The first part of this series is devoted to the broader theme of "psychoanalysis and division". After the concept of "schizophrenia analysis" was introduced by Qatar, the relationship between psychoanalytic and divisive needs to be re-examined, because Qatar, as part of the assembly of the author Deleuze-Qatar, rejects the concepts of "neglect" and "deprivation". He said, "There is no negativity in the unconscious, and only uncertainty is close to zero, which is not a lack at all, but rather physical certainty (as support and assistance)." [1] Why can the concept of "separate" still exist? These clarifications and regulations, which we can see through some kind of "face-to-door" wind that has blown through the cracks, are necessary to preserve psychoanalysis as a negative concept for medical, or ethical, technology in front of the Qatar plateau: These concepts are necessary because they are used to describe the very concept of a patient who is in dire need of rescue, and who, in the introspect, cannot be saved from extreme grief by the fact that there is no shortage of depression. Even in the "phantom", he needed to be conceptually perceived as being in a state of deprivation and fragmentation in a certain illusion.
The ultimate purpose of the contents of this section is therefore to preserve the concept of division before Qatar and then "old" personal analysis before institutional analysis - in this case, to slow the acceleration of the Catalan doctrine and to re-conservate it.
When it comes to divided subjects, it is difficult to circumvent Hegel's influence: it's the very self-motion that he set the subject as divided in Mental Demography
What Hegel really suggested was that the Kandeh division itself was the solution: the existence itself was unfinished, and that was what the Hegel entity was about: the subject was the name of the fissure of existence...[2]
This is my self-relationship.
The subject, fractured from existence, is the same thing. This is not only because there are separate and irreconcilable divisive elements within the subject, so that the self-existence of the subject is always characterized by some kind of fragmentation: What matters is that the subject is a movement of this kind, which, like the progress of history embodied in the Spiritual Demography, is always divided, and that it carries out a campaign of "separating something, reading the same in the existing division, and further dividing the same". It is this movement that has been designated as the "subject", which is the true meaning of the word used in the book by Hegel: the side of the movement of the entity, which is the subject that keeps itself free of rigidity - the same.
The subject has its own characteristics, i.e. it is divided. Any undivided subjects? It was Zizek who drew our attention to the fact that Hegel's subject is in fact an individual subject of history, just as the entity is a tangible development of history - in that sense, there should be no undivided individual subject, after all, always at a particular stage of the dialectic, and that it is always difficult to accomplish itself. However, from another perspective, Qatar has turned all this around: why do we understand the wolves as divided? The heterogeneity within the unorganised body is directly captured by the Brown movement of the "sensor" as the "wolves", the non-ruled molecule, which has reached the end of the interpretation of the phenomenon. - There is no need to logically establish a source of non-divisiveness, whether it is set in the eyes of the son of a god who is "not pre-born" or of a mother who is kind enough to look at the breast-smoking... "non-divisive" is the direct nature of absolute division, that is, the recognition of that directness. The question of the nature of the division and non-separating subject here is addressed in detail in the second statement.
Gatari has re-examined the subject, which is based on the absolute division of the theory and absolute heterogeneity. It is important to note that the subject that he has created is not the individual subject of everyday life, but the subject of machines and beasts. Gatari himself said
There's a crowd, a beehive, a bunch of football players, or a group of Berbers. And We are on the side of the crowd, on the outer edge of it: yet I belong to it, and I sustain it through a part of the body - a hand or a foot. I know that the periphery is the only place I could possibly exist, and if I let myself get involved in the centre of a mixed crowd, I will die... and these people are constantly restless, their movements are unpredictable and do not follow any rhythm. [3]
The main subject of the machine is the power of its own heterogeneity, or, in other words, the assembly of these forces -- At the height of the machine, assembly also means, for the time being, only a micro-substance (the variable takes value in a moment), an instant slice of a variable conglomerate, like a slice that can be observed at every moment of every moment when it enters a three-dimensional space under four dimensions. In the sense of the machine, there are only words of its own machine, and there is no words of the machine - words that anticipate stability of meaning, which the machine is temporarily incapable of providing.
Here we think of art, both in its production and in its appreciation. A painter sitting on a board while living in isolation, thinking about travel and complexes, thinking about people dying in distant places, thinking about hospitals and communities, about half the cabbage in his own fridge, and when he was unable to express it in language and make a wolf slice in language, he painted it. He painted the wolves on paper
The fiery heterogeneity finds its place in alternative formulations rather than in the homogeneity structure of its own language. This is the painting of the subject of the machine - both the subject of the machine and the drawing of this subject, of countless beasts. That's exactly what Qatar wants: when you're in the middle of a mess, Qatar asks you to entangle it with a lot of thin, different ropes that are entangled in staggers, instead of the same rope entangled in complex poking, like the headset wire that you have to take 20 minutes to open in your pocket. The machine is not something that can be turned into a wire, which has nothing to do with how hard you use it. Machines are force.
Such collisions are difficult to do, and their impact on the subjects of daily life, that is to say, people in the relationships that exist between the subjects, is often devastating
The organless body is opposed to the organ, rather than to the organizational structure of the organ (insofar as it constitutes an organism). An organless body is not a dead body, but a living body, so rich in life and so full of rage that it explodes organisms and their structures. [4]
Strength is against structure, and it always tries to break every structure. In fact, Qatar itself is not in favour of a purely convoluted anti-structured, anti-prescriptive state in which "the introspective indiscretion of mental illness is by no means a mere mundane degradation" [5], a state in which a person can achieve as long as he or she is born and lives with a beast, cutting off all contact with the subject and the material spiritual achievements of modern civilization - - Pure beasts living in urban jungles, of course, will not be the goal of Qatar. It is therefore necessary to introduce the concept of an abstract machine: it is by referring to the organization that the actual assembly is developed, a structure for the world, a subjective design, a partial, paragraph-style stability, and thus opening up the potential for words and meaning.
Deleuze distinguishes between three languages
Language I: In a very special language, the relationship between objects is equivalent to the relationship between words... it is "atoms, separated, cut off, shredded, in which the list replaces the proposition and the combination replaces the synonym: the language of a noun".
Language II: It is no longer the language of a noun, but the language of a voice... Language II aims to dry up the flow, to put an end to the sound of endless noise around it, both of which belong to the expression of the other to a possible world, with all its meanings, preferences and objectives, and to describe an endless stream of stories.
Language III: It no longer links languages to identifiable or convoluted objects, nor does it associate them with the sound that is being made, but rather with the inner boundaries, holes, holes or cracks that are constantly moving... it emerges from all its peculiarities, without preserving anything personal or rational, into an unlimited state, as if it had reached the air. [6]
We may call the first two languages the languages of territorialization (or migration), while the latter are the languages of civilization (or art). Language should be understood as an action, or the possibility of the need for language, the instrumentality of language, should be regarded as logically taking precedence over what is meant, in order to open up possible space for free speech - This view can even be supported by Lacan himself: When it comes to academic terms such as "the human being is a premature child", is Lacan not just looking for a state of suffering in which the chain of command can be realized in human existence, and where action is urgently needed to alleviate it? When Lacan re-introduces the Fort/Da game of Freud, using "the need to digest mother's absence" as an illustration of the baby's ability to point, it is at the same time that he equates the process of language with action - it is the physical action of "Call out Fort and throw away the hairlines" that has gained emotional strength in its repetition, its repertoire with the traumatic experience of temporarily losing the mother - the trauma that has been successfully encapsulated in action. In other words, it was the repetition of action that guaranteed the cover. This does not mean that all language-actions must first repeat themselves in order to be able to express their functions. It is based on trust in a pre-existing illusion, that is, trust in a chain of fingerings, in words that refer to the subject itself: In the everyday use of languages, in this repetition of operations that can point chains, self-inflicted references in the Lacanian theory are perceived to be indicative in illusions. It can be said that the key characteristic of the subject, which can be said to have been crafted in an action triggered by an organless body, a pack of wolves and machines, is to organize and decorate the body to fit the needs of communication and expression for survival and to wait for a breakthrough by this wild body.
This is the effect of referring to the subject: it subjectively sets out a certain order in the world and constantly expects, in the repetition of its own actions, that the effectiveness of that order will be confirmed retroactively, but it is also ready to face the impact of a wild machine. Qatar says
A world can only be constructed by living in a (deconstructed, decomposing, de-dified) umbilical umbilical cord, from which there is a subjective creation... constantly re-established and involved in the realms of existence and the invisible worlds involved... a state of confusion, a state of assembly rooted in the coordinates of the material world. [7]
It is precisely the usurpation of the original authority of the subject of the machine by the subject that ensures its creation - which is also a process of separation, division, i.e. the strength of the umbilical umpire, the intensity of the events on which the subject is based, and the simple process of entropy. At this point, the subject re-scrambles around a traumatic event, a "new" event that went beyond the machinery of words that could have previously been referred to as the subject, which became a "hotpoint", which means that the subject once again ensured its authority by reabsorbing the event, but the subject has changed its face long ago. After all, it has chosen a new umbilical point in its assembly at this time, which means a rearrangement of the world and its object. It is precisely in this sense that the subject can only maintain the right distance - too close, too deeply entangled in the non-integrated power of the machine itself, which can only lead to the fragmentation of its interpretation and degradation of the pureness of the confusion (which is questionable and will be shown in the second lecture); and far too far, which can mean that the subject's perception of human beings has created too strong a review mechanism to the extent that the appearance of all new things and the sensitivity of micro-mechanical agitation have been overshadowed, leading to rigidity and decay.
We will re-examine Lacan's first map of a chain of fingers and a staggered subject with such a mechanical subject and a point of view. It is not just about desire, as Jacques-Alain Miller said, but more about the overall face of human existence, about machines and bodies.
Figure 1 [8]
The triangle, starting at the bottom right, is the organ-free body, the machine, at the beginning of its logic, the force of chaos and conflict. As researchers and practitioners of psychoanalysis, it is important to stress that both Lacan-Gartari share this view: That is, the pure triangle exists only as a preconceived logic, and it is difficult to really exist at some stage of life - after all, as early as conception and birth, it is already engraving the baby's body. It passes through a chain of fingers, and it must pass through it, because it is precisely the machine itself that appears to the part of the baby - the subject - as pain and deprivation, as a driving force that drives the baby to take action to integrate and say that the lack is so that it can be absorbed in the interaction between the subjects. This tumultuous cloud, which is differentiated and can be indexed to a certain umbilical point, is exported into a small object, the s-barbar, which, in Lacan's view, means that the subject has suffered divisions, is separated from the real world and is entangled by both real and symbolic forces, and therefore remains divided even in its survival. Such action should indeed be considered a form of resistance to survival, as the arrows in the opposite direction try to tell us: as a subjective design, as an action-orientated assembly, it is always opposed to the chaos, and people try to capture it, just as Sisyphus approaches the top of the mountain.
[1] (F) Delaze Gattali. Capitalism and schizophrenia. Volume 2
[2] Sbriglia Russell;Zizek Slavoj.Subject Lessons: Hegel, Lacan, and the Future of Materialism[M].Northwestern University Press,2020,p.149
[3] Same note [1], p. 40
[4] Same note [1], p. 41
[5] (FL) Felix Guattari... Confusion Scorrupting [M]. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2020, p. 89
[6] (U.S.) Ronald Borg; stone-painting... watcher mirrors and lights.
[7] Same note [5], p. 89
[8] Jacques Lacan.Ecrits: A Selection[M].Taylor and Francis,2020.p230