The primary target of attack of AO is Freudian psychoanalysis, but does Deleuze and Guattari’s critiques extend to Lacan? They identify desire as a positive productive force rather than the Lacanian lack, but what are the ramifications of this?
>>25375454>The primary target of attack of AO is Freudian psychoanalysis, but does Deleuze and Guattari’s critiques extend to Lacan?Implicitly. Guattari and Lacan split eventually.>what are the ramifications of this?There are no ramifications to anything they say in that book.
>>25375468Ramifications in the theoretical sense. How does this displace the three registers, symbolic castration, the Objet petit a, etc. Is it just Oedipus all the way down, or can some of that psychoanalytic infrastructure be rescued?
>>25375454Desire is a positive force because it creates movement. To try to fill lack you need to desire something lack isn't a problem but a feature that is a consequence of being structured through language.
>>25375454i recommend deleuze's text 'how do we recorgnise structuralism?', where he discusses lacan on the purloined letter:>It appears that the structure envelops a wholly paradoxical object or element [i.e. the letter in the poe story]. ... The series in each case are constituted by symbolic terms and differential relations, but this object seems to be of another nature. ... What else would we call it, if not Object = x, the riddle Object or the great Mobile element? ... Games need the empty square, without which nothing would move forward or function. The object = x is not distinguishable from its place, but it is characteristic of this place that it constantly displaces itself, just as it is characteristic of the empty square to jump ceaselessly. Lacan invokes the _dummy-hand_ in bridge...'he ends the text by claiming that this object x, the riddle object, 'the structuralist hero' is already half outside the structuralist's world, it's what actualises abstract structures in this or that specific form, it drives changes from one structure to another. in other words it's the deleuzian world of productive desire. deleuze's step beyond lacan is that he doesn't place symbolic structures on a transcendent plane separated from a world of matter in continuous variation, rather he sees the first as immanent to the latter.that move of placing psychoanalytic structures back into their immanent context of desiring-production is the basis of d+g's critique of lacan in anti-oedipus. they take the abstract symbolic lack and reinterpret is as a kind of lack-effect produced by a neurotic machine, it's 'vacuolized in the real'. similarly they agree on the reality of the oedipus complex but instead of seeing it as a transhistorical abstract structure they track how it developed with a shift from a despotic to a capitalist mode of social production. in both those critiques, they don't necessarily disagree with lacan, they're just trying to make his concepts immanent to a more multidimensional reality that's continuously and imperceptibly changing at a molecular level.
>>25375483I don't think psychoanalysis is relevant but I think lacan is alive and well more then ever
>>25375600I totally agree here it's an engine
>>25375600>recorgnisedamn that's a hideous typo
>>25375600I actually completely misread that deleuez is saying the opposite, that it actually is a positive force I need to read this guy
>>25375600Good post. I think it’s worth mentioning that there is a distinction between the earlier Lacan that Deleuze and especially Guattari are critical of and the later Lacan that responded to some of these critiques. > symbolic structures on a transcendent plane separated from a world of matter in continuous variationIn his later seminars Lacan characterizes the three registers as a borromean knot, emphasizing that the symbolic is intrinsically and inseparably tied to the pre-representational/traumatic real, along with the imaginary.
