Chaosophy - autonomous learning

In its appearance, first, through the "form" of the text itself: 'curse
words' are used starting with the second line, as though a provocation.
One believes, at first, that this won't go on, and then it does.
That's all they talk about: "coupled machines," and "coupled
machines" are singularly obscene, or scatalogical.
Moreover, I experienced it as a materialist irruption. It's been a
long time since this happened. One has to admit that methodology
is becoming a pain in the ass. With the imperialism of methodology,
any research work or deepening of a subject is ruined. I've fallen
into that trap so I know what I'm talking about. In short, I evoke
a materialist irruption because I'm thinking of Lucretius. I don't
know if that will please you. Too much or not enough.
Gilles Deleuze: If that's true, that's perfect. That would be wonderful.
In any case, there is no methodological problem in our
book. Nor any problem of interpretation. Because the unconscious
doesn't mean anything; because machines don't mean anything.
They merely work, produce arid break down, because all we're
looking for is how something functions in the real.
There is no epistemological problem either: we couldn't care '
less about returning to Freud or Marx. If someone tells us that we
have misunderstood Freud, we won't argue about it, we'll say too
bad, there is so much to do. It's curious that epistemology has
always hidden an imposition of power, an organization of power.
As far as we're concerned, we don't believe in any specificity of
writing or even of thought.
Roger Dadoun: Up until now, the discussion has taken place on a
"molar" level-to use a dichotomy that is fundamental in your
interpretation-that is, on the level of great conceptual ensembles.
We have not managed to take the plunge that would lead us to the
"molecular" level, that is, to microanalyses that would help us
76 !