Chaosophy - autonomous learning

Deleuze would arrange them. That's how it all came about."9 Their
joint task therefore involved the mediation of texts far more so
than dialogue or live exchanges, even though Guattari occasionally
met with Deleuze in Paris on Tuesday afternoons, after Deleuze
gave his class at the Vincennes University in the morning. In the
summer months, it is Deleuze who went to Guattari's in order to
work with him.
On several occasions, Deleuze and Guattari described their
joint work and its singularity. After the publication of Anti-Oedipus,
Guattari said of their writing duo: "Initially it was less a question
of pooling knowledge than of accumulating our uncertainties, and
even a certain distress regarding the turn of events after May '68."10
Deleuze also commented: "Oddly, if we tried to go beyond this
traditional duality, it is precisely because we wrote in tandem. Neither
one of us was the madman or the psychiatrist, it was necessary to be
two to release a process ... The process is what we call a flux."ll
From this exchange, a genuine work machine was born, and
from then on it was impossible to identify what belonged to one or
to the other because this machine was not a simple sum of two
individuals. It only seemed to reside in a "two of us" that the
cosignature of the book evokes, yet it functions more profoundly in
a "between-two" capable of creating of a new collective subjectivity.
In their machinic bifurcation, the true sense of these notions
lies in the interval of their respective personality. To try and identify
the father of such and such concept, as Stephan Nadaud wrote,
would be "to completely disregard an essential concept in their
work: that of assemblage."l2 Their entire writing machine relies on
positioning a collective assemblage of enunciation as the true
father of the concepts invented. Does it, for all that, lead to the
creation of a third man who would result from the coalescence of
both, a Felix-Gilles, or a "Guattareuze" as the cartoonist Lauzier
has coined
10./