After being ill for a week I return to Chapter 4 on the ‘Postulates of linguistics’ and discuss constants, variables and death sentences.
The processes of code and territory produce many of those curious ‘jargon’ terms so hated by critics, terms like decoding, overcoding, surplus value of code, deterritorialization, reterritorialization. At heart, these two processes, of code and territory, involve processes and because of this the dynamics of those processes, whether they are opening or closing dynamics, are central to D&G’s discussions.
Turning to the 5th and 6th characteristics of the rhizome – the principle of cartography and decalcomania – we move from discussions of the book, of evolutionary science, of music, to discussions of psychoanalysis, the first real moment in which a continuity between ATP and Anti-Oedipus really makes itself felt.
There are 6 principles of the rhizome that are outlined in the first chapter of ATP. They are introduced as ways of characterising the rhizome, although these are only “approximate characteristics” (ATP 7). Here I look briefly at the first 4 of these principles.
I haven’t read ATP in a group setting before but as Guattari has increasingly come to be central to my own thinking, taking over from Deleuze in many ways, ATP and Anti-Oedipus have obviously begun to play more central roles in my work. These posts will aim to contain my notes and reflections as I work through the text
“I am interested”, Guattari says, “in a totally different kind of unconscious. It is not the unconscious of specialists, but a region everyone can have access to with neither distress nor particular preparation: it is open to social and economic interactions and directly engaged with major historical currents”.
Lecture notes from a session on Fanon held at Goldsmiths University, 13th November.
I gave this ‘paper’ at a recent workshop in London organised by a seminar of philosophers, psychoanalysts and artists.
I’ve been struck by the a-signifying and machinic recently, so this is part of some research into that area. Brief notes on an essay entitled ‘A-signifying semiotics’ by Gary Genosko.
Why bother with Freud today, a century after his work and ideas first began to have their effect? Is psychoanalysis really taken seriously anymore? Isn’t the whole dirty, sorry, splintered image of psychoanalysis something to be forgotten, something to put behind us as one more moment of false enlightenment? (Perhaps not completely…)