Chaosophy - autonomous learning

desire has to do with objects, even partial ones. We are talking about
machines, flux, sampling, detachments, residue. We are doing a
critique of the partial object. And surely Leclaire is right to say that
it doesn't really matter if the partial object is defined positively or
negatively. But he is only right theoretically. For if we consider the
way it functions, if we ask what psychoanalysis does with the partial
object, how it makes it work, then knowing whether it enters a
negative or positive function is no longer inconsequential.
Is it true or not that psychoanalysis uses the partial object to
base its ideas of lack, absence, or signifier of absence, and to legitimate
its use of castration Even when it invokes the notions of
difference or the different, it's psychoanalysis that uses the partial
object in a negative way in order to fuse desire to a fundamental
lack. What we hold against psychoanalysis is that it resorts to a
pious conception, based on lack and castration, a sort of negative
theology that involves infinite resignation (the Law, the impossible,
etc.). It is against this that we propose a positive conception of
desire, desire that produces, not desire that is lacking in something.
Psychoanalysts are still pious.
Serge Leclaire: I won't challenge your criticism any more than I
acknowledge its pertinence. I'll simply emphasize that it seems
based on the hypothesis of a somewhat ... totalitarian reality.
Without signifiers, without flaw, splitting, or castration. Ultimately,
one wonders what makes the "true difference" you invoke. It
should be situated, you say, not between ... let's see ...
Gilles Deleuze: Between the imaginary and the symbolic ...
Serge Leclaire: ... between the real on one hand, which you present
as the ground, the underlying element, and something like the
superstructures that would be the imaginary and the symbolic.
80 :'