Chaosophy - autonomous learning

Will the revolutionaries ever come to grips with this separation, this
castration which people constantly run up against, this recuperation
by the family, by the school, etc
As for the second part of your question-the recovery by the
Right-I agree completely! It is even surprising that this book
elicited, let us say, so many responses. We didn't anticipate any. I
believe that the explanation can be found, to a certain extent, in a
blend of several elements: a revolutionary current which was fed up
with being overcoded by all these psychoanalytical concepts and
perhaps a long-standing hatred of the reactionary Right which was
happy, finally, to find people who could support an attack that it had
never known how to lead. But, in the end, such a misunderstanding
is not fundamental. Anything can always be recovered: the most daring
artistic production, the most untimely philosophy, as long as it does
not depart from the framework of writing, books, the University ...
But by attacking psychoanalysis' fixation upon Oedipus and upon the
superego, you also attack part of the theoretical heritage of Freud. Your
theory of schizophrenia is at variance with Freudian theory.
Freud didn't understand much about schizophrenia. Many inner
struggles in the psychoanalytic movement would be understood if
Freud's fundamental hostility toward psychosis were finally
acknowledged. Psychosis and revolution have always been taboo.
Normality was identified with the acceptance of family life. From its
origin Freudianism was built upon a vision of the family man. Freud
despised delirium: for example that of President Schreber. He also
held women in contempt. His representation of sexuality and society
is entirely "phallocentric" as the Women's Liberation Movement
would say. In Analysis Terminable and Interminable (1937), the
problem of castration appeared as the stumbling block which analysis
hit upon; the man refuses the necessary castration because he does
Cnr.:dtabi Dil lJ ! 145