Is the existence of desiring-machines an illusion?
Geez, I finally reached pages that have double-digit numbers.
The instinct I've developed from studying in my field has me thinking that my first guess is going to be way off. If someone could please correct me, I'll be able to make more efficient progress. So, here's my first guess. Psychoanalysis says there is so much Oedipus and countercathexis; schizoanalysis says there is no Oedipus, there is no countercathexis, and there is only the body without organs. (Again, someone please correct my mistake.) So, why would the schizoanalyst not say that the existence of desiring-machines is an illusion?
Help! I'm lost! In physics we have this saying when a calculation is super-duper-bad. "It's not even wrong." I have a sneaking suspicion that this is the ground I'm on. --Jeff
posted by curiosity1 @ 10:57 AM
4 Comments:
my guess is that the answer to this question differs according to which side of the delusion you stand. From the perspective where the body without organs is reified (basically, from the capitalist perspective on capital) then perhaps they are an illusion. At least, I may (as a capitalist) tell you to interpret some as an illusion.
However, for Deleuze and Guattari, this isn't a metaphor. They are applying this literally. They are on the other side of the delusion (haha).
Literal meaning is usually taken as the combined efforts of the denotative and connotative characteristics of a concept. A valuable exercise would be to analyze what "machine" denotates and connotates. I'm also expecting to get some explanation of this is section 5 of chapter 1.
the shizoanalyst would say that Nature=Production, and that a desiring machine is a real locus of experience/eroticism with nature.
I think,
josh
And, you're not wrong: In my field of study there is real value given when you can formulate a question like you just have.
I'd like to clarify on my first comment a little, then I really should move on to something else:
The concept of machine is certainly a metaphor in some sense, or at least an idiosyncratic use of the word. But it is not metaphorical in the sense that the micro-processes of production (discussed at length) are analogous to larger social forces — they are one in the same process. Therefore, no metaphor is being made between the processes.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home