deleuze lacan|PrODuCe yer Own Monster

God does not have grand-children

ZiZek is Wrong __________its not
bodies with Organs
its B.W.O. Corps sans Organes... he wants to
pull Guattari out of the mix.In a strange book he wrote 2 years almost now Bodies without Organs

referred to by I_Cite [external link] slight alterations made here
Daniel W. Smith's "The Inverse Side of the Structure: Zizek on Deleuze on Lacan." It appeared originally in Criticism 46.4 (2004) 635-650.

In an interview in 1995, shortly before his death, Prof Deleuze was asked by Didier Eribon (a Foucault biographer) about his relationship with Jacques Lacan. Deleuze's response was this story:

Lacan noticed me when he devoted a session of his seminar to my book on Sacher-Masoch [1967].1 I was told—although I never knew anything more than this—that he had devoted more than an hour to my book. And then he came to a conference at Lyon, where I was then teaching. He gave an absolutely unbelievable lecture.... It was there that he uttered his famous formula, " Psychoanalysis can do everything except make an idiot seem intelligible. " After the conference, he came to our place for dinner. And since he went to bed very late, he stayed a long time. I remember: it was after midnight and he absolutely had to have a special whisky. It was truly a nightmare, that night.

My only great encounter with him was after the appearance of Anti-Oedipus [1972]. I'm sure he took it badly. He must have held it against us, Félix and me. But finally, a few months later, he summoned me—there's no other word for it. He wanted to see me. And so I went. He made me wait in his antechamber. It was filled with people, I didn't know if they were patients, admirers, journalists.... He made me wait a long time—a little too long, all the same—and then he finally received me. He rolled out a list of all his disciples, and said that they were all worthless [ nuls ] (the only person he said nothing bad about was Jacques-Alain Miller). It made me smile, because I recalled Binswanger telling the story of a similar scene: Freud saying bad things [End Page 635] about Jones, Abraham, etc. And Binswanger was shrewd enough to assume that Freud would say the same thing about him when he wasn't there. So Lacan was speaking, and everyone was condemned, except Miller. And then he said to me, "What I need is someone like you" [ C'est quelqu'un comme vous qu'il me faut .].2

and also cited in:
the appendix under Deleuze and locate this exchange (and references) appears in: Rudinesco's biography of Lacan. pages 347-348 of Elisabeth's Roudinesco's _Jacques Lacan_. Paints quite a picture. "An interview with the philosopher Gilles Deleuze, conducted by DidierEribon, shows how exasperated Lacan was with the situation. A few monthsafter the publication of _Anti-Oedipus_, he summoned Deleuze, its author[hey, where's Felix?], to his apartment, which was full of his analysands,and told him how 'hopeless' all his disciples were except Miller. Then hesaid, "What I absolutely need is someone like you." Deleuze was amusedand remembered that Binswanger used to tell a similar story about Freudspeaking ill of Jones, Abraham, etc. Binswanger had concluded that hehimself would suffer the same fate when Freud talked about him to hisdisciples. Deleuze was right: at the same period, Lacan was grumblingabout him to Maria Antonietta Macciocchi: he was convinced _Anti-Oedipus_was based on his seminars, which already, according to him, contained theidea of a 'desiring machine.' He was still worrying about plagiarism."

1. Gilles Deleuze, Masochism: Coldness and Cruelty, trans. Jean McNeil (New York: Zone Books, 1989).

2. "Le 'Je me souviens' de Gilles Deleuze" (interview by Didier Eribon) in Le Nouvel Observateur 1619 (16-22 November 1995), 50-51.

and for other burrows in the woof and wood

1933 Articles from Le Minotaure: The Problem of Style and the Psychiatric Conception of Paranoiac Forms of Experience and Motives of Paranoiac Crime: The Crime of the Papin Sisters, transl. by Jon Anderson in Critical Texts, vol.5, 3, 1988

"[...] time as series: the before and after are no longer themselves a matter of external empirical succession, but of the intrinsic quality of that which becomes in time. Becoming can in fact be defined as that which transforms an empirical sequence into a series: a burst of series. A series is a sequence of images, which tend in themselves in the direction of a limit, which orients and inspires the first sequence (the before), and gives way to another sequence organized as series which tends in turn towards another limit (the after). The before and the after are then no longer successive determinations of the course of time, but the two sides of the power, or the passage of the power to a higher power." (Deleuze 1994, s. 275)

See Patricia Pister's