The Anti-Oedipus Papers 02

Anti-Oedipus 02

By Felix Guaattari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯


Of the Third Articulation第三個表達


Desiring connection works from term to term, and “ forget” each as it goes ( Qury describes a conversation that he had with a young schizo, to whom he asked: “ Who are your friends here at Laborde?” The schizo gave him two names. Qury thought about it for a minute, and realized that those were the names of the two people sitting in the waiting room.)



   Anti-productive conjunction bi-univocalizes connections. So we have the signifier and the signified, connective chains tacked onto one another ( differentiating role of the phallus and the subject).


    The third disjunctive articulation is the reverse of conjunction, a return to desiring “ grounds” No subject of the statement, but collective agents of enunciation ( the re-territorialization of artifice). Metacommunication, enunciation. Disjunction, the union of the union and the intersection.



    Lacan wrote that “ any enunciation of authority ( on the A, site of the signifier) has no other guarantee than its enunciation”. He added that there is no “ metalanguage that can be spoken, no Other of the Other,” no guarantee of the law, etc. And he falls right back onto the “ Father-law” thing, all the more solid as it is dead, or impotent!


   It seems to me that this whole thing is a bit off in that it is always subjacent to a conception of enunciation such that only an individual subject can be the subject of an enunciation. Benveniste wrote that “ The individual act of appropriating language introduces the one who is speaking into his speech.” “ What strikes me is that they don’t seem to understand that speech ( parole) is only apparently an individual act of appropriating language ( langue). What is spoken by a friend, a militant or a father or son, sets up the illusion of individual appropriation.



   But actually it’s the result of suggestion. Someone is inhabited by someone else’s speech. Others talk and gesticulate in our place when we think we’re talking on our own account—free, equal and fraternal. We “ learn” to be individuals. Always the personalist illusion!



    Actually, there are unproductive structural collective agents of enunciation. The question of schizo-analysis is to introduce these agents into the production process, and to pull them out of anti-production.   實際上,總是有非生產的表達的集體代理。精神分裂症分析的問題是介紹這些代理到生產的過程,然後使他們擺脫反生產。 

    That’s how the impossible real, meta-language, science, speak, the requirements of body and person are surpassed ( symptoms will be assuaged).



    “ Since there is a spokesperson, then may that spokesperson be as deterritorialized as possible!” This is our battle cry.


    Or as the great philosopher Paco Rabane says, “ …merchants do anything to have money, they are automatically after the desire for women and not before it. Before desire are only household appliances.”



    Revolution, like analysis, tends to produce artificial pre-personal agents of enunciation ( = units of desiring subversion=basic therapeutic communities). It is the construction of the unconscious as artificial real and not the contemplation of the impossible real ( = capitalist masochistic perversion = guilt-based civilization).




The Anti-Oedipus Papers by Felix Guattari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: