Chaosophy - autonomous learning

does not give them back a certain identity, and, by assigning them
a lack, does not call for another form of totalization, this time in
the symbolic order. Whatever the case, it seems to me that Lacan
has always tried to extricate the object of desire from all the totalizing
references that could threaten it: beginning with the mirror stage,
libido escaped the "substantialist hypothesis" and symbolic identification
supplanted an exclusive reference to the organism; tied
down to the function of speech (parole) and to the field of language,
the drive shattered the framework of topics that were
closed in on themselves; whereas the theory of the "a" object perhaps
contains the seed that allows to liquidate the totalitarianism of
the signifier.
By becoming an "a" object, the partial object detotalized, deterritorialized,
and permanently distanced itself from an individuated
corporeity; it is in a position to swing over to real multiplicities and
to open itself up to the molecular machinisms of every kind that
are shaping history.
Gilles Deleuze: Yes, it's curious that Leclaire would be saying that
our machine works too well, and is capable of digesting everything.
That's exactly what we held against psychoanalysis. It's
curious that a psychoanalyst would reproach us with that in turn.
I'm saying this because we have a special relationship with
Leclaire: he wrote a text called "the reality of desire," which, before
we did, goes in the direction of a machine-unconscious and
uncovers final elements of the unconscious which are no longer
either figurative or structural.
It seems our agreement does not go all the way, since Leclaire
reproaches us for not understanding what a partial object is. He says
it's not important to define it positively or negatively, because, in any
case, it's something else, it's "different." But we are not really interested
in categories of objects, even partial ones. It's not certain that
Fili:< / 79