Brief Post about Guattari's Anti-Oedipus Papers

[sodapopinski51]

As we read through AO closely, I've become a bit of a completist, yearning to read as much by Felix Guattari as possible. So I've been closely scouring the Anti-Oedipus Papers. There is an interesting chapter entitled, "What is Psychoanalysis?" Which reveals a deep criticism, perhaps hatred that Guattari harbored toward Lacan and Freud. p.89 "

Comments

[seasontoseason]

yes, I am glad you posted this. I was thinking how A-O is supposed to be this big meeting of Freud and Marx, but in the back of my mind it kept niggling at me... 'Freudism' is treated with distaste by D&G. And it is more than just critiquing the Oedipal structure of psychoanalysis. On the back of my copy there is a review that says soething about "more than any other intersection of Marx and Freud, [A-O] renders palpable the metaphor if the unconscious as a worker." The thing is, though, there is (I think) a difference between the unconscious of Freud and the unconscious of D&G. Of course, right? But i mean a difference between the unconscious of Freud and the metaphorical unconscious of D&G. Freud isnt even capable, i dont think, of metaphor at the level of his theory (of course his theory itself sees many things as metaphors

[sodapopinski51]

he was criticizing Lacan for "normalizing", but admitted that often times the therapist is nuttier than the patient. The funny thing is, I was explaining this to a colleague of mine, Guattari definitely never intended for these Anti-Oedipus Papers to be published. These were private journal notes, scatterbrained at best, but they are a loosely configured stream of consciousness, definitely to be seen as an addendum to the actual book, but really I think these are not solid "arguments" as we are used to in philosophy, but stream of consciousness, automatic writing, where we see Guattari frantically trying to put together a train of thought so that he can bring these notes to a discussion with Deleuze. The whole "Freud is nuts, the patient is not" is probably meant as an inside joke between himself and Deleuze... its funny, but not to be taken so seriously. That's how I read it, the AO papers are a good way to see the ideas in their first draft form. They are akin to Nietzsche's Will to Power, which are a series of notebooks, or Marx'

[sodapopinski51]

No I'll have to netflix it if you could supply a title, that would be cool.

[seasontoseason]

id like to see that documentary as well.

but the dsm isnt even a residue, its not like it is wasting away, this shit is the "bible" as i' sure you know, of psychiatry right now, and it is being updated all the time (well, every several years)

[sodapopinski51]

Yes, every year the DSM gets thicker and thicker. Its humorous in a dark sort of way. If you look at the initial definition of "schizophrenia" from the first edition, as I have, it was a junk-drawer, catch all diagnosis for just about everything they couldn't figure out... literally DSM-I said schizophrenia is any "strong disturbance in emotion"... that could be anything! Just what the hell are they diagnosing here? On what basis? If I get really pissed about how fucked up the world is, and I show "strong disturbances in emotion" am I schizophrenic, or completely sane? Then the spectrum began to emerge to include all variations from catatonic to mania, and just about everything in between. I think Psychiatry is the scientific equivalent of voo-doo, or pill-pushing witch-doctors who are pushing pills to make money for the pharmaceutical companies that provide free samples.