In Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari present the machine of desire as a productive system operating through three simultaneous syntheses: cut extraction (connective synthesis mobilizing libido as energy of extraction), cut detachment (disjunctive synthesis mobilizing numinous as energy of detachment), and cut remainder (conjunctive synthesis mobilizing voluptus as residual energy). The machine is not a metaphor but an operational reality where desire produces production, recording, and consumption simultaneously. The subject emerges as a residual piece beside the machine, not as an operator or interior, but as a remainder that traverses the body without organs without acquiring fixed identity. This framework challenges traditional psychoanalytic models by presenting desire as a machinic process of production rather than a lack-based phenomenon.
Anti-Oedipus - Chapter 1: Machines of Desire - Stream 21
Added:I've got a little red I've got a red light on my screen. What >> life?
>> Oh. Uh, that's why we're in the recording room.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> I mean, it's always recording.
>> It is always recording. Uh, I should have an extra light. That's fair. I should change it up. Have an extra light there.
Uh hello everyone. Welcome to the ongoing reading of Antiopus take four.
Making our way slowly through the last bits of chapter 1.
There's a lot going on here. This is going to be a lot. This is actually going to be a huge amount. Um Oh, [ __ ] I am beaten up. Um, last night I was working my car all night and it didn't go in in end great.
Doesn't matter. I still beat the [ __ ] out of my [ __ ] hand and I have bruises all up and down my arm that are completely swollen in lots of cuts, which is, you know, how you know you were doing some good work as uh the old people used to say.
Um, over the last uh >> did you uh >> h >> did you take the opportunity to psychologically torture Dexter by telling him he's holding the light wrong?
>> Aziz light. Um, no. Uh, I was doing it alone. Dexter didn't come out and bother me. He doesn't have a lot of interest in car work. Plus, he had his Steam Deck.
He was happy inside.
Oh, he missed the canon event of being bullied as a child while his father works on a car.
We'll find out.
We'll find out. Um, all right. Uh in this section we're kind of going through the nature of how uh the cuts of desire come to form and what they do and how they sort of work. Uh because again this is all about the productive processes. This is not that there is a lack. It is the opposite of a lack philosophy and ontology. There is no lack. There is no missing. Everything is produced.
The challenge comes with understanding that that means everything is produced and as such uh productions end up uh having effects on other productions. Uh in the in the real world for example uh you might have uh certain production facilities in different areas as well as the production of the trucks that go between them. These things sort of impact the ability for production to take place where it can in the material realities of it. And of course at the end of that as capital begins to flow and capital has its own interests. You find that capital invests itself in very certain places which actually can leave some industries completely bereft of capital. But it's not necessarily that those things weren't producing. It's just the nature of falling back on how this thing works, how these things come to imply and sort of impinge on each other.
Um, we've just sort of finished uh talking about the second synthesis and the chains, the discovery as they talk about it of the symbolic unconscious that uh that Lan was putting in place, what Lan was building as he was doing that. Um, they've just sort of established that the chains of the second synthesis are not ultimately linguistic yet. U, they are jargony. They are uh uh exclamations without a significant amount behind them. They're they're nonsignifying signs that uh are are are thrown around are are are registered on the body without organs.
The writing that they constitute at this point is transcursive is the word that they use for it. Not discursive uh uh uh for more or less discussion. Transcursive means sort of across all of it. Um things are poly vocal not by ununivocal. The ending of the previous paragraph um um uh as we went through sort of the master signifier and the way desires set up all of that fun stuff. Um they end with this line to produce desire such is the only vocation of the sign in all the senses in which it is machined. The ending is that the sign's only vocation the only work that it actually does is this.
So how more or less right um to do this we need to get into a closer description of the machine itself. the the setup as we sort of make our way through it. And I'm kind of going to prefigure a lot because there is a ton of semiotics in here and I've kind of overindexed with my new video that's coming out this week about yamsvian semiotics. So this is yamsv. This is like all of this is yamsv. All of this is yumslev uh with a lot of klesowski because remember desire invests in this infrastructure. Desire is the infrastructure of the social. How we get to that point is through the production of cuts which produce uh semiotic elements uh non a signifying signs that then become organized and become as we understand them signifying become all of these things. It's at some point this week Anton with any luck. So the setup we're going to be going through is uh more or less a description of all of this. Um if the first part of the machine, the first uh characteristic was cut extraction, the the first that operates directly on the flux on desire on that that moment of shift and change itself uh which is the connective synthesis, right? Um the second characteristic is going to be cut detachment uh uh the cut and detaching right of the entire process. um it's the remainder the the thing left over during the cut because there always is a remainder.
There's always an excess in every step of this. So we're going to be going through the three steps of this and how it functions. First we're going to be defining detachment against extraction.
Um we're going to be talking about the figures of bricks. Uh which is a really useful way to talk about this. And again, Yumslev's sort of version of this. Uh, the brick is the unit of registration as a thing. Um, and then ultimately making our way through sort of a neurological uh, uh, foundation for this all in. It's a lot. Um, so be ready for that. And, uh, as far as I know, uh, off we [ __ ] go.
These chains are ceaselessly the sight of detachments in all directions, everywhere. Skizzes that are valid for themselves, and which must which must above all not be filled in. Such then is the second character of the machine, cut detachments, which are not confused with cuts extractions. The latter bear on continuous flux, refer back to partial objects. The former concern heterogeneous chains and proceed by detachable segments, mobile stocks like blocks or flying bricks. One must conceive each brick emitted at a distance and itself composed of heterogeneous elements, not only enclosing an inscription with signs of different alphabets, but also figures and then one or several straws and perhaps a corpse. The extraction of flux implies the detachment of chain and the partial objects of production suppose the stocks or the bricks of registration in the coexistence and interaction of all the synthesis.
How could there be partial extraction on a flux without fragmentaryary detachment in a code that comes to inform the flux?
If we said just now that the skitso is at the limit of the decoded flux of desire, it had to be understood of the social codes where the despotic signifier crushes all the chains, linearizes them, by univocalizes them and makes use of the bricks as so many immobile elements for an imperial Chinese wall. But always the skitso detaches them, unseals them, carries them off in all directions to recover a new polyosity which is the code of desire. Every composition and also every decomposition is done by mobile bricks.
Dioskeesis and diaspis. Manau said either a lesion extends following fibers that connect it to other regions and provokes at a distance incomprehensible phenomena from a purely mechanistic point of view but not machinic. Or a disorder of the hummeral life entails a diversion of nervous energy and the institution of broken fragmented directions in the sphere of instincts.
The bricks are the essential pieces of machines of desire from the point of view of the procedure of registration.
At once component parts and products of decomposition that are localized spatially only at such or such a moment in relation to the great chronogenous machine that is the nervous system melodic machine of the music box type with nonspatial localization.
What makes the unequaled character of the book by Monaco and Morg that by which it infinitely surpasses all the Jacksonism from which it draws inspiration is the theory of bricks of their detachment their fragmentation.
But it is above all what such a theory suppososes to have introduced desire into neurology.
It's going to be a lot. Um, so do not hesitate to uh type out questions or issues or anything that you're sort of seeing as we go. There's a lot said here. Oh, and Noah, this is very much about also what I wrote you a moment ago.
Uh, we'll get to that. We can talk afterwards, too. That'll be fun. Um, I guess we go sentence by sentence, bit by bit, these chains are ceaselessly the sight of detachments in all directions everywhere. Skizzes that are valid for themselves and which must above all not be filled in.
Come on, stay on there. There we go. Um, okay. There's kind of two things that are happening here at once. First, we're relocating the argument from the previous paragraph and they're moving it a little bit forward sort of in line, right? Because we've been talking about chains as inscription, uh, as signs, as writing on the reel, and that's capital R real. If you remember from the previous, this is very, uh, this is very much that entire thing.
Um, oh, Anton I have no idea what some of these gifts are [ __ ] for. You people are all nuts. Um I mean it is aimed at Lon. This is this is very much that the first thing it's doing is talking about that side of the thing, right? Uh what what happens to the chains? Um and what happens is they become sites of detachments. They break apart everywhere constantly. They're always coming apart. Um huge big deal.
first part. The second thing, and it's a lot, um it's it's like significant for this paragraph, um is that it forbids in advance this interpretation of things that would uh allow the gaps to be deficiencies.
um the skises, the the the cracks, the breaks, the space, the skis that are valid for themselves, which must above all not be filled in.
This is not saying that lack is generated. It is saying that there is uh what you might call a negative space.
It's it's it's an emptiness. It's a nothing that is part of this um that they're sort of driving at. Um, and again, this is right at Lon, uh, when it comes to gaps and dependencies and all that because, uh, the phrase that they're using here is really particular towards how Lon talked about lack very much how he talked about lack. Um, because that's what they're talking about.
They're saying that the ski uh the the the process of the ski is not a hole in some structure or in some object or signifier that uh we are there to plug up or that needs to be plugged up or is a void sucking in everything around it.
Right? Instead, the ski is a positive event with its own standing, its own setup. Um, this is the same argument if we go back and we look at how they talked about the BWO, right? When it comes to the disjunctive, the disjunctive synthesis is inclusive like on its own. So, breaks in chains as we're talking about here don't function as the exclusivity or the exclusion or the elimination of these things, right?
They're not absences that demand being completed. They're absolutely above all not to be filled in. They are inclusive without needing to fill in all of the negative space, right?
Does that make sense? So, they're more like splits, not breaks in half.
Um, they're cuts.
They're cuts and the cuts are themselves productive. Yeah, exactly. Turn. You you say the the cuts are productive. The brakes are productive. The the actual machinery is connection slicing. The slice in the space that's created there is not to be filled, right? It's not to be filled by some, oh, now we've got negative space. We got to fill it. No, it's that break is actually the productive element. It allows uh resonance. I We're going to come to talk about a lot of these things, but allows a lot of [ __ ] to happen without needing to fill it in.
The productive is that thing.
>> They conjugate cut specifically coupare in certain places.
>> And a coupare is also an architectural feature which is sort of like uh part of a flood wall where it's intersected by a passage. And it's like uh it it functions either by being opened or by being closed, allowing or not allowing things through. You know what I mean? Like it it it functions by cutting.
>> It functions in Exactly.
>> by being a cut and by cutting. It both functions.
>> Yeah. The cut is productive.
The cuts are productive. And that's the thing that they're sort of driving at really really particularly. The next sentence kind of hits that. Um, just real quick, values last Tango asks uh by positive do I mean productive? Yes. Um, generally I always mean productive in this particular thing. I mean that it's uh forward. It's a it's forward production. It's not um when we talk about the negative in a lot of these circles, we're not necessarily talking about there being negative space. Like if I draw a circle but inside it's empty. It's negative space. This is not the kind of negative I'm talking about.
That's like again still positive as a negative. Um uh Klasowski again Klesowski nails it when he talks about how um you can say that a circle is empty but that is still not a negation because you're claiming emptiness. You need to produce the awareness of the emptiness.
It is not nothing is a pure negative for Klesowski and for this. It's very much that same sentiment that they're talking about here. Uh versus the Leanian Jacian Hegelian negative that is actually the base of things that there is an emptiness or something missing that must be uh dealt with or filled or that we've we've got to work on. That is not what we're talking about. It's all forward production more or less.
Um and that's the this is the second characteristic of the machine cuts detachments which are not confused with cuts extractions.
Um, so a lot of this is the taxonomy of cuts of Cupra. Uh, uh, the the the cuts into things and, uh, again, a lot of that has to do with Yumv and his semiotic sort of structure, right? Um, these types of cuts map into the three syntheses that are themselves passive. The, uh, prolon uh, is the connective synthesis of production. This is detachment, which is the disjunctive, the detach, the cut detachment. Um, and we're going to get to the conjugate at some point, but for them, cut here is never just simply interruption. That's the thing they're kind of fighting against. Um, and a lot of their language is really trying to stave that off and make that like, no, don't go that direction, right? Um because Hurley even translates it as as simple interruption often that it's just interruption but it's even interruption is a productive cut that creates um in the opening of the book every cut is a machine. Every machine is a cut of flux in relation to the machine that it is connected to. um and yet it itself is flux in relation to the machine connected to it. Uh this is the stacking sort of process. So these cuts are always simultaneously breaks but also continuation.
Right? So the thing that distinguishes all these create these different types of cuts that are in it is not really a degree of severity. It's not like it's a total cut or a partial cut or any of that [ __ ] I used to read this this way.
That is not the thing. Um, and they're very clear about it actually and it's very clear in the French. Uh, it's instead about what register the cuts operate within. Is it on the flux?
That's one cut. Is it within the chain of signification, which is this, or is it within the subject, which is to come later?
That is a big one um that they're sort of driving at. How does the process of cutting and detachment relate to the BWO? Oh, don't worry. We'll get there. We'll get there.
We'll get there. Um, we'll get there.
Actually, we we're getting there in this and then I think the next paragraph, too. So, I'm going to hold that.
Um, we'll get there.
Um, interesting. Brick Griff, did you write that in French or English on YouTube?
Cuz you wrote to CUDAS, but it automatically translated it in YouTube for me, but it I hate I hate YouTube. It's automatically translating now. I hate that so much.
It translated it to [ __ ] English for me. [ __ ] what the [ __ ] Oh, that's frustrating. [ __ ] It doesn't matter. Let's keep going.
The latter cut distractions bear on continuous flux. They refer back to partial objects. Very short, very functional basic thing. Um the the the continuous flux, the the the cuts extraction, right? uh is going to be uh uh they're being very specific here. This applies to flux. It produces or presupposes partial objects. It is not cuts extractions. That's that's the first thing we were sort of talking about, right? Again, this is not about severity of cuts. Um um uh yeah, it's not the severity of cuts.
Again, talking about the taxonomy of it, the taxonomy of the taxonomy of it. Um it's they're being very specific here.
That's all they're basically continuing that point. Does that make sense? Does that make sense?
Um the former which is the custo detachments concern heterogenous chains proceed by detachable segments mobile stocks like flying blocks or flying like blocks or flying bricks. Um extraction in this system does it start at 3:00 or 3:30? It starts at noon PST. So I have no idea. We've been going for half hour.
It's the same every week. I I know I've been late on occasion, but it is the same every week.
Um, apologies, Collie.
Um, when we're talking about extraction, we're not talking about the previous synthesis. This is instead because extraction is something that is uh more or less continuous more or less. Um here is something that is of the heterogenous chains. We're already at something that is not continuous. It's already the result of the previous cuts, the cuts in partial objects that have allowed these bricks to sort of be. That's kind of why they start using this. And again, it's not really metaphorical. They are being more or less literal. It's as close to metaphor as they get, but it's it's up there because it's already heterogeneous. It's already an arrangement of things that are not alike. The former concern heterogenous chains, heterogeneous change, bunch of [ __ ] that is just not the same. You you can't detach from a homogeneous medium.
That's not how it works.
uh uh detach a homogeneous medium is cut. That is the first synthesis. This is detachment. Detachment is how you you detach chains. You pull them apart. You have chains at different places.
Detachable segments, mobile stocks. This is again uh taking marks mobile stocks is not a uh cute phrasing. That is them saying, "Hey, uh do you remember MarkX?
You remember Marks where he's talking about literally mobile stocks um like stock of food or gold or commodities or whatever right that's the thing does that I'm hoping that makes sense because it again detachment is going to presuppose that there's joints that there's articulation that there is some other thing that's happening there in kind between various parts. So you have a bunch of parts and each part is different. It's heterogeneous and it's jointed. It's reconnected and put together, sure, but it's disjointed.
There's there's uh relations between unlike things. So it's a different relation to its own material here than the connective synthesis and its extraction and its cut extraction. Yeah.
The homogeneous is like the slice of ham. we see the same slice being constantly cut. We assume the infinite ham hock in the sky. It only makes sense if you've read the previous um that's a really it's again one of the weirder ones. But for this we've got all of the slices and the slices are different in every single way. Now we've got a bunch of them but here the slice is not to cut and extract. This is to detach from the chain. This is to pull it apart. This is uh uh uh not imposing the break, right?
There are already breaks there. This is finding and mobilizing the breaks or the the minor groupings of things or whatever that is constitutive of the chains unlikeness.
Um if you remember the previous paragraph talked about how there was uh no chain that is homogeneous because again that's what the flux is.
Um this is necessarily uh uh resembling successions of characters from different alphabets.
They talked about this with idoggrams with pictograms the elephant that suddenly appears all of that and the economic charge from marks that they're bringing in the stock as inventory. This is mobile inventory elements, the things held in reserve because registration here accumulates. That's what registration does. It accumulates.
And as it accumulates, you have a lot of mobile stocks. That's right. They they're modular, right? They're able to [ __ ] around. But what they do is the recording surface being a surface of stockpiling.
It's going to be important uh as we get to chapter three, but understand this is where stockpiling sort of comes from and the reserve of things comes from.
Yeah.
Mhm.
The um blocks are flying bricks.
uh bricks vulance um bricks are are very use they use this word a lot they're going to talk about a thing a lot but if we want to talk about it from Marx's perspective where again that's also from yums bricks are a thing that can be stacked super easily right that bricks are incredibly modular and I've already used that that's that's what we're talking about here these are bricks that can be placed based in lots of different ways assembled against each other. They can build a huge wall because a brick is what a wall is made of. Um a flying brick would be what a wall is being unmade to.
There's there's process constantly going going going always always always.
So they say one must conceive each brick emitted at a distance itself composed of heterogeneous elements not only enclosing an inscription with signs of different alphabets but also figures then one or several straws and perhaps a corpse.
I love it. Um a brick is not just the simple comm purely commoditized element, right? It's not just uh the equally identical every brick is the same, right? That's not the setup that's happening here. The brick is a heterogeneous composite itself.
Each brick is composed of heterogeneous elements. This is actually true of of actual bricks um to to some point.
They're they're just made of a bunch of different [ __ ] You just pour a bunch of stuff in and out comes a brick kind of more or less. So when we have a unit of detachment from the chain that is a brick, it's already an arrangement of things. It's already itself heterogynous. There's no atom of registration. There's no minimal sign that is inscribed here. Every level at this synthesis, every level of this is reproducing heterogenity.
Heter heterogenity, that's a word. Um, it's it's reproducing everything as heterogeneous. It's this is as like antistructuralist as you can get genuinely. Like this is like super antistructuralism.
Um it's a good line too but it's like because it linguistics generally speaking needs like Levi Strauss for example or Lon um Levi Strauss had the myth right uh the phone is pretty common in a lot of linguistic circles and all of that they're saying no there's no base that's that's that's just it. This is there's no base.
So if there's no like thing at the bottom because again the the thing that at the bottom the closest we get is that there is the homogeneity of the chaos of partial objects that is the the flows of desire that are cut the machine that cuts cuts into bricks. The bricks placed and and then disassembled as well. This process constantly happening. The contents of the brick are um not only enclosing an inscription with signs of different alphabets, but also figures and then one or several straws and perhaps a corpse. Um they're making a really huge thing. It's a fascinating line. Um an inscription of all of these things is like a compressed history of inscription.
They're like this chapter three. This is chapter three. For those of you who've been down this row before just you should be recognizing chapter three really hard here. Like like super super hard here cuz it's a different elephant also figures then one or several straw and then perhaps a corpse. The uh the compressed history sort of stamped into it. Right? So like uh the Mesopotamians, right? uh the stamped uh uh name being put on it for the royals for example like these things being added the the pictographic the figures uh they don't mean figures like people they mean figures like idoggrams for example that's why it's as I read it that's what uh they're talking about figura um uh figura this is more or less again yumsv sort of playing through here um but it these things become absorb absorbed and then brick makers because straw home like straw as a thing is the material of like mud brick and and then is the lay this is the story of brick making right like it's it's it's just layers on layers they're sort of running through all of this I I just I dig I dig the language it's really great um and perhaps a corpse once upon a time they would literally her bodies into the there's not not a good day for a lot of people but the foundation sacrifice they would add a corpse to it. It's big deal.
Um again the layers the setup what they're talking about all these things of of time are within them and sort of built into them and into the process of their production. So each brick is itself like a recording surface, but it's also a product of actual labor and it's also a tomb.
That's how I read this.
Okay. Um because that's chapter 3 uh gets us to inscription, the extraction of labor, and the marking of bodies.
That's what that's what they're they're lining up here really early.
Um yeah, the extraction of flux implies the detachment of chain and the partial objects of production suppose the stocks or the bricks of registration in the coexistence and interaction of all the synthesis.
a mistake a lot of people make and it's a fine mistake. It's okay. It's okay if you made it. I've made it. This is not three steps, okay? Uh these are not three stages of a thing.
This is extremely happening almost all at once. And this is them making that there's a presupposition mutually between each of these stages. You can't have extraction after all without detachment. So it's not it's sta it's not stage one and then we do stage two. If there's no stage two, there's no stage one. If there's no stage one, there's no stage two. They come at once. So the problem we end up having is like how do we talk through this? because it's the the coexistence and interaction of all the synthesis.
They're all happening at once. This is not a developmental sequence. Figure out the first, then the second, then the third, right? This is directly contradicting that reading, which is very common and [ __ ] super wrong.
Super wrong. Um, in fact, doing so and talking about them as three separate stages is literally in chapter 2 as one of the parallelisms.
Just mentioning like literally they name it outright as that. But this is them saying these things come at once. That's the point.
The extractional flux implies the detachment of chain. The partial objects of production suppose the stocks of the bricks of registration in the coexistence and interaction of all the synthesis.
So they continue, how could there be partial extraction on a flux without fragmentaryary detachment in a code that comes to inform the flux.
Um they're going to be answering this is obviously a rhetorical question of all of that. Um extraction here happens um s a flux on it s uh uh uh from a position of contact with the surface of the flow of the flux that's that's where it happens. So if that's the case and detachment happens inside a code, right?
Uh uh don don don ds dons a dawn a code.
The difference in preparation is the difference between the two syntheses being stated very particularly and spatially.
Production works on flows from alongside but registration works within the code.
Okay, we'll get to like how this works and how they go. But how can there be partial extraction on a flux? And they're very particular about the wording here without fragmentaryary detachment in a code that comes to inform the flux.
Um, and inform is really uh interesting here. This is uh it's literally that in French infomer. It's uh like um to inform.
It doesn't mean to like tell someone a thing. That's not the point. It inform they mean it like the Aristotellian way, right? This is giving form to inform a flux. Um I might it's tough to say how I would translate this otherwise because in English inform like it gives information to I've informed you that this is coming. But that's not it's a code that comes to inform the flux, right? And the twist here is really interesting because the hyomorphism, the idea of like giving form as a thing imposed outside on inert matter. But the code comes to inform the flux which is interesting. It marks the informing here as like an arrival, an event that is sort of contravening or supervening.
The weird the wording is uh interesting for that. Uh this is like Simandon's critique of that because it they're talking about fragmentaryary detachment in the code comes to inform the FL. It it it seems to come to inform the FL. This is how it feel. This is thing. It's fascinating.
And it's how does this work?
That's what they're kind of getting at.
I'm so lost. Are we talking about three?
We're talking about the second synthesis, the cuts of the second uh which are the detachment.
This is the detachment part of the second synthesis. The first synthesis is cut. The cut is made by a machine of desire that becomes then the source of desire for another cut that follows. It is a continuous binary process in all directions in all ways. Boom boom boom.
Uh those cuts have extraction. The cut that is made itself is the material more or less that ends up building into chains of of meaning or whatever that then get pulled apart. those links get pulled apart as bricks and uh come to fill the body without organs or or cover or or inflame or infill. And we'll get kind of to that, but that's what they're talking about right now. This is the setup, right? This is the setup.
So they say, if we said just now that the skitso is at the limit of the decoded flux of desire, it had to be understood of the social codes where a despotic signifier crushes all the chains, linearizes them, by univocalizes them, makes use of the bricks as so many immobile elements for an imperial Chinese wall.
Okay.
language here is very God, it's a lot.
Okay, the despotic signifier here is going to be built out a lot down the road. the despotic signifier uh we could also call the master signifier uh in Lanian terms if you know the basic thing um and they're sort of stating here and it's again Lanian sort of setup they're clarifying the they're they're clarifying kind of what decoded flux is if we said just now the schizo was that the limit of decoded flux of desire had to be understood from social codes where the despotic signifier crushes chains. They're being very specific here. The skitso doesn't escape coding.
Uh and they'll get to this a lot. Again, don't valorize um don't valorize the skitso or the schizophrenic. Um don't just don't do that. Um, the code of desire is what the skitso recovers.
And they'll continue to sort of state this, right? Uh, the what the skitso does with it is the next sentence. Uh, but always the skitso detaches them, unseals them, carries them off in all directions. This is the thing. The skitso is at the limit of what it's at the limit of is particular historical regimes where the despotic signifier has crushed chains and crushed them flat with its master signification. Um the in Lan's sort of structuralism and they're kind of marrying it to a historical thing. They're combining Lan's linguistics with like I don't know social anthropology.
Um but the specific things that the master signifier, the despotic signifier does is uh they flatten them from the angle of the poly vocal. Uh which you know there's a there's a multitude of meanings and things. No, there's onetoone correspondence. Crush it. Crush it. Crush it. Crush it. Um this is what the master signifier does. The skitso is at the limit of it only when you're able to understand that it's in a position where the despotic signifier is crushing linearizing and all of this. That's what the skitso sort of exists to do or or plays with more or less.
Does that make sense? I hope it makes some sense.
Does the skitso seek the trace of the code within the decoded? Um, no. that would that gives a lot more awareness um of what the skitso is doing to the skitso than that. Um again it is about how all of these machines sort of interplay because you can only understand the kids. So doing this at it has to be understood the social codes where the despotic signifier crushes all the chains linearizes them by univocalizes and makes use of the bricks as so many the despotic signifier is utilizing the bricks to make a hyperdeterminist wall of meaning that are flattened and placed in place and building up. The skitso is not the reaction to this, but the skits the ski as process is the breakdown of these things is the decoding because you're talking about detaching the bricks, unsealing them and their multiplicities that are within carrying them off in directions to recover polivosity and that is the code of desire. The skitso is in pursuit of the code of desire, but it isn't aware of it in that way. The ski doesn't like try isn't like aware or trying. It's not aware of any of this [ __ ] >> I heard someone wanting to jump in.
>> All right.
Is that you, Woody? Woo.
Uh, do mute up. It might have been you.
Um, yeah, that's probably how I'd phrase it.
I'm not meaning it as a scholar being aware of seeking a trace of COA unconsciously inclined. Um, I'm still hesitant to say that there's that directionality that the the thing that they exist at the very specific thing. And we'll we'll talk about this.
You know what? Let me do the next sentence and then we'll come back and make sure because I think the next sentence also touches this uh in the same way so I can have it all at once.
But always this gets so detaches them the bricks unseals them carries them off in all directions to recover new palosity which is the code of desire. Um again the three steps of the the skitso the crushing the linearizing and the bionocalizing.
Here the skids uh is working in opposition to these things directly. It is detachment against the crushing. It is unsealing against linearizing. Is carrying off against by univocalizing carrying off. It's not onetoone correspondence or transfer or translation. It's it's a multitude. Um the the wording that they use here um uh the detaching, there's not a great word for it in English. Uh uh dissellar, it's uh it's like the words you would use if you were a brick layer. It's like prying something out of the mortar and breaking it down. It's it's breaking a seal. Um, the Skiis the Skiis does this. This is the thing. It's the thing it's driving at. It's dismantling the wall, breaking open the sealed inscriptions, right? Um, I debated delaminated, but it doesn't really read very well at all. Um, and people don't really know what delamination is anyway. So, >> and and Brooks, if if I can add here, I think that your analysis is really good.
Um, and if I could add that, I think it this is just largely drawing from Lon symbolic order because for Lan, when you look at signs, he views them as defined exclusively. Like a dog is not a cat, it's not a mat, it's not discord, it's not Brooks.
>> But then the the beauty of Lan is that Lan also recognizes the fluidity of language too. So he has to introduce mobilization into the signifying chain and he does that through a despotic signifier. And in that in the case of a despotic signifier, we have a signifier without a signified. So as that's shifting through a symbolic chain, all of these terms are changing meaning.
So they're they're praising Lon here for two things. The mobility first of all, and the second part being that the fact that there exists this chain that operates as a code. The brilliance of their critique of linguistic structuralism here of Lon is that they're saying what if it's not only one chain, but what if we incorporate other things outside of a classic linguistic structuralism like pictograms uh machines and other types of things and rather than defining them by by univocally such as a dog's not a cat or not this, we instead define machines by their capacities. ities, what they can do rather than what they um what they are.
>> Yeah. And I' I'd go one step more because I think um they're again because these aren't really meant to be multiple steps in a process. They went and they they looked at and again this is why Yumsv is super important here. Um Yumsv's entire linguistics and semiodics is founded on figura. And the idea of figure is simple. They're all the parts of things, the syntactical elements or the experience of things that have themselves no meaning. They're the pieces of like right now on the computer monitor you're that you're looking that all of those things are meaningless in and of themselves. Each single pixel, each single part of a letter or if you're hearing me, it's every single moment vibration only exists in meaning in relation to others. But every single one is a figure. it has nothing itself.
And so they're saying all of these pieces this is the the first thing connective and then we have these bricks where we've taken that and said no this is the thing to what you're saying uh Noah that the cat means this it's by univocalized because the master signification and they're saying if you if you actually chase it back what if there is no meaning at the beginning and that's actually fine and the meaning is actually generated in the speaking of the word in the cut in the resonance that's actually enabled there And this is what the ski does. The schizophrenic like helps to build because the phrase they use and I really love it um uh carries them off in all directions to recover uh a new polyosity which is the code of desire. The to recover a new possib polyosity um retro uh literally means to find again. Hurl removes this. uh Hurley says this is to create a new polyocity. No, it is to recover this because this is actually the semiotics of desire that is at the base here. The base structure of this is that desire has a code. Like that's the thing that is is is is important. The code of desire, right?
And like and that's why in this synthesis take the mouth machine. The mouth connects to a breast to a breast disconnects and connects to a thumb disconnects and connects to a doororknob or whatever. And the mouth machine is defined by the capacities and that's all inclusive here. Whereas for for Lan, he's saying, "No, we're not defining the mouth by the inscription, by the code that it carries. We're instead defining it by what it is not." And then that still assumes a kind of universal understanding of of what it is in the first place. And I love what you said about how like the meaning of it, its genesis is how it is inscribed inside of a poly vocal chain. Um, or something along those lines. I forget the wording exactly, but yeah, I I think that that was pretty clean. Well, and it's the the reason they go through the process and we talk about them as these are the to use Kant's language which is what they're doing. These syntheses are syllogisms. This is the proper to say proper is kind of a weird idealistic term for this but this is like the way that desire functions.
Desire has a co there's a code of desire and that code is poly vocal fundamentally poly vocal. The master signifier, the the despotic signifier that flattens and codes and bionocalizes, crushes that. The schizophrenic as clinical entity is a person. But the ski is the moment where the bionavocal word is being broken apart or the the jargon is being destroyed so it can become poly vocal.
Again, that push is the healthy push.
The problem is of course that it's in a world where that is not the healthy thing to do. So as such a person that ends up going down that road and doing this over and over and over and over the case of the skitso as they talk about it um that process is one that produces a person who is broken and healthy because the process was forced to end prematurely. It wasn't allowed to continue. It wasn't the process is again not there's no process that makes a person. Every person is a multitude of processes an extraordinary number. the code of desire is the one that's poly vocal and that's what's being recovered and it's really important when you sort of have these uh setups as we talk about them because the the resolution of hurlies which is to create a new polyosity as if desire doesn't have one is the land accelerationist problem it's an appropriation of the original work fundamentally again this is one of the reasons I blame for uh for land and I think a lot of this translation is actually responsible for some of the worst readings of Doo that exist on the planet is because of [ __ ] like this. Uh it's about recovery. It's unsealing the bricks. It is not manufacturing them, right? The the chains are crushed.
They're not destroyed. Recovering doesn't mean just getting to like something closer. It doesn't mean building new. It is the actual process of getting to desires process itself and it's a really really particular thing but it's you know [ __ ] the translation genuinely unbelievable here really frustrating really frustrating every composition and also every decomposition is done by mobile bricks general principle stated plain um and there is symmetry in this that's really basic and easy and I like when they do this it makes it simple right uh composition and decomposition use the same units and the same operation that's it that's it's the same operation.
I mean that's like that's it. There's no privilege direction of composition or decomposition.
There's no privilege there of one versus the other. One is not better than the other. One is not worse than the other.
That's not the thing. We're going to be getting into some really complex neurology here and this is kind of prefiguring a little bit of that uh because we're going to be talking about disorders um from manau. We'll get to kind of all of that. It's going to be a lot. But this is like this is straight up like the Spinosist ethics, right? Um I don't know how else to like Spinosa talks about u uh physical digression that bodies themselves uh become individuated by ratios of motion and rest. What we call death is decomposition of that ratio. It's not a destruction of parts.
This is that same sort of statement, right? The parts pass into other ratios.
They they things change and they shift and the ratios change. That is what death is. Death is not the addition of death and death is not the elimination of life. It's instead ratios and how they play. Um Deloo really attaches to this in his books on Spinosa. But this is that statement sort of really played out really hard.
Okay. Um Monaco is this is going to be a lot. And I don't care if I'm pronouncing it right. I'm probably not pronouncing it right. This is going to be a lot.
I'm going to try my best to explain a handful of these things. Okay.
Um, I have my notes here. If I get any of this wrong, I am not a neurologist nor am I a doctor. So, don't dishes and dispasses. Manau said either a lesion extends following fibers that connect it to other regions and provokes at a distance incomprehensible phenomena from a purely mechanistic point of view but not machinic or a disorder of the hummeral life entails a diversion of nervous energy and the institution of broken fragmented directions in the sphere of instincts.
Okay.
Manical was a Swiss neurologist.
Um Manacow and uh Morg um are like together like the package that people tend to talk about as this thing. They wrote a huge thing and they became a huge deal in Paris in the 19 late 1920s early 1930s.
The idea was that uh through material observation and medical observation, this is early, this is early medicine again, just remember that early 19th century [ __ ] But what you would notice is that if you had this focal lesion, uh what it would do is it would produce functional depression in anatomically distant but connected regions. I'm just reading words from the book. So what it means is that the deficit you observe cannot be read off the location of the damage.
Yeah. Um versus diaspis uh which is a a hummeral thing and humors are uh I don't know various parts of the body liquids of the body. It's a whole [ __ ] weird language thing there. Um but the idea would be that it's instead for that one uh a disturbance that propagates through the fluid and metabolic economy rather than along the fibers of the body.
Discus dpacasis a lesion extends following fibers that connect it to the regions that promotes distance incomprehensible phenomena.
like you're sick here over the fibers of your body, uh, nerves, muscles, whatever. It's actually [ __ ] you up here versus uh, hummeral life that is nervous energy with broken fragmented directions in the sphere of instincts.
This is their language. But the reason doesn't even matter. Like, they're not you're not going to get a medical degree by reading these guys. Let me just say that upfront. This is not this is not the best medical [ __ ] you'll ever read.
But there is like empirical grounding in this and they want to use that. Dioskis specifically is a neurological argument against this idea of um the local uh the idea that the nervous system is a machine where certain parts do certain things at certain addresses. We have this image today. You have this image when you take a look at uh how people talk about uh grow a spine, what your brain stem does, what your brain does, where is you, you're in your head, but it's not that's not how it works. That there are the idea is the different parts of the nervous system are there for very particular and local and fixed things, right? Uh so with that effects should appear where the lesions appear because the lesions in this one area of the brain that means that it's going to do X. But that's not really how it works. Effects will appear where there's no lesion. This is what the book kind of goes into. This is it's a long weird way to get around to boy that's it's like Dr. House. Wow. The lesion there's no lesion. We should well we'd think there would be there because that's where that should be affecting it because this is this mechanistic view of things. It's not machinic. It's not machinic but it's a purely mechanistic view, right? A machine part broke. That's where that it's broken. That's where we should see the breakdown. But we're seeing breakdown in other parts of these things because mechanism as a thing, the idea of it, the the world view of it requires this contiguous unbroken transmission and fixed functions. From a machinic point of view, but not machinic, that's the from a machinic point of view, which is a completely different thing. This is exactly what you'd expect fully because the machinic is defined by connections that are cut and these are cut across heterogeneous registers where there is no governing plan.
The mechanism machinism and it's a onelet [ __ ] difference.
Two letters, two letters, two letter difference. Mechanism versus machinism.
Okay. It's going to be the opposition that they're really trying to play out the whole book. It's machinic, not mechanical. Okay?
And this is like the clinical version of this.
That's dioskeesis. Diaspis is important for a different reason.
If you think this is tough, by the way, chapter 2 is going to be a [ __ ] nightmare. Like chapter 2 is like every other [ __ ] page has [ __ ] like this where it's like let's go look into some [ __ ] debunked garbage from some weirdos. Um that like no one will ever use and it's not knowledge I'll ever need. But they make a point. It's like h where why and then you have to look into it's like oh they're making this very very belabored point to a very unique because this stuff man was like really big in clinical circles at the time.
How do you reduce quality? there's a on YouTube uh or here. Um you should be able to click on options and change stream quality.
Uh I would say watch it on YouTube. You can close it here and watch it on YouTube, too.
But if I click it seems to work pretty well.
Um, it's a God dpacis. Diaspis diaspacis diaspacasis.
Um, talks about the humoral.
Um, your humors are the fluid economy of your body. Like again, it's a very outdated way to talk about this, but we have to, so it doesn't matter. Um, the body's fluid economy has broken fragmented directions in the sphere of instincts.
This is a materialist attempt to account how like our instinctual dribbed pushed life is fragmented without a recourse directly to representation because the humoral life entails a diversion of nervous energy and the institution of broken fragmented directions. Um they're kind of talking about sort of this psychiatric lineage that was never psychoanalytic. It's whatever doesn't matter. Short version they're endorsing this idea that there is empirically biological mechanisms of fragmentation that are not localizable in the way that we tended to think of things at the time. Again, right now that is not the case. This is not how people work now.
people are very much in the good versions of this that are around. They don't have these same views. So again, this is, hey, you want to learn something, you have to unlearn. Yay.
It's about it's it's playing with old BS that we don't really know. We don't need to know. You don't need to know. Doesn't matter because that's not the point of it. They're just using these like empirical medical things that are very popular at the time to make their point.
This is very similar to what they were doing with like Judge Shreber or the Wolfman or Freud's or anyone else's other car things. It isn't that that is like a perfect example of a thing. It's that it's a perfect example to use and that they're able to then continue to make their point through it. and mechanistic versus machinic is the point more or less. Yes, the bricks are the essential pieces of machines of desire from the point of view of the procedure of registration.
At once, component parts and products of decomposition that are localized spatially only at such or such a moment in relation to the great chronogenous machine that is the nervous system, melodic machine of the music box type with nonspatial localization.
So bricks are simultaneously what things are made of and what things break into.
They're both of those at once.
They're both of those at once. We'll get to it. Collie. Um they're they're I mean that's it.
They're both of it at once and they're going to say it over and over and over like they've been saying it over and over and over. Um, the important term I think for me, and it's the one you might notice is a weird word that I added in here, the chronogenous machine. Um, chronogene is a time generating machine.
Chronogenous um doesn't mean with time. It's the the time generation machine. Coronagene um the nervous system and that's brain and everything. I don't just mean your nerves like the nervous system at large your sensory apparatus or experiential apparatus whatever doesn't really occupy space. It doesn't really unfold in time.
They're talking about the mind and the nervous system as actually generating time.
And these local spatial things are momentary and derivative determinations within that generation.
Okay, this Bergson, this is matter in memory. This is matter in memory. This is matter in memory. Go read Bergson. U in it, Bergson basically argues that memory is not stored anywhere in the brain. don't have like it's not like you have a file here or a filing cabinet here or whatever. That's not how it works, right? Um and he uses these lesion studies. It's why they go with it because he's like, "Hey, if the lesion studies where people have lesions on their brain, they show that the brain interrupts and selects. It doesn't actually conserve." So the error for him of psychology is to spatialize duration or duray. Um they use the example of the music box which is yes and another berg bergie thing right. Um a music box produces a melody. The melody is the image of multiplicity whose parts interpenetrate and cannot be laid out side by side. That's what a music box is. There's nonspatial localization inside of it. That's the deal it's doing. Um, deluj used this example I think in Bergsonism too. Um, I think he also used manau there. This comes a lot of this comes from Bergson.
So in short, registration is temporal, not really spatial. Temporal way before it is spatial. And it's generating time.
It's generating time.
Right. Um, and this is why the second synthesis produces a a surface, a plane.
They will come to call this the plane of consistency for a reason because it's not a place. This is the BW is not a place. It is a surface. It is a a plane, right? And the BWO like is a surface of inscription, but it is not an anatomical body.
One second. Hello.
>> Good luck with it. Is text going too?
>> Oh, nice.
>> Oh, cool.
>> Cool. Cool. Um, do you need me to jump it or >> try it?
>> Good luck.
>> Good luck.
>> Yes, it's on and waiting.
>> And Heather's got to take the Jeep, get the kids. I don't have the new plugs, so she's taking the jumper. What a [ __ ] nightmare, man. Cars. And I'm like lucky when it comes to cars. Like that thing is that Jeep is withtood everything. And the market right now is just no fun for that.
Um, what the [ __ ] Where was I?
Yeah, registration is temporal before it is spatial. That's it.
What makes the unequaled character of the book by Monaco and Marg that it by which it infinitely surpasses all the Jacksonism from which it draws inspiration is the theory of bricks of their detachment and their fragmentation but is above all what such a theory supposes to have introduced desire into neur neurology.
That's that's it. There's uh um Jackson was a guy who in like the 1800s introduced this idea of a hierarchy of your nervous system, right? Um and it it really had to do with and I I was taught this in elementary school. Um it had to do with evolution growing. So uh you know you have your mammal brain, your lizard brain, your insect brain, like that stupid [ __ ] If you're human, then you're in this hierarchy of it.
That's Jacksonism. And it was dominant for a long time. Still dominant amongst uh everyone because we're [ __ ] That's what Jacksonism is. Uh John Jackson uh was the guy who did that. So like you're Oh, that's your lizard brain coming out.
It's like you have a hierarchy of it due to like evolution, which is stupid. Like if you know anything about these things, it's just the just stupid and it's just like building dumb [ __ ] in. Monaco and Morg were in opposition to that framework and they basically did these studies to show that they're very complicated and their results aren't again in line with what we understand today. But they are absolutely dismantling Jacksonism.
That's that's 100% why they're in here.
And the big deal is and they were just like they talked about with Lon. Lon found a way to marry uh uh desire into linguistics. Uh Doo credits Klasowski with putting desire in the infrastructure of capital. Here we are with them saying, "Oh, look, you've introduced desire into neurology." There you go. That's it. Having introduced desire into neurology is the accomplishment.
Like that's the thing. It's it's it's the dissolving of the biological into the social. They want a neurology to exist, but it's a neurology that includes desire. It's not a critique that evacuates neurology.
Again, u their anti-csychiatry is not about it's a desire being introduced to psychiatry. It's not the dissolving of psychiatry, right? Does that make sense?
I hope that makes sense.
I hope that makes sense.
Yeah, by that logic I have a fisheye loss. No, no, actually uh if you should read Susan Oyama's evolution's eye because there are people who talked about this and actually said [ __ ] like that very much unironically.
Um, and again, uh, I was taught this, like it, we want to laugh about a little bit of this. This is 100% what is taught was taught in American schools, at least prior to 2000, and I'm guessing it's worse now.
Um, does this work with the chronogenic definition of nerves? I'm sorry. Could the definition of time, God damn it, Arachnne, with your difficult questions.
Could the definition of time is the change differentiation of structure be applied in this view?
No. No. Uh this is the the generation of time happens in this. The time is actually generated. This is not the observing of time. This is the actual creation of time happens here for all of us. This is the place that it happens. So it's a generation of of it.
That's I would I would probably say that.
And I think the next one actually closes section five out. Creation of time happens internally. I mean define internal. Internal to what? Uh right now we're talking about it happening as part of uh I mean it's internal to the Yeah. Um, chronogenic.
The bricks are the essential pieces of machines of desire from the point of view of the procedure of registration.
At once, component parts and production products of decomposition that are localized spatially only at such and such a moment. They're only localized spatially at this moment or that moment.
That the it's contingent and it happens in that moment. at once component parts and products of decomposition in relation to the great chronogenous machine that is the nervous system. The nervous system here non nonspatially localized generates time.
So the definition of time is marked by structural changes subsequent production. Yes, as I understand it here, but again, ask me again in a week because uh you're this is the fun you want. That's a question that feels like it should have been asked immediately, but again in English, we've never actually had this conversation. So, what can I say?
So, Anton, we actually don't We actually don't. That's again fun stuff. All of us are taught really weird [ __ ] here.
But let's uh I want to finish section five. Perfect.
Nice and slow and small.
Okay.
So we have spent time talking about the first and second characteristics of the machine right of desiring machines cut extraction that operates on flux and cut detachment that operates on chains. And this at the end here is again talking about desire being put into neurology, the generation of time, all of that stuff, right?
like all of that fun stuff. Right now, we have the third cut. Okay.
Uh and it's going to lead into the next chapter, which I'm not reading the next chapter. Enjoy the cliffhanger feeling that this has because there's no way to not have that at the end of this. The third cut is the third synthesis.
Obviously, that's what we've been doing here. Unlike synthesis one and two or unlike the first two cuts, this one isn't about the production of an object. It is not about the production of a stock or registration of that stock. This is where the subject is produced and it is produced as leftover like leftover um and a lot is going to be said here and then reconsolidated. You're going to get some direct LON [ __ ] in here um where they fully reject castration as a model.
There's going to be a lot of different metaphors and things to play with.
Um, and I just have because I thought I went through and corrected these. That's okay.
That's fine.
Both of these are not full body. Full body is not in this paragraph.
We're not there yet.
We're not there yet. So, just ignore that I just did that and that I'm stupid sometimes. It happens.
I should have gotten both of them. Did it get both of them? No.
No.
[ __ ] I knew it.
I knew it. I knew it. I knew it.
And it [ __ ] up again, didn't it? Yes, it did.
That's okay.
All right, that's okay. I'll go back and refix it later.
Off we read. Is everyone ready?
The third cut of the machine of desire is the residual cut or residue which produces a subject beside the machine, a piece adjacent to the machine. And if this subject has no specific or personal identity, if it traverses the body without organs, without breaking its indifference, it is because it is not only a part beside the machine, but a part itself shared to which their return parts corresponding to the detachments of chain to the extractions of flux operated by the machine. Thus it consumes the states through which it passes and is born from these states always concluded from these states as part made of as a part made of parts each of which fills at a moment the body without organs which permits Lan to develop a machinic game more than etmological prayer to procure separ to separate say pre to engender oneself the French term leanian [ __ ] by marking the intensive character of such a name. The part has nothing to do with the whole.
It plays its part alone. Here it is from its partition that the subject proceeds to its its partition which is why the subject can procure for itself what here concerns it. This is all the con's text. Um nothing in the life of anyone unleashes more persistence in arriving there. To be parse, it would readily sacrifice a great part of its interests. End quote.
No more than the other cuts. The subjective cut designates a lack, but on the contrary, a part that returns to the subject as share, a revenue that returns to the subject as remainder. There again, how much the ediple model of castration is a bad model. It is the cuts are not the it is that the cuts are not the fact of an analysis. They are themselves synthesis. It is the synthesis that produced the divisions that one consider the example of the return of milk in the child's belch. It is at once restitution of extraction on the associative flux, reproduction of detachment on the signifying chain, residue that returns to the subject for its own share. The machine of desire is not a metaphor. It is what cuts and is cut according to these three modes. The first mode refers to connective synthesis and mobilizes libido as the energy of extraction. The second to disjunctive synthesis and mobilizes Newman as the energy of detachment. The third to conjunctive synthesis and voluuptus as residual energy. It is under these three aspects that the process of desire and production is simultaneously production of production, production of recording, production of consumption.
to extract, to detach, to remain. It is to produce and it is the it is to effectuate the real operations of desire.
One of the things that's really tough about this, and I'm very open to ideas on how to handle, um, the French plays with very specific words here, part and parti. We'll get to exactly what the difference is, but um, uh, it's it's a lot. It's a lot. It's a lot.
The third cut of the machine of desire is the residual cut or residue which produces a subject beside the machine a piece adjacent to the machine. All right, we started with cut extraction went to cut detachment. Now cut remainder cut residue residue cut residual cut. Right?
This is the connective disjunctive and conjunctive.
The three of them sort of laid out.
Okay.
This is the thing they're sort of driving at. The subject is not the machine's operator.
You're not driving. Okay? That's not it.
then it's not what you do. Uh you're also not its interior.
Um you're also not looking at it from the outside. You're not the point from which all of this is surveyed.
You are a spare part that is lying next to all the rest of it.
Um this is anti-phenomenological.
This is anti-cartisian. This is you name a thing. This is one of the more radical positions of the thing like just genuinely um consciousness is not a unity of synthetic elements that gathers the operations of the machine together.
The subject consciousness you as you experience things is what falls out of all of this.
So peace is interesting.
Um a piece adjacent to the machine. Uh specifically it's really about it being like a spare part a a part spare like right. Um it's a it's a very particular distinction. Um and they kind of announce in this first line the problem that they're going to be for me. I'm one, it's why I want to talk about this because as we go and as I went, it's already something that you sort of get [ __ ] with. Um, Hurley translates all of this as part adjacent to the machine, but it's not.
It really isn't. It really isn't. Um, the subject is a piece piece. A piece adjacent.
It is not a share or a part of the machine, right? It's uh the closest and again it's maybe Hurley's right, but it's again there's an intonation quality to it. Um if you were to see a bunch of uh Legos and you have a piece next to it, oh that's a part of that set. That's not what it means here. It's a part as if uh something kicked off to the side and was left. It's a piece.
It's a detached piece. It's a broken piece, not a piece that fits or is part of it. Peace is the right way to go about this. It's going to be a lot as we go through, but that is a very particular usage here, right? Um, and it's a big big shift. Um because again just to [ __ ] on Hurley for a moment, Hurley translates this opening sentence as the third type of interruption or break characteristic of the desire machine is the residual break or residuum.
Good [ __ ] god.
I I like can't even mentally handle that. It's uh it's a four-word thing. He he makes 11 words and it's really problematic.
And actually it should be I probably should change residual cut to cut remainder or because cut residual um like the uh hoopra uh resta u the the the the slice or the cut of the residual. It probably is better. I I probably should do it because I've been reading the other page so much now. Um, yeah, I think that's probably the best bet. Cut residual.
Yeah, cut residual or resta resta is also a remainder.
I'm going to leave it for now.
Stuff left on the knife after cutting.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. I mean, you're you're joking, but you're not joking. Yes.
And it's every cut. Yes. That's it's a the remainder.
Like the way carrots stick to the blade.
Like the way the residue of the carrot sticks to the blade.
Like the way that if you use a a knife that's uh you know fresh and cleaned and you cut butter, it leaves oil on it, but it doesn't like leave butter on it. Not really. It's leaves it oily.
Leaves it oily. There's a residue of the thing having happened. It's not fully that you cut and like a slice of the carrot comes with. No, not that.
It's the residue. Residue. the remainder that's not part of that as a thing.
This actually will explain it, but it's going to be a lot and I'm apologizing in advance for a lot of rambles here.
And if this subject has no specific or personal identity, if it traverses the body without organs, without breaking its indifference, forgive the [ __ ] up coding, it is because it is not only a part beside the machine, but a part itself shared to which their return parts corresponding to the detachments of chain into the extractions of flux operated by the machine.
So the the subject has this peculiar mode of existing. Okay. Um, and it exists from the like derivation of these two prior cuts that have happened, right?
But why is there no fixed identity?
Well, that's because it's not just purely a simple leftover that like like having a a Lego piece or a slice of carrot when you're cutting into it.
That's not it. It's uh it is instead a leftover itself is a thing that is divided up but the divisions it receives are the residue of that chain detachment of the flex extractions that are being performed by the machines. The actions of the machine the cuts at the various registers have that extra little bit of of residue left over. So this internal fragmentation we experience which is pathological like we're we're it's it's in us right but it's not pathological.
It's not psychological.
It is the consequence of a machine that has other types of cuts.
There's these other cuts that happen and the machine's doing them on different registers and the machine also does us.
It's not that we are pathologically internally inconsistent. It's that we're mechanically internally consistent which is very different. It's different cuts.
It's it's it's not personal logical, right?
It is not a single strange subject, right? as a thing.
Uh instead it's like very particular not the share it takes of the product. It is the detachment afterwards.
If there is no specific and personal identity, if it traverses the body without breaking its indifference, the BWO is uh is in is an indifferent thing like the the subject and they talk about this and they will use this language a lot. It's why they're saying this here like the BWO is this surface of the of of anti-production. It is unproductive.
It is intensity zero, right? And the subject can move across it without disturbing that indifference. It's because the subject is itself not a distinct organization that is laid over all of this. It is a residue of operations occurring on the BWO of resonances between things and elements and the production of it there.
Right?
Right? Does that make sense? Like the indifference is the BWO's refusal to distribute and organize. It's it's it's anti-organizational as a thing. A subject that broke that would be an organism.
So it's able to cross this because of that. It is because it is not only a part beside the machine but a part itself shared to which the return parts corresponding to the detachments of chain and to the extractions of flux.
This all of this comes back to us. This is a this is niche. This is nichza. This is na. This subject passes through states without acquiring identity. Right?
That's join us Thursdays for Nietze and the vicious circle.
That's a good reading. noon Thursdays.
Um and they're going to literally cite that book by the way in this I think it's in this paragraph actually they cite that book directly like the whole idea of individualities that must be traversed by each of the types of energy uh each of the types of design like that thing the residual subject is what this traversal leaves behind spread over circumference of the circle that I have I have deserted Lemoir that the me has deserted the ego which is what normally is that's translated as normally.
So does the BWF have residue? No. I mean yes. All of it has residue technically.
It's all produc. It's all produced. So all of it is producing. Yeah.
It's all part of the machine.
So let's continue. Thus it consumes the states through which it passes and is born from these states always concluded from these states as a part made of parts each of which fills at a moment the body without organs.
This is the third synthesis shrunk a bit. Okay. Um they call it the the third synthesis that of consumption consummation the birth from states and the subject is the conclusion of that right so every element of this is going to count um consuming the states that you pass through that the subject passes through uh rather than consuming the objects is what makes the conjunctive a synthesis of intensities not of goods or um what is registered of bricks. The subject doesn't eat bricks. It eats uh it's it eats the states through which it passes.
Okay. Um the subject doesn't really eat. It's wrong way. But it's undergrowing like the cons the consumes is such is is it's eats is the wrong word. Consumes is the right word. Brooks, stop doing that. Um, again, I've had many many bad explanations of this color me. So, I'm It's not eating states. It's the wrong language. Forgive me. Some [ __ ] is just built in too many times. They It consumes the states.
Um, it's not eats. This is again marks.
I need to get the other readings out of my head. It's very difficult to pull those things out after being part of it for so long. Um, the consumer, if you don't know Markx, uh, Markx is pretty simple. Um, you should read his books.
They're good. Um, production happens all at once. There is no consumption without production. There is no production without consumption. We go, "Oh, but no one buys a thing, so therefore, no, no, no, that's not the thing. And that's not what consump you're consuming that even if you're not buying it. It's buying doesn't mean consumption. Consumption and production are you know co-extensive consumption. The consumer is produced in the act of production. This is uh Markx but society the spectacle goes over this very very very well and says it very very very very very well. Hurley says it consumes and consummates each state.
That's good for Hurley.
Uh um in the French here there is only consumes.
He is bringing [ __ ] from way earlier in the book. Here it's consumes consum consume. Uh it's it's very specific here.
Um, and again, he adds a lot of language here that there's a reason people sort of add the language around eating or what they're doing. It's just no no bad.
Um, fills the body without organs at a moment is probably better phrasing for me here. It's going to be It's tough to get this wording exactly right. Um, but no, it's there's a there's a thing here. Um, the other one that's really big is always concluded from these states as a part made of parts. Conclude, conclude, conclude, concluded. Um, this is a logic. Logic conclusion.
This is a they're using he's using logic terms in all of this for a reason.
Paralleism, syllogism, uh uh uh all of these always concluded from these states as a part made of parts. Um inference conclusions are inferences.
This is the the term at the base of this syllogism. So the third synthesis is one of the um uh so it's me uh so it is me.
So it's me says sedon sedon donk means like therefore it's such a [ __ ] great word we don't have in English. I wish we had that word in English but sorry stop going down rabbit holes. Um the subject here is a conclusion drawn from a series of premises it did not choose and does not survey or look over and select. So if we remember earlier we talked about the conjunctive synthesis where it was the the synthesis of the soits, right? Concluded was there too.
The synthesis of the soitz, the conclusion, the inference. The whole point is like that this synthesis is almost like a joke about syllogism because the the kjidto the the subject we tend to talk about is basically being wholly replaced by an inference that the subject arrives at after and is always wrong. Right?
It's always wrong. It's always concluded from these states made of parts each of which fills at the bo fills the body without organs at the moment.
Yeah.
And then there's this big look con [ __ ] thing. I don't even know if I want to. Um I'm not going to reread it because it's a lot. This is um ecret um I can't remember exactly what which which one this is. I'm sorry. It's there's a footnote and you can go find it yourself. It's fine. But this is about separation for Lon, right? So he's taking a handful of like Latin words and this is him reading Latin going into French. us reading it in French and reading the Latin and translating it to English. But he's doing more or less the same thing here.
Pere and uh uh say prayer. These are three different words, right? Um but they're almost identical to each other like what Magenta is doing in Discord chat right now. It's that actually that very much the same thing. Um, so we we start with Pereira. Pereira. I don't I don't I'm not gonna pronounce Latin right. I don't really give a [ __ ] So I don't give a [ __ ] But it it is u uh to furnish to procure. That's the the the first thing.
So like you will like bear offspring.
You furnish um the the dinner for the the group. It it means mean obtain as well. There's a complexity there, but it's like to procure.
Separ is to separate.
Uh, and then separate. Weird, right?
Separate. I know. Um, but then the next one, which is seer, which is there's a space in there.
Uh, to engender oneself, right? Um these three things as Lan's going through them the the operation that's happening is the operation of separation from the big other the other with the big O. Right? Lon is playing with words here to talk about how that production is simultaneously procurement, division and uh uh um self-birth or or or um engender self- engendering, right? Uh to engender oneself. This is what he's kind of going through and he's sort of laying out.
This is Guad when Guadri is on fire.
Like I just I it's hard for me not to say I just adore because I would never have gotten what Guadri pulls out of this. I'm assuming Guadri. It may have been to lose, but I'm I'm going to assume I'm going to assume Guadri because um again, normally they are very much attacking Lon kind of across the board, but here is actually one that is a really I don't know a [ __ ] weird reading of it. Instead of just reading it directly and going, "Oh yeah, this is blah blah blah. Lack subject blah blah blah." It's like, "Well, what if this isn't etmological?
What if it's instead actually machinic?"
And the chain of prayer separ part partition parturion is not discovery about the history of Latin as operative as it sets up as couplings of of of heterogeneous elements but instead the exact kind of thing that they've been talking about as a chain of signs from different alphabets. Um uh Yelmsv does this expertly in his writing a handful of times. You're going to hear it a few times in my upcoming video if I ever finish it. But the way language can be used in this way is talking about the second in second synthesis.
And here they're basically saying, see Lan even understands the second synthesis. He's even saying the same thing, right? Lon is practitioner of the machine against Lan the theorist of the signifier. he the good against the stuff they disagree with. And again they will go on to say and it makes a lot of sense that Lon's later work is actually moving away from this like structuralist reading and even his object ah in later works is machinic and that's what they're sort of driving at as a thing.
One more time. What? Magenta.
I don't understand you people at all.
And YouTube hasn't said a thing in like 10 minutes at least. So, they stopped paying attention.
I don't understand any of this or even um you don't have to. Um they're going to bring it back around.
This is them building out this is them building out the second the the third synthesis as it functions.
And they're using a handful of other things to sort of make the point of what it is or how it functions.
And so they're leaning on Lan. They're leaning on a handful of other things.
It'll make I hope it'll make sense by the end of it.
But we're going to keep going and we'll get there.
No more than the other cuts. The subjective cut designates a lack. But on the contrary, a part that returns to the subject as share, a revenue that returns to the subject as remainder. there again how much the edible model of castration is a bad model.
So they just use this lacon citation and they like I said they're really doing it as like a a paleic and growing it in a very particular way. So they talk about separation and separation for lon tends to mean castration as a thing right that's yeah that's the thing but they're like no no it's not that what it produces is lack what returns to the subject is actually a share and remainder and these are positive quantities um it is what falls to someone, the remainder is giving someone their due, like an inheritance or a stock dividend.
And they're using that language very specifically because again, it's it's income. They they say this as a but on the contrary, a part that returns subject to share, a revenue that returns to the subject as remainder. They're being very specific again to talk about this as a capitalist subject or as a economic thing. as they're sort of driving, right? Um the theory of subject is in the vocabulary of distribution and revenue and revenue is important. A revenue that returns to the subject as uh remainder dividend remainder dividend might be even better.
It's part of that. It's the the return on investment. You might even say that's a little bit overreaching, but it's not wildly far off.
Not wildly far off.
It is the cuts. It is that the cuts are not the fact of an analysis. They are themselves synthesis.
Remember the machine cuts in three separate registers and the cuts happen at once. The desiring machines cut on three registers. If the cuts were a result of analysis of decomposition or deconstruction being performed on something that were whole already, if it if it was things are whole and we're breaking them apart with the ski, which is again how a lot of people misinterpret this [ __ ] book, then every cut would yes actually leave a gap. It absolutely would.
It every cut would leave a gap and lack would be the thing that came with that.
But there is no prior hole. The cuts themselves are the synthesis. They are constitutive operations of existence.
They're not separations of things that were actually fully joined that we're breaking down. This is the [ __ ] first paragraph of the book restated, I think, extremely bluntly.
Extremely bluntly.
It is the synthesis that produce the divisions.
Okay, you want to talk about the normal way we understand divisions, right?
Um, usually we divide something in order to synthesize its parts.
Hegel, how you doing?
Um, no. Division is downstream of synthesis, which is weird. It's super weird.
It's super weird.
Um, okay.
This is not about schizoanalysis being a fundamentally decomposing thing. Um this is uh again an affirming positive productionbased setup. They are going to be tracing synthesis and legitimate or illegitimate uses of it. But division is not a thing that it starts with. It is a thing that synthesis produces here.
Okay.
It is the synthesis that produce divisions.
That one consider the example of the return of milk in the child's belch. Uh babies eat milk and then vomit on mom uh or dad mostly mom probably um this happens a lot.
Let's talk about what it could be that one consider the example of the return of milk in the child's belch. It is at once restitution of extraction on the associative flux reproduction of detachment on the signifying chain residue that returns to the subject for its own share.
It's it's an intentionally benal example and really boring because it is also very much the same scene psychoanalysis minds for you know breasts partial objects first loss all of that stuff.
Psychoanalysis loves boob feeding as a thing. So a kid vomits up a baby vomits up some milk right?
They talk about it as running three cuts at once. This is that the event is actually running three cuts at once.
Okay. First is the milk that comes back is actually a restitution of that which was levied from the flow. It is a also reproduction of a detachment on the chain and it is also residue. It's also residue that falls to the subject as its own share. There is nothing in the belching or vomiting, the burping, the spit up, whatever you want to call it, that is lost. Nothing is first experienced as absence.
It is not first negative. It is all affirmative. The infant is not learning here about lack. That's what psychoanalysis talks about. It is a machine operating in three registers at once. And they're all affirming and all producing. And the division is actually what is produced.
Okay.
So it's Yeah. No. Exactly.
These are going to get really dense. I'm doing my best to make it through these.
Um these are going to be really dense.
The machine of desire is not a metaphor.
It is what cuts and is cut according to these three modes.
Okay, they're stating flatly that the machine is not a figure. It is not an analogy.
It is not a heruristic.
It's not a metaphor is given straightly here, right?
Machine of desire is not a metaphor. It is what cuts and is cut according to those three modes.
It isn't the machine that cuts the cut.
What cuts and is cut is the machine. It is an operational term.
Anything that does so is one.
This is why we can apply the term machine to the mouth, the breast, the nervous system, the factory. socialist and there's no equivocation happening here at all at all. There's no literal machine of which these would be metaphorical instances of them. Is a relationship a machine? Not. It depends like again it like is a relationship mouth to breast. No. No.
No. No. The mouth and the breast are machines. Anything that cuts is that anything that cuts and is cut. Remember the binary machine, the three registers, the whole thing. Guadri is machine and structure. I cannot recommend reading it enough. Uh he defines machine against structure. It's anti-structuralist fundamentally by its relation to cutting and to the subject it produces as remainder. Um, in the next section they're going to be making a huge argument that there is only one kind of production, that everything ultimately just produces what is real, because there's no difference for them between literal and figurative applications, which means that metaphors have no purchase here.
So when they say the machine desire is not a metaphor, it is what cuts and is cut according to these modes. Then they go through each of the modes. Ready? The first mode refers to the connective synthesis mobilizes libido as the energy of extraction.
>> What's up Dexi?
>> Goodbye.
>> Bye >> bye kid.
The first mode refers to connective synthesis mobilizes libido as the energy of extraction. The second to disjunctive mobilizes Newman the energy of detachment. Third, the conjunctive synthesis and voluuptus as residual energy.
Okay, these are Latin terms. These are Latin old terms and they're used in a lot of psychoanalytic writing, but they're also used in a lot of stuff.
Mostly it's Freud that they're pulling from here because we're talking about three registers. We're talking about three cuts and we're talking about three energies. Okay, the energies have been introduced sort of as they go, right?
They talked about Shreber and the conjunctive, right? Where they talked about libido becoming Newman becoming velptus.
A part of libido as production energy converts into the energy of registration registration energy and a part of registration energy converts into consumption energy.
So the the choice is very particular.
Libido is Freud done. It's such a good [ __ ] term for it as a thing. Uh Newman, which is that of the registration is uh is divine. Uh it's about God's ascent. Power that manifests in an oracle or an omen. Um in in Roman times, it is what would make a place or object sacred by being present in it.
Okay? So they're being very particular here. They're not being like weird and out of I mean they're being weird, but they're not being wild. The reason this is numinal is registration. The recording surface is where the divine appears. This is where it showed up for Shrebber for example. Um the numminous is matter of inscription and decree. It is not of production. It is energy of decree. the Newman the the way that when you read a book it's as if it's from God or everyone not the person you're reading a perfect tech like this is the the the energy of that is Newmanus is sensual pleasure and that has a lot of layers in English a lot of layers but it doesn't just mean like orgasms or jerking someone off or or finger blasting like it's not that it's not that kind of thing. Okay? This is pleasure in the sense of the sensual.
It's not lust for power and selfishness.
No, it's it's not that. It's uh uh from Lcius actually to be very specific where he's taking this from. Uh Venus is the pleasure of men and gods.
Um I I think this is he makes this reference in logic of sense as well. Um Markx talks about it as well like this is this is uh uh voluuptus the venusian that the the point is that type of pleasure um enjoyment but it's not selfishness really um it's not selfishness not here that's not what they're trying it is it is from the spokes fair enough fair enough we're not pulling from the spokes Arthusra though um because together this kind of plays in a really um these are three different things. Oh, okay. Sorry, I misunderstood. Um uh there's a big play here that they're sort of doing an almost mock theology.
There is a creative power, a divine presence and um a beatitude almost right mapping this onto production and all of this records consumption.
It's really fascinating to talk about it that way. I like the language. I find the language very um evocative and I think it's intended to be ultimately because they're going to be going through a lot of stuff later in the book that this conversion process that happens is not Freud's uh sublimation which is like desexualizing things right uh for Freud um you need to learn how to properly handle all of your [ __ ] energy and turn it into woodworking so you can just whittle and carve and be very very healthy and that's a good stuff that's a good use of your energy. Do things capital needs because [ __ ] energy needs to be converted, sublimated into something. They're not doing that. It's transformations of libido. It's not different energies.
Not really. There's no neutral energy.
There's no displaced energy. There's no lust that is given up an object to do anything. None of this Freudian [ __ ] as you go into it. Freud's like, "Got wood?
Get woodworking." Absolutely fair. that is I I believe he wrote a book called um uh I am a weird creepy bougie [ __ ] who jerks off and does coke. Uh it is under these three aspects that the process That's not true. He didn't write that book.
Sorry to lie. I know some one of you just started looking it up and I feel bad. Uh it is under these three aspects that the process is desiring production is simultaneously production of production, production of recording, production of consumption. So, remember how I keep saying these things are the cuts happening at multiple registers at once. Multiple registers, multiple regimes at once. This is closing that off and being very very specific, very specific. Um, and it's uh process here, the process is Marxist.
It's a very particular term. There's a lot of words they can use here. Okay.
Um, uh, it's not processus, it's not proced, it's very specific process. Um, which is a Marxist sense and jeridical sense of process, the process of things, right?
Uh, Kofka kind of thing. The process of that. Um, the three of these named the passage of them, they fold into each other. They are part of each other. These are not stages. They are three aspects and moments under which one process is described.
There's one process.
There's one process.
Okay.
Um and if you want to get really angry, read Hurley's version. Really terrible.
to extract, to detach, to remain. It is to produce and it is to effectuate the real operations of desire.
Ah, good. I'm two hours. I'm It's a solid two hours to get to this point.
Just finished my BA in philosophy today at 46. Good for you, dude. I'm jealous.
Good for you. I'm 46 and I don't have a degree and I should have I keep saying I should have done that. So, Teemo, everyone, Teemo, good [ __ ] Good for you. Just super good for you.
Can't tell you how happy I am for you.
Um, it's wonderful. Uh, and I mean that genuinely. Um, okay.
Final line of the [ __ ] and then we move into section six next, which is like cool. Chapter one, section six. And it's a lot. And it's only going to get worse from here, too. Oh, God. Chapter two breaks my brain so much.
There are three infinitives said here in a row. It doesn't really read as well for us. In French, it carries beautiful in every single way. But in English, it's fine. It's fine. It's fine. Uh remain has a little bit of quotes on it because it's not really an action you can do, right? It's a you can't it's it's weird. Infinitives don't really carry the third synthesis. And it's kind of a joke and play here. The third synthesis makes a verb out of a state.
There's no such thing as a state of remain, right?
to extract, to detach, to remain, to remainder, to leftover.
Right.
Right. I It's very weird.
It's a very weird wording. And that's on purpose.
That's the subject is what results from the activity of being left over.
remaining is a mode of production, right?
Like that that's the point there. It's the remainder.
We get the word voluuptuous from voluuptus basual.
Voluupsuous.
Yeah. Latin's everywhere. Latin is everywhere. Um so to extract, to detach, to remain is to produce. This is production. To remain is to produce which is again in remainder is the mode of production and is the subject. Correct? To remain which normally we would not think about but that which remains the remainder after division, right? That sticks around. It sticks around and is the thing that is consuming. It's it's and it happens at once. Extraction, detachment, remainder. Extraction, detachment, remainder. And that it is to effectuate. It is to produce. It is to effectuate the real operations of desire. Effectuation is incredibly specific wording for lose. This means to actualize the virtual very specifically it is for deloo in logical sense he talks about effectuation as the relation between an incorporeal event and the embodiment of any state of affairs.
Counter effectuation as the operation that extracts the event back out. What he's doing here by using it is he's saying that like the three cuts are not descriptions of desire. That's not what they are. This is not the types of desire as a thing. Right? That would be the wrong way to read this. It's not that there's three types of desire.
Instead, he's talking about this is like their effectuation. This is the effectuation of desire, the real operations of it. Um, desire has no existence aside from these things. To extract, to detach, and to remain.
That's that's it. There's no that's it.
It's like the most anti-representational statement in the [ __ ] book so far.
It's really anti-representational.
Um, it's huge.
It's a huge line.
Um, and it's important because the sixth section which we're about to read and I'll give a mini preview um is uh from here and they open in machines of desire. Everything functions at the same time but in the hiatuses and the cuts, the breakdowns and misfirings, the intermittences and the short circuits, the distance and fragmentations in a sum that never reunites its parts into a whole. That is the next section, the whole and its parts. And the whole point of this like page and the whole point I mean [ __ ] this entire section as a thing is the three energy all this we're going to be talking about how these things come together because the whole and its parts is incredibly important to understand that these are not the same thing nor are they different things. So enjoy that.
Enjoy that.
Enjoy that. Actually, you should enjoy that. It's a fun time. And with that, I'm gonna bounce out. I've got a bunch of [ __ ] to take care of. I've got a [ __ ] Jeep to get fixed. I've got some editing to do with my nightmare [ __ ] hour and 20 minute essay that I know no one's going to watch, but I don't give a [ __ ] It's a semiotic study in Yamv, and I'm just excited I finished it. That's genuinely like three people. I guarantee only like three people finish it. It's fine. Um, but I got [ __ ] to do. So, I'm just going to say, hey, thank you for being here. It's always good to have you. I like having you here. It's a fun time. You guys are all right. Uh, if you want to join us live, you're more than welcome to. I'd love that. In fact, I have a very good time doing that. And I would think that, uh, your best bet is to, uh, join us live, discord.gg/gqc.
If you want to support the channel, want to support what I do, super chats are always very fun. Stream elements, even better. My camera stopped working. Did everything die?
What happened? No, I'm still here. Uh, Stream Elements, uh, best place if you want to just send off a one time. Stream elements.com. dgqc/tip.
Um, and of course you can just join Patreon. Five bucks a month, cup of coffee a month goes a huge way for me.
So, be really wonderful. Um, be watching for videos and streams.
Maybe another Jeep stream tonight.
probably not another Jeep stream because tonight is just going to be I got my new clips and clamps and it's just taking things apart slowly. So, I may do that down here. I may do it up there. I may just do an audio stream. I don't know.
We'll find out. But, um at this point, I would recommend one book above all others that I think will help with anything that happens um as we go. And uh if you're having trouble understanding this, see Malachi.
Malachi's got two little cute little [ __ ] flowers. Isn't that nice, Malachi?
Um, and that book is Aberant Movements. Where are you? I know I have a copy of it. Aberant Movements by La Pujad.
Do I not have it? No, I don't have a copy of it. I need to get a copy in here. uh La Pujad wrote probably one of my favorite books on delus but is particularly about this very specific place that we're at in antiatipus uh it's called aberrant movements aberrant movements um highly recommended uh and I can't I actually can't recommend it enough um for those on YouTube I'm sending you over to the surfs because uh they're having uh some fun making fun of some really funny people uh say hello from the QC for me and uh I will chat with everyone soon enough and we should be clear.
Related Videos
Open Tab is a new interview series hosted by Substack co-founder Hamish McKenzie
Hypeflicksss
1K views•2026-05-21
Street Epistemology: Maritza (1) | Student Demands the Truth (Valuation)
magnabosco210
124K views•2019-06-27
Nel Noddings | Feminist philosophy and education | Whiteboard Video
studioninety9110
3K views•2019-10-13
LEGAL METHOD CLASS: Law, Order, Justice & Freedom | Understanding the Concept of Law in Society
LAW-MADE-SIMPLE.c
371 views•2025-11-22
Does evolution DEBUNK morality?
MajestyofReason
7K views•2025-03-06
How the Gospels Pass the Historical Test | Tim and Lydia McGrew
TheAaronRennShow
713 views•2025-12-02
Pluriversal Design SIG Book Club 13: bell hooks' Theory as Liberatory Practice
pluriversaldesignsig2851
777 views•2022-05-24
NICK LAND MEETS THEORY UNDERGROUND (w/ Michael Downs and David McKerracher)
PhilosophyPortal
9K views•2023-10-23
Trending
WOW! Judge TURNS THE TABLES on Trump in His OWN $10B LAWSUIT!!!
MeidasTouch
197K views•2026-07-23
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
Steam and Xbox Just Dropped The Hammer On PlayStation
OhNoItsAlexx
9K views•2026-07-23
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23