Four points of identification in Anti-Oedipus (Pt. III)
(Excerpt from the e.book «Money, Revolution and the Philosophy of the future»)
Through a hypertextual reading of the Anti-Oedipus we hereby unveil the deep meaning of the famous passage «The Civilized Capitalist Machine», locus classicus of the contemporary accelerationist movement.
by Obsolete Capitalism
How to read Anti-Œdipus? We
have identified four main prominent
characteristics in the volume. The first one
is its hypertextuality: we have considered
Deleuze and Guattari’s book as a broad-
viewed designed hypertext, long before the
hypertext was framed. Both the volumes
Capitalism and Schizophrenia - Anti-Œdipus
and A Thousand Plateaus display and
«machinate» a philosophical complexity
composed by knots enucleated as «simple
steps or hyperlinks» unwinding further
problems, queries and narrations present in
other intellectual objects, which altogether
form a proper network of senses.
Deleuze himself defined Anti-Œdipus a flow-book (DI, 218). The two philosophers never wanted in fact to “write a madman's book [the schizophrenic], but a book in which you no longer know who is speaking: there is no basis for knowing whether it's a doctor, a patient, or some present, past, or future madman speaking” (DI, 218). At the same timeitwasalsoimportantthattheseclinical subjectivities, these conceptual tags, could interchangeably speak as «mental patients or doctors of civilization» (DI, 218). Other three characteristics are important to understand this strange attractor-book: the first one regards politics, the second Nietzsche (the work needs to be analyzed as a Nietzschean organon) and the last one is about style: Anti-Œdipus in fact uses the "concept as style" (N, 140-147).
In a conversation with Antonio Negri published in the magazine Futur Anterior (1990) Deleuze defines his Anti-Œdipus as a political book from top to bottom. We firmly believe that the book is pure dynamite, able to extend from the ‘70s, in which it has ensued, to any present time: a book capable of expanding the limits of thought and to produce positive effects for both the individual and the community. The book further offers two different visions of the two drafters who derive from left wing communities of different backgrounds: Guattari followed Lacan in his seminaries, he worked at the psychiatric hospital La Borde, he cooperated with the magazine La Voce Communiste, whereas Deleuze was less politically characterized and was not particularly linked to any political association except for his militancy in Foucault GIP (Group d’information sur les prisons). His biggest influencer had been Pierre Klossowski who - Deleuze will say in his Nomad Thought - may have represented the torch-bearer between the latest group of Nietzschean philosophers and the first ones who gathered around Bataille’s magazine Acéphale in the ‘20s and ‘30s. Klossowski defines Deleuze’s approach, when playing Nietzsche’s card of the de-subjectivation of the author, as the one who introduced in the teaching method the unteachable because the most important mission of philosophy is to invent concepts. He says:”Philosophy's job has always been to create new concepts, with their own necessity. (...) Philosophy's no more communicative than it's contemplative or reflective: it is by nature creative or even revolutionary, because it's always creating new concepts. The only constraint is that these should have a necessity, as well as an unfamiliarity, and they have both to the extent they're a response to real problems. Concepts are what stops thought being a mere opinion, a view, an exchange of views, gossip. Any concept is bound to be a paradox.” (N, 136)
Deleuze himself defined Anti-Œdipus a flow-book (DI, 218). The two philosophers never wanted in fact to “write a madman's book [the schizophrenic], but a book in which you no longer know who is speaking: there is no basis for knowing whether it's a doctor, a patient, or some present, past, or future madman speaking” (DI, 218). At the same timeitwasalsoimportantthattheseclinical subjectivities, these conceptual tags, could interchangeably speak as «mental patients or doctors of civilization» (DI, 218). Other three characteristics are important to understand this strange attractor-book: the first one regards politics, the second Nietzsche (the work needs to be analyzed as a Nietzschean organon) and the last one is about style: Anti-Œdipus in fact uses the "concept as style" (N, 140-147).
In a conversation with Antonio Negri published in the magazine Futur Anterior (1990) Deleuze defines his Anti-Œdipus as a political book from top to bottom. We firmly believe that the book is pure dynamite, able to extend from the ‘70s, in which it has ensued, to any present time: a book capable of expanding the limits of thought and to produce positive effects for both the individual and the community. The book further offers two different visions of the two drafters who derive from left wing communities of different backgrounds: Guattari followed Lacan in his seminaries, he worked at the psychiatric hospital La Borde, he cooperated with the magazine La Voce Communiste, whereas Deleuze was less politically characterized and was not particularly linked to any political association except for his militancy in Foucault GIP (Group d’information sur les prisons). His biggest influencer had been Pierre Klossowski who - Deleuze will say in his Nomad Thought - may have represented the torch-bearer between the latest group of Nietzschean philosophers and the first ones who gathered around Bataille’s magazine Acéphale in the ‘20s and ‘30s. Klossowski defines Deleuze’s approach, when playing Nietzsche’s card of the de-subjectivation of the author, as the one who introduced in the teaching method the unteachable because the most important mission of philosophy is to invent concepts. He says:”Philosophy's job has always been to create new concepts, with their own necessity. (...) Philosophy's no more communicative than it's contemplative or reflective: it is by nature creative or even revolutionary, because it's always creating new concepts. The only constraint is that these should have a necessity, as well as an unfamiliarity, and they have both to the extent they're a response to real problems. Concepts are what stops thought being a mere opinion, a view, an exchange of views, gossip. Any concept is bound to be a paradox.” (N, 136)
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento