promethean (while trying to not be THE Liberator –that is while falling into the role.

“For now what is important is that the body-without-organs represents for schizoanalysis not just the locus of repression but the potential for freedom. It can be compared to a kind of tabula rasa, freeing the organism from the purely mechanical repetition of instinctual determination as well as the fixations of neurosis - provided we understand that such a tabula rasa does not exist from the start, but rather gets produced in the course of psychic development by the transformation of energies of connection into energies of recording.” -Holland, Eugene W… Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus: Introduction to Schizoanalysis (p. 31). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

The main thing to understand here is that we don’t start with a Body without Organs. It is, rather, the collective effect of recordings that occur during the disjunctive phase in which oppositions begin to form: white/black, capitalism/socialism, gay/straight, whatever false dichotomy you can think of. This is why we naturally tend to organize our understanding of the world in terms of comparison. It’s why, for instance, we know what a brook is by comparing it to a river, a house compared to a mansion.

My point here, however, is to note the similarity of the BwO with what I have come to experience as a background flux of knowledge from which understanding emerges. Once I came to understand a thing, it rarely (if not never (felt like it was coming out of a void. It felt, rather, like something that was almost there, but then became articulated for me. And I can’t help but correlate it with a dialectic I came across in Arther Lupia’s Uniformed: Why People Know So Little about Politics and What We Can Do About It. It described a dialectic that started with information that accumulated into a body of knowledge that resulted in competence in a given desired task. And it is important to understand that entwined in that body of knowledge are our emotional responses to things: much as the disjunctive synthesis records pleasant experiences on the smooth surface the BwO in order to be able to repeat them.

It just seems to me that there is a connection between D&G’s BwO and that background flux of knowledge (that body of knowledge (that acts as a blank space with certain biases (certain repetitions (to all further syntheses of the unconscious.