/lit/ - Literature

>>17250912
>Freud is gay.
That explains a lot actually.

>>16359810
>I've got a wife, and a daughter who plays with dolls and potters around the house. And you think that in the light of Anti-Oedipus this is a huge joke. You might have added I've got a son who's almost old enough to go into analysis. If you think it's dolls that produce the Oedipus complex, or the mere fact of being married, that's pretty weird. The Oedipus complex is nothing to do with dolls, it's an internal secretion, a gland, and you can't fight oedipal secretions except by fighting yourself, by experimenting on yourself, by opening yourself up to love and desire (rather than the whining need to be loved that leads everyone to the psychoanalyst). Non-oedipal love is pretty hard work. And you should know that it's not enough just to be unmarried, not to have kids, to be gay, or belong to this or that group, in order to get round the Oedipus complex-given all the group complexes, oedipal gays, oedipized women's libbers, and so on. Just look at the piece called "Us and the Arabs,'" which is even more oedipal than my daughter.

>What's interesting isn't whether I'm capitalizing on anything, but whether there are people doing something or other in their little corner, and me in mine, and whether there might be any points of contact, chance encounters and coincidences rather than alignments and rallying-points (all that crap where everyone's supposed to be everyone else's guilty conscience and judge). I owe you lot nothing, nothing more than you owe me. I don't need to join you in your ghettos, because I've got my own. The question's nothing to do with the character of this or that exclusive group, it's to do with the transversal relations that ensure that any effects produced in some particular way (through homosexuality, drugs, and so on) can always be produced by other means. We have to counter people who think "I'm this, I'm that," and who do so, moreover, in psychoanalytic terms (relating everything to their childhood or fate), by thinking in strange, fluid, unusual terms: I don't know what I am-I'd have to investigate and experiment with so many things in a non-narcissistic, non-oedipal way-no gay can ever definitively say "I'm gay." It's not a question of being this or that sort of human, but of becoming inhuman, of a universal animal becoming - not seeing yourself as some dumb animal, but unraveling your body's human organization, exploring this or that zone of bodily intensity, with everyone discovering their own particular zones, and the groups, populations, species that inhabit them.

>>12675535
Freud was state propaganda? It's all starting to make sense now...

>>12218844
He wasn't into phalluses.

>>12218754
Deleuze wasn't that much of a pleb.

>>12218780
Thanks anon! I even found a link in the archive. I had no idea Guyotat was that influential, apparently the poststructuralists really appreciated him.

>>11593506
Did he? I'm genuinely curious about that.

>>11372086
Don't know about that (although I'd love a source for it), but he did say that he and Guattari can't be responsible for every misunderstanding concerning their work.

>>11372078
That may be part of it, but it doesn't have to be capitalistic in the end. It's like what D&G said about drugs, there's no benefit to completely destroying yourself through the deterritorialization that they provide.