Chaosophy - autonomous learning

or of desire which lets flow, which cuts, which lets move, this system
of the unconscious, contrary to what traditional psychoanalysis
believes, means nothing. There is no meaning, no interpretation to
be given, no significance. The problem is to recognize how the
unconscious functions. It's a problem that concerns the use of
machines, the functioning of "desiring-machines."
Guattari and I began with the idea that desire could be understood
only by reference to the category of "production." And it
was necessary to recognize production as being within desire itself.
Desire does not depend on a lack, to desire is not to be lacking
something, and desire does not refer to · any law; desire produces.
So it's the contrary of a theater. An idea like that of Oedipus, the
theatrical representation of Oedipus, distorts the meaning of the
unconscious, expresses nothing about desire. Oedipus is the effect
of social repression on desiring-production. Even on the level of
the child desire is not Oedipal, but instead functions as a mechanism,
produces little machines, establishes connections among
things. In other words, perhaps all of this means that desire is
revolutionary. Not to say that it wishes for the revolution. It's better
than that. It's revolutionary by nature because it builds machines
capable-when inserted into the social structure-of exploding
things, of disrupting the social fabric. Traditional psychoanalysis,
on the other hand, pushed all of this into a kind of theater. It's as
though one were to transform into a spectacle at the Comedie
Francaise something that belongs to human beings, to the factory,
to production. So there's our point of departure: the unconscious
as a producer of little machines of desire, desiring-machines.
Why speak of capitalism and schizophrenia
Felix Guattari: In order to emphasize the extremes. All aspects of
human existence are related to the most abstract categories. Capital
54 !