Chaosophy - autonomous learning

Gilles Deleuze: It's not as a book that it can respond to desire, but
according to what surrounds it. A book cannot be worth anything
on its own. Still the fluxes: there are a lot of people working in
similar directions, in other fields. And then there are the younger
generations: it's unlikely they'll buy a certain type of discourse,
now epistemological, now psychoanalytical, now ideological. It's
beginning to tire everyone out.
We say: Oedipus and castration, make the best of them,
because it's not going to last. Until now psychoanalysis has been
left alone: there have been attacks on psychiatry, the psychiatric
hospital, but psychoanalysis seemed untouchable, uncompromised.
We are trying to show that psychoanalysis is worse than the hospital,
precisely because it operates through all the pores of capitalist
society and not in special places of confinement. And because it
is profoundly reactionary in its practice and theory, not only in its
ideology. And because it fulfills specific functions.
Felix says that our book is addressed to people who are now
between 7 and 15 years old. Ideally, because in fact it is still too
difficult, too cultivated, and makes too many compromises. We
have not been able to be direct enough, clear enough. Nevertheless,
I must say that the first chapter, which has seemed difficult to many
favorable readers, does not require any prior knowledge. In any
case, if a book responds to a desire, it is insofar as there are already
a lot of people who can't stand a current type of discourse. It helps
refocus a number of efforts, and make works or desires resonate. In
short, a book can only respond to a desire politically, outside the
book. For example, an association of angry users of psychoanalysis
wouldn't be a bad place to start.
Frans:ois Chatelet: What seems important to me is the irruption of
such a text amidst books of philosophy (for this book is thought of
as a book of philosophy). Now Anti-Oedipus smashes everything .
.I 75