What is Desiring Production? | Deleuze and Guattari Concept | Anti-Oedipus
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- In this lecture, we'll examine what Deleuze and Guattari mean by "desiring-production", a concept developed in "Anti-Oedipus" and expanded upon (albeit sometimes under a different guise) in "A Thousand Plateaus". This concept is one of the key elements of schizoanalysis, and builds upon some of the ontological concepts developed in Deleuze's "Difference and Repetition". Enjoy!
Music is Richard Wagner's Gotterdamerung by Daniel Barenboim and the Beyreuthfesterspiele • Götterdämmerung : Orch...
• Götterdämmerung : Prol...
Join the channel for $5/month to gain access to, among other things, a monthly philosophy Zoom tailored to your educational needs!
/ @gavinyoung-philosophy
Great video! Desire to Lacan stems from a form of lack (as you stated). D&G believe, instead, in desiring machines, where we do not desire from a form of lack, but as a means to become Other. Psychoanalysis = Freudian repression of desires. Schizoanalysis = liberation of desires for productive purposes (i.e., becoming Other through deterritorialization and reterritorialization). Though this is discussed more in A Thousand Plateaus (which, I see, you have covered in part on your channel), D&G are not fans of root or tree like structure (which represent top-down hierarchical levels of ORGANization). They prefer rhizomatic models that operate akin to web or node-like structures of interconnected multiplicities, which lead to further forms of differentiation through the process of Difference & Repetition (which goes against Identicality/Identity or figuratively "fascist" systems of order and ORGANization). Trees are highly ordered or ORGANized while rhizomes are not. Rules (like in Chomskyian linguistic tree structures) are ORGANized and thus similarly repressive, preventing man from becoming Other. Thus, the need to get outside of language through diagrams, which lead to nomadism and lines of flight to the Outside. The Body Without Organs (BwO) is the egg that deterritorializes through differentiation. Most people think repetition creates identity/identicality, but, to Deleuze, it leads to difference. Think of parents repeating the act of propagation as a tangible example. Unless they have twins, no offspring is ever the same. The repeated act thus produces difference and multiplicities or pluralities. The best way to think of the BwO is like the cocoon a caterpillar uses to turn into a butterfly. The caterpillar disintegrates (deterritorializes) in the egg/cocoon (BwO) and rebuilds (reterritorializes) into a new entity. The BwO or egg is then destroyed once we become Other. However, the process then repeats indefinitely, where each strata or layer of being has a new BwO (for the purposes of becoming) to metamorphose it into something Other. Becoming Other is like becoming animal or a sense of lycanthropy (hence why they bring up and disagree with Freud's analysis of the Wolf Man in his case). Again, desire is not to be repressed psychoanalytically but embraced schizoanalytically so as to allow for change. We can see why they would have issues with Hegel (Nick Land shares these same sentiments). Hegel's negation (through the synthesis of antithesis with thesis) eventually leads us back to the Absolute (i.e., unity of God). Oppositely, the Deleuzian model, through deterritorialization and reterritorialization, leads to pluralities and multiplicities. The irony is that Deleuze eventually agrees that "pluralism = monism" via the "plane of immanence" due to his heavy reliance upon Spinoza, who is basically Deleuze's favorite philosopher (still, the monism is linked to becoming and not identicality). Again, great video. Good luck on getting that PhD!
Thanks! Yes, I’ve covered these concepts in other lectures :)
Nice!
omg, you're here
I'm interested in Deleuze, so I was googling around and found your channel. Thank you for the upload (from South Korea)
Glad you could join me in dissecting Deleuze! Best of luck moving forward
hard subject, but well explained
Thank you!
Nice video! Been eyeing your channel for a bit I gotta say I'm enjoying the content.
I’m glad she appreciate it!
This was wonderful and fascinating, thank you.
@@TheV00d00D011 I’m glad! Thank you for watching :)
Lovely content :)
Thank you!
dude wHAT are you the girl who made the silly videos
@@kehana2908wdym
It seems they are swaping a moral a priori for an ontological a priori with regards to desire, or what am I missing? Rather than desire "ought" to be this--as imposed in a restrictive manner by the unity of identity through the philosophical tradition, science, psychoanalysis, or the state apparatus--desire IS (and implicitly ought to be?) this--the opposite: productive, defferenciating, creative, transgressive etc--but how does this not just "impose" an a priori anew? Just getting into Deleuze, so surely there is something I am missing, but strikes me as the most pertinent question. Also, why is desire allowed to explain so many things? And why do we desire in the first place? Almost reminds me of NIetzsche's aphorism regarding Kant's synthetic a priori and the "faculty" that explains it; the relation of desire and difference.
@@jrrr5039 There is no implicit a priori in acknowledging the way the unconscious works. To say that all of our actions are the result of a desire for some outcome and the associated pull to act in the world is not a normative claim but an ontological claim. Furthermore, it is not an a priori, but rather it is an empirical statement about the nature of the unconscious. Desire is at its fundamental level analogous to a system of molecules in which an area of highly concentrated molecules disperse into an area of lower concentration: it is a mechanism for explaining the deterministic or at least mechanistic processes of the unconscious.
With regard to your question about why do we desire in the first place, that’s simply a non-issue. Deleuze and Guattari are very much pragmatists in this regard: the goal is not to achieve exhaustive, a priori, and universal knowledge about the unconscious, but rather to find a series of descriptive statements and a coherent system for explaining, predicting, and furnishing the functioning and behaviors of the unconscious. Why we desire at all is irrelevant to them insofar as it does not meaningfully alter the fact that we do desire, and the basic principles by which desire functions.
@@gavinyoung-philosophy I was just struck by the way desire functions much like the Hegelian Spirit (albeit in an inverted way in many respects), Spinoza's conatus, and the Nietzschean will to power. And these are meatphysical and not empirical notions, no? Could not everything be interpreted as desire (or something entirely different?) retrospectively and projected back into the black box of the unconsious if one starts out with such a metaphysical notion? And then you can say: "Behold! Desire! (or conatus, or will to power, or spirit, or god, or being, or the dao, or something)" Not that I would deny the existence of desire as a phenomenon, it would seem to be a useful way to describe certain phenomena, but it just seems to do a bit too much of the work here? That said, I like the creative and artistic vision, and will attempt to attain a deeper understanding of it.
nothing, I rather the term no- thing, it's funny how language evolves
It is quite definitely not nothing.
Be careful. Objet petit a is not the object of desire. It is the object cause of desire.
That’s why I said objet a, not objet petit a. Regardless, objet petit a is defined as the “unattainable object of desire”
@@gavinyoung-philosophy Can you point me to the difference between objet a and objet petit a? I think they are the same thing.
@@kruledrew Maybe they are. I’m not sure the relevance of the word petit in French. Either way, it is commonly understood as being both the unattainable object of desire and the object cause of desire. They mean the same thing. It is the cause of action (as desire is), and it is unattainable, signaling the subject’s own nothingness in so doing.
@@gavinyoung-philosophy The object of desire is the coke. The object cause of desire is the can. You get enjoyment when you get through the can but then what you actually (the Hegel Lacan Zizek favorite word) want is to keep having the can so you can keep desiring. I think the distinction is important! Petit here just means lowercase. Object with a lowercase o. LIke Heidegger with big being B.
@@kruledrew That’s Hegel/Lacan/Žižek’s opinion about desire which blunders precisely the way I mentioned in the lecture: interpolating an a priori framework for desire. This is unjustified and just seeks to tie people down to certain normative ways of being-in-the-world. Also, all nouns are capitalized in German; being is always “Sein” in Heidegger, and the differentiation between lower-/uppercase b being is an English translation error featured in the MacQuarrie/Robinson translation of Being and Time.