Chaosophy - autonomous learning

childhood psychoses, including some that have focused on transitions
in the intensity of experience, even they have ended by once
again describing things according to the Oedipal model. Someone,
and I'm talking of someone very important, has spoken of the
"micro-Oedipal," and has done so despite having recognized in a
case of psychosis that on the level of functioning, on the level of
the patient's urges, there could be found only a landscape in the
manner of Bosch, composed of an infinitude of fragments, pieces,
in which there was not a trace of the father or the mother or the
holy trinity. So the representation of the patient was simply
translated wholesale from the dominant ideology.
There are certain typical transformations in schizophrenic language. Are
there analogous transformations in the language of those who belong to
certain social categories, such as military people, politicians, etc
Felix Guattari: Of course. We can even speak of a kind of paraphrenization
of military language, or, at the present moment, of
the language of political militants. But we ought to generalize.
Groups like psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, and researchers resort to
a language that demands the closure of representation. To the
point where everything excessive in the production of desiringmachines
(the production of the unconscious) is always reduced to
limiting and exclusionary syntheses, with a perennial return to
dualistic categories and a constant separating of levels. This is a
problem which cannot be resolved by an epistemological reform.
All of this calls into question the very system of forces at play in
the class struggle. It's not going to do any good just to try to
engage a certain group of psychoanalysts, or this or that researcher.
What has been called into question here is not one isolated
system, but rather the whole dynamic of social mechanisms,
whether related to desire or to revolutionary struggle or to science
64 /