Deleuze

[Anonymous No.14896919]

In Anti-Oedipus, was Deleuze really attempting to convince the reader of the emancipatory benefits of schizophrenia or is his vision of schizophrenia allegorical?

If he is genuinely saying schizophrenia (madness more generally) is a good thing - how was he ever taken seriously?

[Anonymous No.14896927]

>>14896919
Schizophrenia is just representational language for something being not axiomatic. The schizophrenic is nomadic, anti-fascist, a rhizome; a body without organs. I've only read a thousand Plateaus tho.

You need to read Deleuze while taking every definition for every word into consideration because they are all active at once.

[Anonymous No.14896940]

>>14896919
Analytics BTFO'd

[Anonymous No.14896997]

>>14896927
Why not use a different term than schizophrenic then? Seems a terribly vulgar term to use simply for the sake of being vulgar. Also, in the beginning of anti puss, Deleuze is genuinely saying that the schizophrenic (as in, an actual schizophrenic) is a better model for non fascist existence than the neurotic. This is a wild and deeply flawed claim that he fails to substantiate beyond bullshit appeals to nature and being. He romanticises the lived experience of the schizophrenic totally. It's all wrong.

Who's Greta?

[Anonymous No.14897001]

>>14896927
>>14896997
oh right it's THAT Greta

[Anonymous No.14897014]

>>14896997
Yeah I'm not a fan of his ethical conclusions but his metaphysics are based.

[Anonymous No.14897133]

>>14896940
I cant read sideways, retard

[Anonymous No.14897144]

>>14896927
This post nails it down pretty good.

The Schizo is someone who doesn't try cling to certain ideas of being and instead freely becomes.
And D&G try to tell us that there is only Becoming, so attempting to formulate hard segments leads to micro-fascism and so on.
Schizo isn't a negative thing in this context so I don't really see it as vulgar. I think they make that pretty clear in the beginning.

[Anonymous No.14897337]

>>14897144
It's vulgar in the sense that he seems to be referring to actual schizophrenics, at least in part. The "model" here is psycho-analytic. As in, I've met schizophrenics and neurotics, and schizophrenics are a better example of what I deem positive. It's a deeply vulgar claim. He seems to want to lionise psychosis.

This is another issue with Deleuze: he flits in between using the same hard scientific terms as metaphor and as actuality.

[Anonymous No.14897349]

>>14896927
It honestly sound a lot like the crap from Wilhelm Reich with sexpol free energies and Orgon. Did he ever mention Reich ? I think the pure Deleuze from Diff&Rep was contaminated by Guatarri and his Psycho Nonsene

[Anonymous No.14897362]

>>14897349
Idk

[Anonymous No.14897381]

>>14896997
>Why not use a different term than schizophrenic then?
Because that's Guattari's doing anon.

[Anonymous No.14897433]

>>14896997
How is he wrong about the schizophrenic and the neurotic though? Have you even read up on psychoanalysis?

[Anonymous No.14897509]

>>14897349
Reich is referenced in Anti-Ödipus every now and then yes and the Orgon stuff is also mentioned once or twice. But in most cases it wasn't in complete agreement towards some bigger conclusions.

>>14897337
>This is another issue with Deleuze: he flits in between using the same hard scientific terms as metaphor and as actuality.
I get what you mean and I guess it is intentional due to their attempt at blurring the lines between what is representational/metaphorical(remember lads there are no metaphors.
Obviously you suddenly don't split up into a pack of anus wolfs and hunt for the sun, but at the same time you actually have that immanent pack within you.
I don't want to say too much on what refers exactly to which plane of virtuality/reality because I'm not always entirely sure myself and currently on the way of working through it.

[Anonymous No.14897510]

>>14897433
Not the anon you're responding to, but from what i understand, the framework of psychoanalytic theories on the origin of psyche strctures/astructures (Psychotics, Borderline, Neurotic) has changed a lot since Deleuze's time. I'm guessing he based his assumptions on psychotic individuals on an older *Anobjectal model* which compares the psychotic psyche along the lines of autism i.e the psyche develops itself without exteral influence. The thing is, current psychoanalysis models like Intersubjective theory dismissed the concept of an Anobjectal development, based on current neuroscience observations.

[Anonymous No.14897534]

>>14897509
that's interesting I always had the impression that everyone jumped off the reich ship once he started blabbering about orgones lol

[Anonymous No.14897552]

>>14896919
Read John Farrell's Paranoia and Modernity and you will know a lot more about the world's current state of mind

[Anonymous No.14897558]

>>14897510
My guess is that he was basing himself off of Freud and Lacan’s understanding of neurotics and psychotics, which as far as I know, do take into consideration how the psyche develops itself with external influence (this being a prominent idea of Freud’s theory of the mind). The way I see it, the schizophrenic experience can be seen as more liberating than the neurotic experience due to the fact that the schizophrenic mind isn’t trapped within the traditional oedipal structure, the schizophrenic doesn’t subject himself to the reality principle in the same strict way the neurotic does, thus the schizophrenic can more than tolerare ambiguity, and finally the schizophrenic can not have physical symptoms as a result of repression and conflict between drives and reality, and thus his body is free from this kind of control

[Anonymous No.14897594]

>>14897433
Schizophrenics are in no way at home in nature. They don't recede. More often than not they're highly agoraphobic; i.e. they're psychotic but this doesn't stop them from also being highly neurotic 99% of the time. I found his opening passage on schizophrenics being at home whilst taking a walk in the machinery of nature jarring for this reason.

[Anonymous No.14897605]

>>14897433
His idea that schizophrenics are somehow free from neuroses does not fit at all with what we now know.

[Anonymous No.14897656]

>>14897594
He’s at home where there is nothing to force meaning onto him, where he is able to think freely. A schizophrenic’s paranoia is tied to a fear of people, society and government. It is tied to the fear of control and threats to self-preservation.

>>14897605
The idea that neurosis and schizophrenia are incompatible is a psychoanalytic idea, which is what Deleuze is working with (mainly Freud and later versions of his theories such as object-relations). If you want to work with what we “know” nowadays in psychology then the idea of neurosis doesn’t fit either unless you’re a psychoanalyst

[Anonymous No.14897752]

>>14897558
>My guess is that he was basing himself off of Freud and Lacan’s understanding of neurotics and psychotics, which as far as I know, do take into consideration how the psyche develops itself with external influence (this being a prominent idea of Freud’s theory of the mind).

Yeah no doubt about it, the thing is our understanding of psychosis as changed a lot since Freud's and Lacan's time. Its not like psychotics are developping without external influence, but its the influence of external influence and early maternal-relationships which are greatly undermined in early psychoanalytic work. In earlier theories, psychotic structures were influence by the inability of the child to distinguish himself from his environment, as in the child could'nt distinguish himself from his mother. We currently know that it is a false statement and that psychosis as a lot more to do with how the child co-constructs himself with the environment's response. Again, this is very summarized, but if you're interested, a lot of authors wrote on the subject (René Roussillon, Albert Ciccone, Johann Jung). `

>the schizophrenic doesn’t subject himself to the reality principle in the same strict way the neurotic does, thus the schizophrenic can more than tolerare ambiguity, and finally the schizophrenic can not have physical symptoms as a result of repression and conflict between drives and reality, and thus his body is free from this kind of control

Yeah, psychotic neo-reality is quite different from the neurotic's graspe on reality. The issue is this neo-reality can be harsh, frightening and confusing. Since psychotics have issues with the (Primary process, sorry if its the wrong term, i'm translating from french), they often confuse what is from their own inner world and what is coming from the external world. As such ambiguity (alterité) can active a psychotic breakdown if the individual can't deal with the situation. As for a physical response, you could probably argue that compared to somatization or any psychosomatic response, a psychotic breakdown which can lead to a lot of physical harm is proably worse. If you're interested on the psychotic's psyche Harold Searles has an interesting bibliography on the subject.

[Anonymous No.14897807]

>>14897534
yes his 'science' was certainly questionable but I still do not approve of what was done to him by the US government

[Anonymous No.14897817]

I think this is the book that explains it.

[Anonymous No.14897827]

>>14897656
>He’s at home where there is nothing to force meaning onto him
But there always is. A schizophrenic would find something else to be paranoid about if government ceased to exist.

[Anonymous No.14898176]

>>14897752
I guess I agree with you, anon. But I would like to think Deleuze’s approach to schizophrenia (in anti-oedipus) maybe would’ve been different had he been responding to the theories proposed today. But I still think that within the context of Freudian psychoanalysis it makes sense. As for the neurotic symptom vs the psychotic break, I agree with you that the psychotic is at a bigger risk but when framed within society and all of its oppressive structures, while Deleuze seems to frame the psychotic in nature and a space where he can create freely and here is where the psychotic might appear liberated compared to the neurotic. Regardless, thanks for the recs, anon. I’ll be sure to check em out.

[Anonymous No.14898324]

Machines everywhere. Desiring-machines, production-machines, abstract machines of faciality, organ-machines, energy-source machines. A fantastic density of machinic values that traverses the social field, and within which subjectivity most of all enters into a theatre of death decoded of its memories

http://ctheory.net/ctheory_wp/deleuze-and-guattari-two-meditations/

[Anonymous No.14898952]

>>14897133
Turn the image, mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.14899330]

>>14898324
Explain machines I never really cared what he was talking about