/lit/ - Literature

>>16892957
f i l t e r e d

>>16892957
It's telling that your first reaction when faced with something difficult is 'is it cringe?'.

f i l t e r e d

>>16892973
fair

Start at the top left of the page then read to the right. When you reach the end move back to left but down one line then repeat until you reach then end of the page. After which you will move to the next page. Now repeat this until there are no more pages.

(psst read Deleuze's book on Nietzsche first)

>>16892990
Give me a cogent reason why, and perhaps I might just take you up on your offer, fine gentleman!

>im on page 200 and it is amazing!
help me on this
>"and when healing means oedipalizing, one understands the frightened jump of the invalid, who "doesnt want to get healed" and treats the female analytic like an ally of the family and finally as an ally of the police."

im gonna start this off with saying I might perhaps been diagnosed slightly in the direction of schizophrenia, BUT this is a huge point these guys make here:
The standard is that the schizophrenic feels like others and conspiring against him, YET these psychiatrists do no seem to understand that if the schizo feels this way (as is jsut in many interpretations of the schizo's notion of conspiring) the doctor is necessarily included in the bevy trying to do him harm.
So when the psychiatrists ask the patient:
>Do you feel like people are whispering about you, looking at you? do you feel generally paranoid about other people as if they were conspiring against you?
The patient makes the obviously assumption and hesitently replies:
>N-no.
This question Can only be answered in the negative no matter if the patient is invalid or "sane".
Why though does this seem like such a strange concept to people in general but even to people in psychology /psychiatry.

Since my personal encounter with this situation I have asked other medical professionals and more personally and directly students of phsychology about this and NEVER did I get the understanding I was looking for.
Sure what D&G are going for here with the strict freudian Oedipus context isnt what I mean, but if it is expanded as they seem to want to encompass some system's oppression (or such which terminology I dont know yet as this is my first read) this is an incredible insight.
In short my question is: Do you get the conundrum the patient finds himself in when asked the above stated question(s)?

>Btw I am strictly asking about my scenario not the general issue with a patient lying to the doctor and how to deal with this

>>16893042
?

>>16892957
People on /lit/ shit on Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, XX c. french philosophy then be like "uwu why can't I understand deleuze??"

>>16892957
Yeah I got filtered too. It's ok anon, you don't have to read it

>>16893023
it's a lot easier, familiarizes you with Deleuze's style, and the concepts developed in it are drawn upon a lot for Anti-Oedipus. Reading some Marx and Freud would also help.

>>16892957
What should i read before trying to read this?

>>16892957
>>16892957
I found Eugene W. Holland's "Introduction to Schizoanalysis" a better intro to Anti-Oedipus than the Buchanan one. I'd also recommend reading some of Deleuze's monographs on other philosophers first. I read his books on Kant and Spinoza beforehand and they really helped.

>>16892957
It's pseudo-science trying to pass itself as philosophy so you wouldn't miss much if you had dropped it right now

>>16893959
this is actually untrue, schizoanalysis is the only true scientific practice of the mind

>>16893042
Lovely quote! :)
I get what you’re saying, but also goes with what all intelligent people says; it’s all common sense

>>16892957
it's pretty fucking easy imo

>>16893776
Entire western canon

>>16892957
skip around at random until it make sense to you.

>>16893042
>"and when healing means oedipalizing, one understands the frightened jump of the invalid, who "doesnt want to get healed" and treats the female analytic like an ally of the family and finally as an ally of the police."

Don't have the full context, but basically D&G are against the idea that the psychoanlyst's role must be to oedipalize those who weren't properly oedipalized, that is to say to become a kind of father figure inducing, without explicitly suggesting, a kind of order (ordinary everyday content neurosis) into the analyzand (the patient, called that because he analyzes himself guided by the analyst, who is the psychoanalyst). They complain that psychoanalysis (and maybe cognitive behavioural or psychiatric therapy as well even if the first didn't exist at the time as such) becomes a tool of power. Their example is of a woman who tells her psychoanalyst that she protested the Vietnam war with her friend Rene only to be asked what she thinks about rebirth (rene) to get her to talk about her mother. It negates the social in favor of the personal as if it could only ever be a familial issue (in the unconscious of the patient). The properly political thus becomes just a personal delirium. Feel that your job is meaningless and the world is getting worse? Well take some pills and adjust your cognitive and behavioural patterns (try not to think about anything that upsets you) and you too could someday hope to have an ordinary boring life! Obviously this isn't the only way to go, but it's always a risk with all forms of therapy.

Also, it's debatable how much this applies to Lacan since he had his own ideas of what could be achieved if the subject overcomes its symptoms. But it's also true that he had a certain conservative side, although the French were insanely radical at the time so maybe it's just by contrast.

>therapists pathologise dissent
there. thats the whole book

b

>>16892957
Doesn't Deleuze encourage readers to not necessarily worry about understanding everything they read the first time around?

>>16896381
God I fucking hope so.

>>16896381
yes

>>16895011
>he properly political thus becomes just a personal delirium
no offense, but I feel like this is a really "leftist" way of reading the book (or as far as i have read it).
Your understanding gives the schizo nothing. You literally put him in the double bind again by having this "properly political" vs the Oedipus or w/e.
What the schizo can find in this "the psychiatrist is in on being against me" is the absolute liberating (or rather non shakeling) form of himself, anything political (even expanded to the system as a whole) has nothing to do with this psychiatrist being against me. I am not diseased I never was diseased jsut like you were never "sane" (read the quote that has footnote number 64 in chapter 2 from D. Laing).
I know they always talk about the revolutionary aspect being the inate one but any even such example of
>opposing vietnam baby killing being turned into becoming docile
or another situation one completely agrees with offers NOTHING.
This "solution" to a "problem" is exactly all this shit that the psychiatrist is part of.
it is not jsut that the conspiring against me is my parents, the people in the street, my neighbors, or psychiatrists but that in all their aspect of everything that belongs to them (as material or immaterial it may be) is conspiring against me; it is shakeling me down, putting me into an opus operandi against what I actually am. It is not >>16894078
>common sense
to perceive this or people wouldn't fall into all these psychiatric charades, triangular or whatever else (and for gods sake I here do not mean literal psychiatries' charades, but maybe rather charades against the psyche). I maybe wasnt clear enough in my first post (so no offense to the other replier) but the psychiatrist (who understands my condition) would never even need to ask the question
>do you feel like people are conspiring against you
let alone interpret even an "affirmative"
>No
correctly, but the entire pretense of him being the psychiatrist and me having been invited to sit in the chair across from him makes it that he is necessarily conspiring against me.
The psychiatrist with all his employees, other patience and office is the wall that I can only find myself ramming my head into, because it inherently does not allow for itself to not have this looming, controling, HEALING, aspect to it, all of which goes against the schizo (imo).

once again, let me avoid overeager replies as the one (kind) anon did by again finishing with:
>I am strictly asking about my scenario not the general issue with a patient lying to the doctor and how to deal with this

>>16893620
me too, apu.

God schizos are a buncha drama queens

b

for a baord that likes to pretend to know so much about accelerationism, you all sure are quite silent in the Deleuze threads.

>>16900086
I am trying my best learn more, but you're right I don't know all that much yet.

>>16894479
HAH

>>16900086
I never say anything because the minute I bring up Acc, this fucking schizo shows up claiming that I'm a shill or whatever. Also, the Deleuze threads are rarely about the stuff that's important to Landian Acc anyway.

>>16892957
>How the actual fuck do I read this book
You don't. It's nothing but the retarded ramblings of two hack frauds.