Chaosophy - autonomous learning

the desiring-production is liable to emerge, and which, of course,
questions the social and its institutions, we immediately see reactions
of panic and formations of resistance. This resistance takes various
forms: meetings of synthesis, coordination, declarations, etc., and,
more subtly, classic psychoanalytical interpretation with its usual
effect of exterminating desire as you conceive of it.
Raphael Pividal: Serge Leclaire, you have made several remarks,
most of them in discrepancy with what Guattari says. Because the
book, in a fundamental way, examines the analytical practice, your
profession in a sense, and you have taken the problem in a partial
way. You've only accepted it by submerging it in your own language,
with theories that you've developed, where you give greater
importance to fetishism, that is to say, precisely, to the partial
object. You take refuge in this sort of language to reduce Deleuze and
Guattari to details. Everything in Anti-Oedipus that concerns the
birth of the state, the role of the state, schizophrenia, you say nothing
about. You say nothing about your daily practice. You say nothing
about the true problem of psychoanalysis, that of the patient. Of
course, you, Serge Leclaire, are not being put on trial, but this is the
point to which you should respond: the relationship of psychoanalysis
to the state, to capitalism, to History; to schizophrenia.
Serge Leclaire: I agree with the aim you propose. When I emphasize
the precise point of the object, I mean to highlight, through an
example, the type of operation the contraption produced can perform.
Granted that the criticism of Deleuze and Guattari concerning
the change of direction, the thwarting of psychoanalytic discovery,
the fact that nothing or scarcely anything was said concerning the
relations of the analytical practice or schizophrenia with the political
world, or the social, I do not object entirely. It is not enough
to signal one's intention to do it, it has to be done pertinently.
Ii i / 83