In response to my last post, a hostile critic asks me if I have actually engaged in a schizo-analysis or am I just an armchair theorist.
My biography has been expounded in several places on this blog, and I have no desire to repeat it on demand. But yes I have been through the closest thing to a schizoanalysis that I could assemble, given that « schizoanalysis » does not exist as an official practice. I taught myself a new language to revolutionise my thought, migrated to the other side of the planet, attended regularly the courses of the most powerful philosphers I knew of (Deleuze, Lyotard, Foucault, Serres), did a seven year Jungian analysis in a foreign language to create my soul and my daily life anew, threw myself into tai chi so intensively that at certain moments i no longer recognised my body as my own, went so far away from my mother tongue talking and reading and thinking and even dreaming in French constantly to the point that I felt I was losing all relation and having to find a way back. All this was achieved in conditions of isolation and poverty, such that nothing much could be taken for granted. To paraphrase Levi Bryant in a recent interview: I have always been a broken hammer. George Molnar once called me a « maverick » who finds himself up against the high-powered intellectuals. Coming from him this was high praise, but also a compassionate warning, for he too was a maverick – an unbranded range animal.
I can say honestly that since my first engagement with Deleuze and Guattari’s work my whole life has been a schizo-analysis and that it is still ongoing. The act of opening and maintaining this blog is part of that same process. In all my proceedings and dealings I keep in mind that schizo-analysis is not some separate thing from everyday life, but a constant meta-modelising (or maverickising) process to keep my models multiple and open and independent and fluid.
The same hostile critic proceeded to pour scorn on my review of Zizek, calling it simple D&G flag-waving and unworthy of a schoolchild. However, I think my review is full of arguments, I would have liked to have some arguments in reply, or at least some form of positive feedback.
My presentaton was of some of the dialectical tensions present in Zizek’s work, as exemplified in the first two chapters of his new book of interviews. I indicated briefly the argumentative context: Onfray published his book on Freud, was massively attacked by people who used insult rather than argument (like my hostile critic). Normal, he is another maverick. As if that was not enough, people were awaiting a crushing refutation from the two big master thinkers of the moment – Badiou and Zizek. I have described Badiou’s two disappointing articles, but people were expecting a reply from Zizek. Instead, he published this book of interviews, which I think throws real light on his relation to Freud and Lacan, especially when seen in this French polemical context.
My hostile critic reproached me for my use of the word « fantasm », as if it were a magic fetish of mine. The word « fantasme » is used over and over again by Zizek, and it has a technical Lacanian purport. I opted for the translation « fantasm » rather than « fantasy » to keep the argumentative resonance with Klossowski and Deleuze and Guattari. Further, two favorite but unapreciated authors of mine, Feyerabend and Hillman also use the word. So I think that this opens up a possibility of transversal discussion between problematics that I feel are relevant to each other.
The « point » of my review (as my hostile critic could see no point to it) is to address a real concern of mine. I find myself fascinated by and in admiration of the work of Zizek and Badiou (maybe this is not apparent in my recent posts), but I find that there are incoherent and retrograde elements in their frameworks, and I am trying to discover and explain to myself what they are. So any dogmatic appearance to my posts is only there for rhetorical emphasis. The whole aim of this blog is to open discussion and exchange, to open more doors than I close.