The Anti-Oedipus Papers 03

Anti-Oedipus 03

By Felix Guattari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

Enough of the break between: scene and contemplation.


   Freud describes the authority ( instance) that observes, measures, criticizes and doubles desire.


   For example, when we are dreaming, there is simultaneously:

   —a desire to sleep


   But it’s the same thing!





   Desire for abolition and Eros are two things such that if we describe, distinctly.

   —the subject of the statement in a scene,

   —and the anti-scene of observation= subject of enunciation,

   then it’s a politics of “ either or.” But if we unify, or unite, scenes and anti-scenes, then desire find the assemblage of the enunciation working through the statement.





   There are shows going on in concert halls, in the street! You say something and things change…( Lacan adds—about psychotics—the syphilitic distinction between perceptum and percepiens: psychotics going lost in the enunciation-percepiens = impossible real= unconscious =another wall of China1)


   Another thing: sublimation doesn’t just happen, as if by some miracle, anymore. You have to work at it. You have to doctor it! With Freud, it was like a miracle that drives could change objects. It was sort of the analyst’s voyeuristic passivity. Putting your foot into sublimation. “ Sublimate fast or you’re out of here! Asshole!” There is no perverse humanism. In any case, you’re better off dying, at least that way you have a choice, but until then…


   Orthodox criticisms of therapeutic finalism and the condemnation of adaptation, and suggestion, are rotting. Id, for neutrality.



   There is an end to schizo-analysis: it’s deterritorialization and the schizodation of desire. All artificial means and suggestions are good for arriving at this, a kick in the ass included!


  There are not a zillion ways to get there. This is the revolutionary work of subversion: contracting a unit of desiring subversion ( “ gadgetzing” the socius!)


  Freud’s distinction between sublimation and idealization is still valid. But there is a break. That’s another thing. An “ other” sexuality. It’s more than that.


  There is an artificial reinforcement, the production of sublimation and the destruction of idealization, the superego, etc. What I’m trying to say is something like:


  1. The correlation between Lacan’s conclusion on “ the superego having to be taken as an individual manifestation connected to the social conditions of Oedipalim.”


  2. Greimas’ thing on it being impossible for there to be any syncretism in geturl language between the subject of enunciation and the subject of the statement.


   It seems to me that both derive from the same system: personalization; but the “ spokesperson”-individual is not the subject of enunciation.


   1. There is no subject of enunciation. There is no subject of the third articulation. Polyvocality economizes on the break function of the subject.


   2. That’s why idealization and the superego come from the intersection between the bi-univocality of the signifier/signified and the polyvocal field of desiring machines.


   3. If instead of an intersection there is a reunion, then you have what I call: the modification of the superego’s reception data.


   It seems that for Greimas, the syncretism that is supposed to regulate it is bullshit. It’s the unit, the anti-production of individuation: “ I mean what I mean.”


    Now the body is the scene.

    The other is the same. The individual.

    The equal, free and fraternal subject.




   What Freudism did was divide everything up: where you had the illusion of an individual there are now desiring machines, and then he started over: no people. At lest three.


   Who is talking, who is desiring, ask Lacan. It’s the other.

   But the other is a machine, not mommy—daddy!



   The schizo-analytic revolution is about moving beyond the “ splitting” of the ego, beyond Kleinian explosion. We can’t be satisfied with fighting a losing battle anymore, we have to go forward, to the subject of enunciation; we’re not describing replacement scenes, psycho-dramatic scenes, psychoanalytic scenes, but abolishing he subject by constructing collective agents of enunciation.



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: