Chaosophy - autonomous learning

Oedipus as you wish to find, as much as you call forth in order to
silence the machines (necessarily so, since Oedipus is both the
repressing and the repressed, which is to say the stereotype-image
that brings desire to a standstill, and attends to it, representing it as
being at a standstill). An image is something that can only be seen ...
It is the compromise, but the compromise distorts both parties alike,
namely, the nature of the reactionary repressor and the nature of
the revolutionary desire. It is the compromise, but the compromise
distorts both parties alike, namely, the nature of the reactionary
repressor and the nature of the revolutionary desire. In the compromise,
the two parties have gone over the same side, as opposed to
desire which remains on the other side, beyond compromise.
In his two studies of Jules Verne, More came upon two themes,
one after the other, which he presented simply as being distinct
from each other: the Oedipal problem which Jules Verne lived both
as father and as son, and the problem of the machine as the destruction
of Oedipus and a substitute for women.7 But the problem of
the desiring-machine, in its essentially erotic nature, is not in the
least that of knowing whether a machine will ever he capable of giving
"the perfect illusion of woman." On the contrary, the problem is: in
which machine to place woman, in which machine does a woman
put herself in order to become the non-Oedipal object of desire,
which is to say, nonhuman sex In all the desiring-machines, sexuality
does not consist of an imaginary woman-machine couple serving as
a substitute for Oedipus, but of the machine-desire couple as the real
production of a daughter born without a mother, a non-Oedipal
woman (who would not be Oedipal neither fo r herself, nor for
others). Yet there is no indication that people are growing tired of
such entertaining narcissistic exercises as psychocriticism, which
ascribes an Oedipal origin to the novel in general, bastards,
foundlings. One must admit that the greatest authors lend themselves
to this kind of misunderstanding, precisely because Oedipus
,:' 99