Chaosophy - autonomous learning

try to "define" it. Yo u say: the partial object can only be defined
positively. That's what surprises me. First of all, how does the
positive description differ essentially from the negative imputation
that you denounce
Above all: the slightest psychoanalytical experience makes it
clear that the partial object can only be defined "differently" and
"in relation to the signifier."
Here, your "contraption," if I may say so, can only be "lacking"
its object (the banished lack pops up again!). Even though it is
written, as a book is, it claims to be a text without a signifier, a text
that would tell the truth about the truth, keeping close to an
alleged reality, quite simply. As though that were possible without
distance or intention of all duality. Very well. A contraption of this
sort can have its use; the future will tell. But as for desire, the good
news of which it claims to bring to society more effectively than
psychoanalysis, I repeat, it can only be lacking its object.
I believe that your desiring-machine which should only work
by breaking down, that is, skipping and backfiring, happens to be
disarmed: a "positive" object, devoid of any duality as well as of any
"lack," it ends up working ... like a Swiss clock!
Felix Guattari: I don't think that one should situate the partial
object either positively or negatively, but rather as a participant of
nontotalizable multiplicities. It is only in an illusory fashion that it
is inscribed in reference to a complete object such as the body
proper, or even the fragmented body. By opening the series of partial
objects, beyond the breast and the feces, to the voice and the gaze,
Jacques Lacan signified his refusal to close them off and reduce them
to the body. The voice and the gaze escape the body, for example,
by becoming more and more adjacent to audio-visual machines.
I'll leave aside the question of how, according to Lacan, the
phallic function, insofar as it overcodes each of the partial objects,
78 /