11/08/2010

'The repression of the Father Mother'





Today __ 
I quote this lengthy passage from Apparitions of Not Being (Becomings?) PitHy  . Brian Adkins  discusses                                                                    


       AntiOEdiPus a book Now ForGotten & Remembered        
                     only by G o  D  ~   


                     


          Yet Brian's work summaries, notes, comments, remarks and digressions about AntiOeDiPus  are striking, original and exciting  ~ In  Thursday's blog _ November 4- he discusses Chapter 9 of Anti__ the introduction to Schizoanalysis 

   This chapter is  often read  a s a delirious manifesto _  _ how so??                Lacanian  paranoiac critics gathering dust and garter belts on                                                           the  shelves of their own deaths  alert only to the spoofic natue and failures of their own work rail against  it~!
What halting and hoarse resentment!

 Yet the secret of AntiOedipus is that it was written
fast and in the dark!

Le Voila!



"It appears that, in the common social field, the first thing that son represses, or has to repress, or tries to repress, is the unconscious of the father and the mother. The failure of that repression is the basis of neuroses. But this communication of unconsciouses does not by any means take the family as its principle; it takes as its principle the commonality of the social field insofar as it is the object of the investment of desire. In all respects the family is never determining, but is always determined, first as a stimulus of departure, then as an aggregate of destination, and finally as an intermediary or an interception of communication."


D&G does away at with the chicken and egg conundrum at the beginning of this chapter making the question of what comes first between the father and son a non-question (the argument for this on their behalf one will have to read for themselves). Instead, we have the social field where everything is already immanent. Father and son are already established (master-slave in another sense) in the social field. The son, as the formal slave, first represses the unconscious of the father and mother.
The unconscious of the father and the mother we will see later on as the law and territorialityrespectively. The son then is seen as a flow trying to repress thelaw and territorialization, and we can understand this easily. In a very concrete sense, the son as a newborn is schizophrenic. It moves where it wants to move and does what it wants to dowithout knowing its moving or doing. This flow becomes intercepted by the father and mother whereby the flow (the son) will try to repress it in order to do what it already does. When it fails to do this by continual insistence from a paternal-complex to form into a territorialized law, it will develop neuroses. In other words, it will develop fears with what to do with itself, feeling the weight of ambivalence towards it's first flow on one hand, and the law and territorilization on the other. This ambivalence, this indecisiveness will cause neuroses (which can be easily understood simple as fear in not knowing what to do.). The key for D&G though is that the paternal figures don't form neuroses by themselves.

from Brian Adkins'Not Being Pithy ~

_________________
Good reading for demonstraters
 destratifiers,
educators,
and rethinkers.

Because no one is a thinker
every one two is   a rethinker.



________________________