File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1996/d-g_Jan.96, message 66


Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 19:50:29 +1000
From: j9305091-AT-platinum.anu.edu.au (hypatia)
Subject: Re: Anti-Oedipus, inter alia


Robert wrote:

>>Andrew wrote:
>>
>>>Another aspect of my lack of comprehension is why D&G would posit an
>>>unconscious as a system, when they evidently question most other structures
>Andrew, I am concerned that you may be interchanging terms here which in
>the context of D+G are distinctly different.  Are you suggesting that D+G
>are supporting a 'structure' based on an unconscious system of desire?  If
>so I believe that you are greatly missing the point, at least as I read it.
>I find the most interesting distinction in D+G to be that between
>system/flow and structure.  They suggest that flows attack and break down
>these structures and that the BwO as the epitome of the flow of desires is
>fully resistant to the reterritorialization and structuring which is
>inherent in capitalism.
>
>In other words I read D+G's discussion of system of the unconscious as the
>flows which capitalism and its structures fear and are constsantly
>atttempting to corral.  They are adamently against the structure which
>conventional psycoanalysis attempts to place on the Unconscious.  They deny
>the triad of daddy, mommy, me, and in doing so discuss the unconscious not
>as system/structure but as system/flows.

Perhaps Andrew's original reference to structure could be sustained in a
'rhizomatic' structure as opposed to the exclusive structuring inherent in
Oedipus.  Robert try looking at the stuff in intro to ATP and Dialogues on
the difference between arborescent structures and rhizomatic structures.

hypatia



     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005