Oh, Oedipus
I just finished an intro to Deleuze & Guattari' Anti-Oedipus. It's my feeling that before tackling this notoriously difficult book, I should have a general understanding of what it's about.
I'm frustrated now. Desiring machines are the essence of D&G's world understanding. Our desires can't be explained through the Oedipal Complex, but rather the creation of the Oedipal Complex itself reflects our own desire for self-repression. We create a myth to explain why we can't have what we want, and this myth obscures the desiring machine.
So, as I understand it, our desires aren't explained by the lack of some totemic thing (phallus, whatever), but rather by desiring machines that are busy creating other desiring machines, etc. If I understand this correctly, it's another version of "turtles all the way down." But, as I understand, this is not quite it. D&G prefer the rhizome model instead--a potato that you can cut and grow a whole new plant from.
I don't know if I like this world view. I was happier with Lacan and Oedipus and the whole idea of "lack." With that global understanding, you start to see the possibility or potential for some greater truth or understanding out there, which we all grasp at, but instead fill that lack up with false representations. I love you because I see something in you that I perceive as missing in me, but you, as much as you try, can't possibly understand what it is about you that is so desirable to me. And, then, when applied to politics, as Zizek does, we get to debate whether people "don't know it, but are doing it," or whether they "know it, but do it anyway." Did we, in our heart of hearts, favor invading Iraq secretly knowing all along that there probably weren't any WMDs, but we wanted to attack Iraq anyway because we were convinced that we couldn't simply exist in a world with a Saddam Hussein in it? Or, as D&G now say, is desire now this de-centered amorphic potatoey thing? I don't want desire to be a potato. How can you bring about change in a potato world? It's a multi-headed hydra...and I don't like hydras. But it's not about what I want, either. If desire is a potato, so be it. But, I'm reluctant for the moment to admit that it is.
I don't know. I may not have to worry too much about whether desire is a potato or a phallus. My area of focus seems to be mostly around Lefebvre and de Certeau. D&G and Lacan all intersect with them somewhere, but for now I want to keep some distance from them.
I'm frustrated now. Desiring machines are the essence of D&G's world understanding. Our desires can't be explained through the Oedipal Complex, but rather the creation of the Oedipal Complex itself reflects our own desire for self-repression. We create a myth to explain why we can't have what we want, and this myth obscures the desiring machine.
So, as I understand it, our desires aren't explained by the lack of some totemic thing (phallus, whatever), but rather by desiring machines that are busy creating other desiring machines, etc. If I understand this correctly, it's another version of "turtles all the way down." But, as I understand, this is not quite it. D&G prefer the rhizome model instead--a potato that you can cut and grow a whole new plant from.
I don't know if I like this world view. I was happier with Lacan and Oedipus and the whole idea of "lack." With that global understanding, you start to see the possibility or potential for some greater truth or understanding out there, which we all grasp at, but instead fill that lack up with false representations. I love you because I see something in you that I perceive as missing in me, but you, as much as you try, can't possibly understand what it is about you that is so desirable to me. And, then, when applied to politics, as Zizek does, we get to debate whether people "don't know it, but are doing it," or whether they "know it, but do it anyway." Did we, in our heart of hearts, favor invading Iraq secretly knowing all along that there probably weren't any WMDs, but we wanted to attack Iraq anyway because we were convinced that we couldn't simply exist in a world with a Saddam Hussein in it? Or, as D&G now say, is desire now this de-centered amorphic potatoey thing? I don't want desire to be a potato. How can you bring about change in a potato world? It's a multi-headed hydra...and I don't like hydras. But it's not about what I want, either. If desire is a potato, so be it. But, I'm reluctant for the moment to admit that it is.
I don't know. I may not have to worry too much about whether desire is a potato or a phallus. My area of focus seems to be mostly around Lefebvre and de Certeau. D&G and Lacan all intersect with them somewhere, but for now I want to keep some distance from them.