MUST WE BURN ANTI-OEDIPUS? on conceptual mutation

The conclusion of the preceding post is that Deleuze and Guattari’s « desiring-machines » are neither desiring nor machines, but noetic assemblages.

I came to this idea of desiring machines as noetic assemblages from trying to reconcile Deleuze’s Capitalism and Schizophrenia phase with his Cinema books. The ontology of machines in ANTI-OEDIPUS is replaced by an ontology of images, and the focus moves from the nomadic subject to the spiritual automaton.

The risk of conflation of enunciative acts and machinic processes is ultimately removed in WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? by the distinction between the referential (machinic) plane and the conceptual (enunciative) plane.

Deleuze and Guattari end up in WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? with their notion of « absolute self-survey », but I reject this term, there is no survey! If we accept Zizek’s reworking of Hegel, then this « absolute self-survey » is what corresponds in Deleuze and Guattari’s system in WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? to Hegel’s Absolute Knowledge.

Of course, the Zizekian reading of Hegel is in fact an unacknowledged Deleuzian (and Lyotardian) reading, so we are going in circles here.

ANTI-OEDIPUS is by no means to be abandoned but neither is it to be immobilised or statufied.

Must we burn ANTI-OEDIPUS? Yes, of course, but only if we understand by burning the calcination in the alchemical fire of transmutation.

Cet article a été publié dans Uncategorized. Ajoutez ce permalien à vos favoris.

2 commentaires pour MUST WE BURN ANTI-OEDIPUS? on conceptual mutation

Votre commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:


Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s