GUATTARI/FEYERABEND

There is a quote from Guattari that I have never been able to track down precisely, where he says that schizoanalysis is not a model but a meta-model. You can have any model you want, and schizoanalysis will only ask you about certain connexions you may not have noticed or perhaps you have left out, and the uses you put your model to, and the effects of these uses. So it always seemed to me more like a heuristic collage of useful reminders and handy tips than a systematic project (this is also what Feyerabend said was the best that one can do).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to GUATTARI/FEYERABEND

  1. edmundberger says:

    Is the quote you were looking for the one from Chaosmosis?

    “They [the four ontological functions of the schizoanalytic cartographies] are described here as metamodelisers to indicate that their primary purpose is to take account of the way in which the diverse existing systems of modelisation (religious, metaphysical, scientific, psychoanalytic, animistic, neurotic … ) nearly always skirt around the problem of self-referential enunciation. Schizoanalysis does not thus choose one modelisation to the exclusion of another. Within the diverse cartographies in action in a given situation, it tries to make nuclei of virtual autopoiesis discernible, in order to actualise them, by transversalising them, in conferring on them an operative diagrammatism (for example, by a change in the material of Expression), in making them themselves operative within modified assemblages, more open, more processual, more deterritorialised. Schizoanalysis, rather than moving in the direction of reductionist modelisations which simplify the complex, will work towards its complexification, its processual enrichment, towards the consistency of its virtual lines of bifurcation and differentiation, in short towards its ontological heterogeneity.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. terenceblake says:

    Thanks for the quote, but I think there is an even more explicit statement in an interview. I read it 28 years ago, and I have never been able to find it again! CHAOSMOSIS merits re-reading.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s