Capitalism And Schizophrenia Quotes

A concept is a brick. It can be used to build a courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown through the window.

Bring something incomprehensible into the world!

It is not the slumber of reason that engenders monsters, but vigilant and insomniac rationality.

The fundamental problem of political philosophy is still precisely the one that Spinoza saw so clearly (and that Wilhelm Reich rediscovered): Why do men fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though it were their salvation?

The self is only a threshold, a door, a becoming between two multiplicities

Shit on your whole mortifying, imaginary, and symbolic theater!

Forming grammatically correct sentences is for the normal individual the prerequisite for any submission to social laws. No one is supposed to be ignorant of grammaticality; those who are belong in special institutions. The unity of language is fundamentally political.

Do not think that one has to be sad in order to be militant, even though the thing one is fighting is abominable.

The individual is the product of power.

In truth, Freud sees nothing and understands nothing.

Courage consists, however, in agreeing to flee rather than live tranquilly and hypocritically in false refuges. Values, morals, homelands, religions, and these private certitudes that our vanity and our complacency bestow generously on us, have many deceptive sojourns as the world arranges for those who think they are standing straight and at ease, among stable things

To become imperceptible oneself, to have dismantled love in order to become capable of loving. To have dismantled one's self in order finally to be alone and meet the true double at the other end of the line. A clandestine passenger on a motionless voyage. To become like everybody else; but this, precisely, is a becoming only for one who knows how to be nobody, to no longer be anybody. To paint oneself gray on gray.

It is always from the depths of its impotence that each power center draws its power, hence their extreme maliciousness, and vanity

Christianity taught us to see the eye of the lord looking down upon us. Such forms of knowledge project an image of reality, at the expense of reality itself. They talk figures and icons and signs, but fail to perceive forces and flows. They bind us to other realities, and especially the reality of power as it subjugates us. Their function is to tame, and the result is the fabrication of docile and obedient subjects.

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.

Making love is not just becoming as one, or even two, but becoming as a hundred thousand. Desiring-machines or the nonhuman sex: not one or even two sexes, but n sexes.

History is made only by those who oppose history (not by those who insert themselves into it, or even reshape it).

Capitalist realism insists on treating mental health as if it were a natural fact, like weather (but, then again, weather is no longer a natural fact so much as a political-economic effect). In the 1960s and 1970s, radical theory and politics (Laing, Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari, etc.) coalesced around extreme mental conditions such as schizophrenia, arguing, for instance, that madness was not a natural, but a political, category. But what is needed now is a politicization of much more common disorders. Indeed, it is their very commonness which is the issue: in Britain, depression is now the condition that is most treated by the NHS. In his book The Selfish Capitalist, Oliver James has convincingly posited a correlation between rising rates of mental distress and the neoliberal mode of capitalism practiced in countries like Britain, the USA and Australia. In line with James’s claims, I want to argue that it is necessary to reframe the growing problem of stress (and distress) in capitalist societies. Instead of treating it as incumbent on individuals to resolve their own psychological distress, instead, that is, of accepting the vast privatization of stress that has taken place over the last thirty years, we need to ask: how has it become acceptable that so many people, and especially so many young people, are ill?

Language is not made to be believed but to be obeyed, and to compel obedience newspapers, news, proceed by redundancy, in that they tell us what we ‘must’ think, retain, expect, etc. language is neither informational nor communicational. It is not the communication of information but something quite different: the transmission of order-words, either from one statement to another or within each statement, insofar as each statement accomplishes an act and the act is accomplished in the statement

Anyone who likes cats or dogs is a fool.

D.H. Lawrence had the impression – that psychoanalysis was shutting sexuality up in a bizarre sort of box painted with bourgeois motifs, in a kind of rather repugnant artificial triangle, thereby stifling the whole of sexuality as a production of desire so as to recast it along entirely different lines, making of it a ‘dirty little secret’, a dirty little family secret, a private theater rather than the fantastic factory of nature and production

To those who say that escaping is not courageous, we answer: what is not escape and social investment at the same time?

Psychoanalysis was from the start, still is, and perhaps always will be a well-constituted church and a form of treatment based on a set of beliefs that only the very faithful could adhere to, i.e., those who believe in a security that amounts to being lost in the herd and defined in terms of common and external goals

The various forms of education or ‘normalization’ imposed upon an individual consist in making him or her change points of subjectification, always moving towards a higher, nobler one in closer conformity with the supposed ideal. Then from the point of subjectification issues a subject of enunciation, as a function of a mental reality determined by that point. Then from the subject of enunciation issues a subject of the statement, in other words, a subject bound to statements in conformity with a dominant reality

The two of us wrote Anti-Oedipus together. Since each of us was several, there was already quite a crowd.

Psychoanalysts are bent on producing man abstractly, that is to say ideologically, for culture. It is Oedipus who produces man in this fashion and who gives a structure to the false movement of infinite progression and regression

We are writing this book as a rhizome. It is composed of plateaus. We have given it a circular form, but only for laughs. Each morning we would wake up, and each of us would ask himself what plateau he was going to tackle, writing five lines here, ten there. We had hallucinatory experiences, we watched lines leave one plateau and proceed to another like columns of tiny ants.

Only thought is capable of inventing the fiction of a State that is universal by right, of elevation the State to the level of de jure universality

The death of a social machine has never been heralded by a disharmony or a dysfunction; on the contrary, social machines make a habit of feeding on the contradictions they give rise to, on the crises they provoke, on the anxieties they engender, and on the infernal operations they regenerate. Capitalism has learned this, and has ceased doubting itself, while even socialists have abandoned belief in the possibility of capitalism's natural death by attrition. No one has ever died from contradictions. And the more it breaks down, the more it schizophrenizes, the better it works, the American way.

The great discovery of psychoanalysis was that of the production of desire, of the production of the unconscious. But once Oedipus entered the picture, the discovery was soon buried beneath the new brand of idealism: a classical theater was substituted for the unconscious as a factory: representation was substituted for the units of production of the unconscious; and an unconscious that was capable of nothing but expressing itself – in myth, tragedy, dreams – was substituted for the productive unconscious

What does belief applied to the unconscious signify? What is an unconscious that no longer does anything but believe, rather than produce? What are the operations, the artifices that inject the unconscious with ‘beliefs’ that are not even rational, but on the contrary only too reasonable and consistent with the established order?

The annals of official philosophy are populated by ‘bureaucrats of pure reason’ who speak in ‘the shadow of the despot’ and are in historical complicity with the State. They invent ‘a properly spiritual…absolute State that… effectively functions in the mind.’ Theirs is a discourse of sovereign judgment, of stable subjectivity legislated by ‘good’ sense, of rocklike identity, ‘universal’ truth, and (white male) justice. ‘Thus the exercise of their thought is in conformity with the aims of the real State, with the dominant significations, and with the requirements of the established order.

The administration of a great organized molar security has as its correlate a whole micro-management of petty fears, a permanent molecular insecurity, to the point that the motto of domestic policymakers might be: a macropolitics of society by and for the micropolitics of insecurity

What does it mean to love somebody? It is always to seize that person in a mass, extract him or her from a group, however small, in which he or she participates, whether it be through the family only or through something else; then to find that person's own packs, the multiplicities he or she encloses within himself or herself which may be of an entirely different nature. To join them to mine, to make them penetrate mine, and for me to penetrate the other person's. Heavenly nuptials, multiplicities of multiplicities. Every love is an exercise in depersonalization on a body without organs yet to be formed, and it is at the highest point of this depersonalization that some- one can be named, receives his or her family name or first name, acquires the most intense discernibility in the instantaneous apprehension of the multiplicities belonging to him or her, and to which he or she belongs. A pack of freckles on a face, a pack of boys speaking through the voice of a woman, a clutch of girls in Charlus's voice, a horde of wolves in somebody's throat, a multiplicity of anuses in the anus, mouth, or eye one is intent upon. We each go through so many bodies in each other.

In the literary machine that Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time” constitutes, we are struck by the fact that all the parts are produced as asymmetrical sections, paths that suddenly come to an end, hermetically sealed boxes, noncommunicating vessels, watertight compartments, in which there are gaps even between things that are contiguous, gaps that are affirmations, pieces of a puzzle belonging not to any one puzzle but to many, pieces assembled by forcing them into a certain place where they may or may not belong, their unmatched edges violently forced out of shape, forcibly made to fit together, to interlock, with a number of pieces always left over.

Placing oneself in a position where one is thus traversed, broken, fucked by the socius, looking for the right place where, according to the aims and interests assigned to us, one feels something moving that has neither an interest nor a purpose.

A book has neither object nor subject; it is made of variously formed matters, and very different dates and speeds.

Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia,

Psihanalistul devine regizorul unui teatru privat - in loc sa fie inginerul sau mecanicul care monteaza unitati de productie, care se lupta cu agenti colectivi de productie si de antiproductie.

Besides, it is doubtful that incest was a real obstacle to the establishment of society, as the partisans of an exchangist conception claim...The real danger is elsewhere. If desire is repressed, it is because every position of desire...is capable of calling into question the established order of society...it is revolutionary in its essence...It is therefore of vital importance for a society to repress desire, and even to find something more efficient than repression, so that repression, hierarchy, exploitation, and servitude are themselves desired...that does not at all mean that desire is something other than sexuality, but that sexuality and love do not live in the bedroom of Oedipus, they dream instead of wide-open spaces, and...do not let themselves be stocked within an established order.

The schizo knows how to leave: he has made departure into something as simple as being born or dying. But at the same time his journey is strangely stationary, in place. He does not speak of another world, he is not from another world: even when he is displacing himself in space, his is a journey in intensity, around the desiring-machine that is erected here and remains here. For here is the desert propagated by our world, and also the new earth, and the machine that hums, around which the schizos revolve, planets for a new sun. These men of desire - or do they not yet exist? - are like Zarathustra. They know incredible sufferings, vertigos, and sicknesses. They have their specters. They must reinvent each gesture. But such a man produces himself as a free man, irresponsible, solitary, and joyous, finally able to say and do something simple in his own name, without asking permission; a desire lacking nothing, a flux that overcomes barriers and codes, a name that no longer designates any ego whatever. He has simply ceased being afraid of becoming mad. He experiences and lives himself as the sublime sickness that will no longer affect him.. Here, what is, what would a psychiatrist be worth?

State philosophy reposes on a double identity: of the thinking subject, and of the concepts it creates and to which it lends its own presumed attributes of sameness and constancy. The subjects, its concepts, and also the objects in the world to which the concepts are applied have a shared, internal essence: the self-resemblance at the basis of identity. Representational thought is analogical; its concern is to establish a correspondence between these symmetrically structured domains. The faculty of judgment is the policeman of analogy, assuring that each of these terms is honestly itself, and that the proper correspondences obtain. In thought its end is truth, in action justice. The weapons it wields in their pursuit are limitive distribution (the determination of the exclusive set of properties possessed by each term in contradistinction to the others: logos, law) and hierarchical ranking (the measurement of the degree of perfection of a term’s self-resemblance in relation to a supreme standard, man, god, or gold: value, morality). The modus operandi is negation: x = x = not y. Identity, resemblance, truth, justice, and negation. The rational foundation for order. The established order, of course: philosophers have traditionally been employees of the State. The collusion between philosophy and the State was most explicitly enacted in the first decade of the nineteenth century with the foundation of the University of Berlin, which was to become the model of higher learning throughout Europe and in the United States. The goal laid out for it by Wilhelm von Humboldt (based on proposals by Fichte and Schleiermacher) was the ‘spiritual and moral training of the nation,’ to be achieved by ‘deriving everything from an original principle’ (truth), by ‘relating everything to an ideal’ (justice), and by ‘unifying this principle and this ideal to a single Idea’ (the State). The end product would be ‘a fully legitimated subject of knowledge and society’ – each mind an analogously organized mini-State morally unified in the supermind of the State. More insidious than the well-known practical cooperation between university and government (the burgeoning military funding of research) is its philosophical role in the propagation of the form of representational thinking itself, that ‘properly spiritual absolute State’ endlessly reproduced and disseminated at every level of the social fabric.

The truth is that sexuality is everywhere: the way a bureaucrat fondles his records, a judge administers justice, a businessman causes money to circulate; the way the bourgeoisie fucks the proletariat; and so on. And there is no need to resort to metaphors, any more than for the libido to go by way of metamorphoses. Hitler got the fascists sexually aroused. Flags, nations, armies, banks get a lot of people aroused. A revolutionary machine is nothing if it does not acquire at least as much force as these coercive machines have for producing breaks and mobilizing flows.

The two of us wrote Anti-Oedipus together. Since each of us was several, there was already quite a crowd. Here we have made use of everything that came within range, what was closest as well as farthest away. We have assigned clever pseudonyms to prevent recognition. 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 manner of speaking. To reach, not the point where one no longer says I, but the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I. We are no longer ourselves. Each will know his own. We have been aided, inspired, multiplied.

Ce qui définit la majorité c’est un modèle auquel il faut être conforme. Tandis qu’une minorité n’a pas de modèles, c’est un devenir, un processus. Lorsqu’une minorité crée des modèles, c’est qu’elle veut être majoritaire ou qu’elle est contrainte de se doter d’un « modèle » nécessaire à sa survie (« avoir un statut »).

Becoming is an antimemory.

Daca schizofrenia este universala, atunci marele artist este cu adevarat cel care sparge zidul schizofrenic, ajungand in patria necunoscuta, acolo unde el nu mai apartine niciunei epoci, niciunui mediu, niciunei scoli.

We defend so cautiously against our egoically limited experiences, states Laing in The Politics of Experience, that it is not surprising to see people grow defensive and panic at the idea of experiencing ego-loss through the use of drugs or collective experiences. But there is nothing pathological about ego-loss, Laing adds; quite the contrary. Ego-loss is the experience of all mankind, "of the primal man, of Adam and perhaps even [a journey] further into the beings of animals, vegetables and minerals." No age, Laing concludes, has so lost touch with this healing process as has ours. Deleuze and Guattari's schizoanalytic approach serves to begin such a healing process. Its major task is to destroy the oedipalized and neuroticized individual dependencies through the forging of a collective subjectivity, a nonfascist subject—anti-Oedipus. Anti-Oedipus is an individual or a group that no longer functions in terms of beliefs and that comes to redeem mankind, as Nietzsche foresaw, not only from the ideals that weighed it down, "but also from that which was bound to grow out of it, the great nausea, the will to nothingness, nihilism; this bell-stroke of noon and of the great decision that liberates the will again and restores its goal to the earth and his hope to man; this Antichrist and antinihilist. . . He must come one day.—

During the years 1945-1965, there was a certain way of thinking correctly, a certain style of political discourse, a certain ethics of the intellectual. One had to be on familiar terms with Marx, not let one's dreams stray too far from Freud.

The rite, the becoming-animal of the scapegoat clearly illustrates this: a first expiatory animal is sacrificed, but a second is driven away, sent out into the desert wilderness. In the signifying regime, the scapegoat represents a new form of increasing entropy in the system of signs: it is charged with everything that was "bad" in a given period, that is, everything that resisted signifying signs, everything that eluded the referral from sign to sign through the different circles; it also assumes everything that was unable to recharge the signifier as its center and carries off everything that spills beyond the outermost circle.

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 manner of speaking. To reach, not the point where one no longer says I, but the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I. We are no longer ourselves. Each will know his own. We have been aided, inspired, multiplied.

... acolo unde nu există aparat de stat și supramuncă, nu există nici model-Muncă. Există doar o variație continuă a acțiunii libere, trecând de la cuvânt la acțiune, de la o acțiune la alta, de la acțiune la cântec, de la cântec la cuvânt, de la cuvânt la întreprindere, într-un ciudat cromatism, cu momente de vârf sau de efort pe care observatorul extern nu poate decât să le ‘traducă’ în termeni de muncă, izbucnind intens și rar. E adevărat că întotdeauna s-a spus despre negri: ‘Nu muncesc, nu știu ce înseamnă munca.’ ... La fel de adevărat este că și indienii nici măcar nu înțelegeau despre ce este vorba, fiind total incapabili de vreun fel de organizare a muncii, chiar și sclavagistă: americanii nu vor fi importat atâția negri decât pentru că nu se puteau folosi de indieni, care preferau mai degrabă să moară. Anumiți etnologi remarcabili au pus o întrebare esențială. Au știut să întoarcă problema: societățile primitive nu sunt niște societăți de penurie sau de subzistență, dat fiindcă nu cunosc munca, ci, dimpotrivă, niște societăți ale acțiunii libere și ale spațiului neted, care nu au nicio nevoie de un factor-muncă , tot așa cum nici nu constituie stocuri. Aceste societăți nu sunt niște societăți ale lenei, chiar dacă diferența lor față de muncă poate să se exprime sub forma unui ‘drept la lene’. Și nu sunt niște societăți fără legi, chiar dacă diferența lor față de lege poate să se exprime sub aparența unei ‘anarhii’. Ele au mai curând legea nomos-ului, care reglează o variație continuă a activității, cu propria ei rigoare și propria ei cruzime (a te debarasa de ceea ce nu poți să transporți – batrâni sau copii...). (Gilles Deleuze et Félix Guattari)

Muzica nu este niciodată tragică, muzica este bucurie. Dar se întâmplă, inevitabil, ca ea să ne trezească gustul morții, plăcerea de a muri nu atât de bucurie, cât cu bucurie, de a ne stinge. Dar nu în virtutea unui instinct al morții pe care l-ar trezi ea în noi, ci în virtutea unei dimensiuni proprii asamblajului ei sonor, mașinii ei sonore: momentul care se cere înfruntat atunci când transversala se transformă într-o linie de abolire. Pace și exasperare. Muzica are sete de distrugere, de toate genurile de distrugere: stingere, spargere, dislocare. Nu tocmai în aceasta constă “fascismul” ei potențial?

The artist is the master of objects; he puts before us shattered, burned, broken-down objects, converting them to the regime of desiring-machines, breaking down is part of the very functioning of desiring-machines; the artist presents paranoiac machines, miraculating-machines, and celibate machines as so many technical machines, so as to cause desiring-machines to undermine technical machines. Even more important, the work of art is itself a desiring-machine. The artist stores up his treasures so as to create an immediate explosion, and that is why, to his way of thinking, destructions can never take place as rapidly as they ought to.

Scriitorul este un vrăjitor pentru că a scrie este o devenire, pentru că actul de a scrie este traversat de niște stranii deveniri care nu sunt niște deveniri-scriitor, ci niște deveniri-șobolan, deveniri-insectă, deveniri-lup etc. ... Multe sinucideri de scriitori se explică tocmai prin astfel de participări contra naturii, prin astfel de nunți contra naturii. Scriitorul este un vrăjitor pentru că trăiește animalul ca pe singura populație față de care se simte responsabil de drept. ... îi creează incredibilul sentiment al unei Naturi necunoscute – afectul. Deoarece afectul nu este un sentiment personal sau un caracter, ci efectuarea unei puteri de haită care bulversează total eul, făcându-l să nu mai fie sigur de el însuși. Cine n-a cunoscut violența acestor secvențe animale care ne smulg din umanitate fie și doar pentru o clipă, facându-ne să ronțăim pâinea asemenea unei rozătoare... (Gilles Deleuze et Félix Guattari)

Fitzgerald contrasts rupture with structural pseudobreaks in so-called signifying chains. But he also distinguishes it from more supple, more subterranean links or stems of the "voyage" type, or even from molecular conveyances. "The famous 'Escape' or 'run away from it all' is an excursion in a trap even if the trap includes the South Seas, which are only for those who want to paint them or sail them. A clean break is something you cannot come back from; that is irretrievable because it makes the past cease to exist." Can it be that voyages are always a return to rigid segmentarity? Is it always your daddy and mommy that you meet when you travel, even as far away as the South Seas, like Melville? Hardened muscles? Must we say that supple segmentarity itself reconstructs the great figures it claimed to escape, but under the microscope, in miniature? Beckett's unforgettable line is an indictment of all voyages: "We don't travel for the fun of it, as far as I know; we're foolish, but not that foolish.

Spațiile lui Riemann sunt lipsite de orice fel de omogenitate. Fiecare dintre ele se caracterizează prin forma expresiei care definește pătratul distanței dintre două puncte infinit învecinate. ... Rezultă de aici că doi observatori aflați învecinați pot să repereze într-un spațiu riemannian punctele care se află în imediata lor vecinătate, dar nu pot, fără stabilirea unei noi convenții, să se repereze unul față de celălalt. Fiecare vecinătate este deci ca o mică bucată de spațiu euclidian, dar racordarea dintre o vecinătate și următoarea nu e definită și poate fi făcută într-o infinitate de moduri. Spațiul riemannian cel mai general se prezintă, astfel, ca o colecție amorfă de bucăți juxtapuse fără a fi legate’ (Albert Lautmann, Les schèmas de structure, Hermann, 1938, pp.23, 34-35); această mulțime poate fi definită independent de orice referire la o metrică, prin condiții de frecvență sau, mai curând, de acumulare valabile pentru un ansamblu de vecinătăți, condiții total diferite de cele care determină spațiile metrice și tăieturile lor (chiar dacă un raport între cele două feluri de spațiu trebuie să decurgă de aici). Pe scurt, dacă urmăm frumoasa descriere a lui Lautmann, spațiul riemannian este un pur patchwork. Are conexiuni sau raporturi tactile. Are valori ritmice care nu se regăsesc în altă parte, chiar dacă pot fi traduse într-un spațiu metric. Eterogen, în variație continuă, este un spațiu neted, în măsura în care este amorf, nu omogen. (Gilles Deleuze et Félix Guattari)

O Édipo não serve estritamente para nada, a não ser para apertar o inconsciente dos dois lados. Veremos em que sentido é que o Édipo é estritamente "indecidível», como dizem os matemáticos. Estamos fartos dessas histórias em que se está bem de saúde graças ao Édipo, doente do Édipo, e em que há várias doenças dentro do Édipo. Pode até acontecer que um analista se farte desse mito que é a gamela e a cova da psicanálise e que retorne às origens: «Freud nunca chegou a sair nemdo mundo do pai, nem da culpabilidade ... Mas foi o primeiro que, ao criar a possibilidade de construir uma lógica de relação com o pai, abriu o caminho para o homem se libertar do domínio do pai. A possibilidade de viver para!d da lei do pai, para lá de qualquer lei, talvez seja a possibilidade mais essencial que a psicanálise freudiana criou. Mas, paradoxalmente, e talvez por causa do próprio Freud, tudo leva a crer que essa libertação que a psicanálise permite se fará - se faz já - fora dela,>.Todavia, não podemos partilhar nem deste pessimismo nem deste optimismo. Porque é preciso muito optimismo para pensar que, psicanálise permite uma verdadeira solução do Édipo: o Édipo é como Deus; o pai é como Deus; só se resolve o problema quando se suprimir tanto o problema (orno a solução. A esquizo-análise não se propõe resolver o Édipo, não pretende resolvê-Io melhor que a psicanálise edipiana. Propõe-se desedipianizar o inconsciente para poder chegar aos verdadeiros problemas. Propóe-se atingir essas regiões do inconsciente órfão «(para lá de todas as leis», em que o problema deixa de poder ser posto. E por consequência, também não partilhamos do pessimismo de pensar que essa mudança, essa libertação só se pode fazer fora da psicanálise. Pensamos, pelo contrário, que é possível dar-se uma reversão interna que.transforme a máquina analítica numa peça indispensável do aparelho revolucionário. Mais: já há mesmo condições objectivas para isso. Tudo se passa, pois, como se o Édipo tivesse dois pólos: um pólo de figuras Imaginárias de identificação e um pólo de funçóes simbólicas diferenciantes. Mas seja como for estamos edipianizados: se não temos o Édipo como crise, temo-lo como estrutura. Então transmitimos a crise a OUtrOS, e tudo volta a começar. E é esta a disjunção edipiana, o movimento de pêndulo, a razão inversa exclusiva. E é por isso que quando nos convidam a superar uma concepção simplista do Édipo fundada em imagens paternas, por uma concepção em que se definem funções simbólicas numa estrutura, e se substitui o papá-mamá tradicional por uma função-mãe e uma função-pai, não vemos o que é que se ganha com isso, a não ser o fundar a universalidade do Édipo para além da variabilidade das imagens, soldar ainda melhor o desejo à lei e ao interdito, e levar a cabo o processo de edipianização do inconsciente. Estes são os dois extremos do Édipo, o seu mínimo e o seu máximo, consoante o consideremos como tendente para o valor indiferenciado das suas imagens variáveis, ou para a capacidade de diferenciação das suas funções simbólicas. «Quando nos aproximamos da imaginação material, função diferencial diminui e tende-se para equivalências; quando nos aproximamos dos elementos formadores, a função diferencial aumenta e tende-se para valências distintivas ». Depois disto, não nos espantava nada ouvir dizer que o Édipo como estrutura é a trindade cristã, enquanto que o Édipo como crise é a trindade familiar, insuficientemente estruturada pela fé; sempre os dois pólos em razão inversa, Édipo for ever.' Quantas interpretações do lacanismo, oculta ou abertamente piedosas, invocaram um Édipo estrutural para formar e fechar o duplo impasse, para nos reconduzirem à questão do pai, para conseguirem edipianizar o esquizo, e mostrar que uma lacuna no simbólico nos remete para o imaginário e que, inversamente, as insuficiências ou confusões imaginárias nos remetem para a estrutura. Como um célebre precursor dizia aos seus animais: chega de lengalenga...

Marile descoperiri din interiorul creștinătății, descoperirea de noi pământuri și de noi continente, de câte trădări n-au fost ele însoțite: linii de deteritorializare prin care mici grupuri trădează absolut totul, pe tovarășii lor, pe rege, pe băștinași, pe exploratorul vecin, în speranța nebunească de a pune, împreună cu o femeie din familia lor, bazele unei rase în sfârșit pure, prin care totul să poată fi luat, în sfârșit, de la zero. (Gilles Deleuze si Felix Guattari)

... sunetul ne invadează, ne împinge de la spate, ne târăște după el, trece prin noi. Își ia zborul, părăsește pământul, dar atât pentru a ne deschide spre un cosmos, cât și pentru a ne face să cădem într-o gaură neagră. Ne trezește dorința de moarte. Având cea mai mare forță de deteritorializare, el operează, în egală măsură, și reteritorializările cele mai masive, cele mai abrutizante, cele mai redundante. Extaz și hipnoză. Nu faci un popor să se miște cu ajutorul culorilor. Drapelele nu au nici o putere fără trompete.

Orice gândire este deja un trib, opusul unui stat.

Cum spune Virilio, războiul nu apare câtuși de puțin când omul aplică omului raportul de vânător pe care îl avea cu animalul, ci, din contră, atunci când captează forța animalului vânat pentru a intra cu omul într-un cu totul alt raport, care e cel de război (inamic, nu pradă).Nu e deci de mirare că mașina de război este invenția nomazilor crescători de animale: creșterea și dresarea animalelor nu se confundă nici cu vânătoarea primitivă, nici cu domesticirea sedentară, ci reprezintă, tocmai, descoperirea unui sistem proiector și proiectil. ...’ În încălecare, se conservă energia cinetică, viteza calului, nu proteinele (motorul, nu carnea). Pe când la vânătoare, vânătorul urmărea să oprească mișcarea animalului sălbatic printr-o ucidere sistematică, crescătorul începe să o conserve și, prin intermediul dresajului, cel care încalecă animalul se asociază acestei mișcări, orientând-o și provocându-i accelerarea.

... Cât despre liniile de fugă , ele nu constau niciodată în a fugi de lume, ci, mai degrabă, în a face lumea să fugă, să scape, să plesnească... și nu există sistem social care să nu scape pe la toate capetele sale, chiar dacă segmentele lui nu încetează să se întărească, să devină din ce în ce mai dure pentru a colmata liniile de fugă. Nimic imaginar sau simbolic într-o linie de fugă. Nimic mai activ decât o linie de fugă, la animal și la om. ... În fiecare moment, ce anume scapă, fuge într-o societate? Tocmai pe liniile de fugă se inventează noi arme, pentru a le opune marilor arme de stat... frecvent... un grup, un individ funcționează el însuși ca o linie de fugă; o creează mai curând decât o urmează, este mai curând el însuși arma vie pe care o meșterește decât o ia de la alții. Liniile de fugă sunt realități; și sunt extrem de periculoase pentru societăți, chiar dacă acestea nu pot să se lipsească de ele și uneori chiar le menajează.

Reală, adevărată, este doar devenirea însăși, blocul de devenire, nu niște termeni presupuși ficși în care s-ar transforma cel care devine. ... Devenirea-animal a omului este reală fără ca animalul care devine omul să fie real. ... o devenire nu are un subiect distinct de ea însăși... (Gilles Deleuze et Félix Guattari)

... Cât despre liniile de fugă, ele nu constau niciodată în a fugi de lume, ci, mai degrabă, în a face lumea să fugă, să scape, să plesnească... și nu există sistem social care să nu scape pe la toate capetele sale, chiar dacă segmentele lui nu încetează să se întărească, să devină din ce în ce mai dure pentru a colmata liniile de fugă. Nimic imaginar sau simbolic într-o linie de fugă. Nimic mai activ decât o linie de fugă, la animal și la om. ... În fiecare moment, ce anume scapă, fuge într-o societate? Tocmai pe liniile de fugă se inventează noi arme, pentru a le opune marilor arme de stat... frecvent... un grup, un individ funcționează el însuși ca o linie de fugă; o creează mai curând decât o urmează, este mai curând el însuși arma vie pe care o meșterește decât o ia de la alții. Liniile de fugă sunt realități; și sunt extrem de periculoase pentru societăți, chiar dacă acestea nu pot să se lipsească de ele și uneori chiar le menajează. (Gilles Deleuze et Félix Guattari)

Suddenly the despot sees rising up before him, against him, the enemy who brings death - an eye with too steady a look, a mouth with too unfamiliar a smile; each organ is a possible protest.

The psychological conflict raging within individuals cannot but have casualties. Marazzi is researching the link between the increase in bi-polar disorder and post-Fordism and, if, as Deleuze and Guattari argue, schizophrenia is the condition that marks the outer edges of capitalism, then bi-polar disorder is the mental illness proper to the ‘interior’ of capitalism. With its ceaseless boom and bust cycles, capitalism is itself fundamentally and irreducibly bi-polar, periodically lurching between hyped-up mania (the irrational exuberance of ‘bubble thinking’) and depressive come-down. (The term ‘economic depression’ is no accident, of course).

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. Everywhere it is machines—real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other ma- chines, 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 inter- rupts. The breast is a machine that produces milk, and the mouthi 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. And rest assured that it works: 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.

Becoming is an antimemory.

The child is a metaphysical being.

The industrial age defined as the age of insects . . . It's even worse nowadays: you can't tell in advance which stratum is going to communicate with which other, or in what direction . . . a semiotic fragment rubs shoulders with a chemical interaction, an electron crashes into a language, a black hole captures a genetic message, a crystallization produces a passion, the wasp and the orchid cross a letter . . .

desiring-production is one and the same thing as social production

Becoming is certainly not imitating, or identifying with something; neither is it regressing-progressing; neither is it corresponding, establishing corresponding relations; neither is it producing, producing a filiation or producing through filiation. Becoming is a verb with a consistency all its own; it does not reduce to, or lead back to, 'appearing:' 'being:' 'equaling:' or 'producing.

The self is only a threshold, a door, a becoming between two multiplicities.

Silence people, prevent them from speaking, and above all, when they do speak, pretend they haven’t said a thing: the famous psychoanalytic neutrality. The Wolf-Man keeps howling: Six wolves! Seven wolves! Freud says, How’s that? Goats, you say? How interesting. Take away the goats and all you have left is a wolf, so it’s your father... That is why the Wolf-Man feels so fatigued: he’s left lying there with all his wolves in his throat, all those little holes on his nose, and all those libidinal values on his body without organs. The war will come, the wolves will become Bolsheviks, and the Wolf-Man will remain suffocated by all he had to say.

Flying anuses, speeding vaginas, there is no castration.

The death of a social machine has never been heralded by a disharmony or a dysfunction; on the contrary, social machines make a habit of feeding on the contradictions they give rise to, on the crises they provoke, on the anxieties they engender, and on the infernal operations they regenerate. Capitalism has learned this, and has ceased doubting itself, while even socialists have abandoned belief in the possibility of capitalism's natural death by attrition. No one has ever died from contradictions. And the more it breaks down, the more it schizophrenizes, the better it works, the American way.

For perhaps the flows are not yet deterritorialized enough, from the viewpoint of a theory and a practice of a highly schizophrenic character. Not to withdraw from the process, but to go further, to "accelerate the process," as Nietzsche put it: in this matter, the truth is that we haven't seen anything yet.

[...] it is impossible to accept that there are no overall controllers, that the closest thing we have to ruling powers now are nebulous, unaccountable interests excercising corporate irresponsibility.

At times the schizophrenic loses his patience and demands to be left alone.