fun with Oedipus

The definition of a machine has changed, or at least been altered, by D&G by the end of the anti-oedipus. "A machine may be defined as a system of interruptions or breaks". (36) The machine becomes slightly more clarified through this description; it is no longer "everything" but something. It reverts back to the idea of production and through production the creation of something that will again produce, hence a flow which can be interrupted. I still don't see this explaining anything about the world as we know it, but at least they clarified their own creation.

Just a quick timeout from thought, has anyone else been amazed by how straight the underlines are in this book? I always cut through words or get wobbly, but these lines are all perfectly straight. Are they part of the book?

The most awkward I have ever felt reading a paper was on page 45. That Melanie Klein segment on the Oedipus-ification of that little kid was vastly inappropriate and uncalled for. What parent in their right mind tells that kind of thing to a little kid? It was either Melanie being a completely crazy bastard or D&G's exaggeration of a slightly crazy lady. People are strange.

On page 48, G&D go into a little discourse on when they first realized what life was. First of all, no eight year old knows what the heck is going on, furthermore, no one remembers what they thought when they were eight. Hell, I don't remember what I was thinking about a week ago. I have a hard time seeing any credibility in G&D's writing because of these obviously over-inundated examples of craziness they constantly use. Between the language and visuals their words espouse, this cant be considered "scholarly writing". What are they even talking about half the time anyway? Its a discourse about nothing surrounded around psychoanalysis.

I agree, the underlines in this book are pretty sick, although there are some kinda wobbly ones as well (bottom of pg 22 in the rhizome intro.. what happened?).

Back to thought, it would be interesting to place D&G's quote of Artaud about what he was thinking at age six within information about the development of children's mental faculties. There is a a great deal of research on when children begin to think of other minds and other agents (age 3 or 4), and I don't know how precocious it would be to wonder at one's own agency (the interaction between the body without organs and the world around it) itself after realizing that of others, and then kind of move from that to being alive, since it's kind of a similar. I agree it seems pretty far-fetched, and I have no idea what I was thinking about when I was six, but as we all know, kids say the darndest things. I for one have a hard time trying to conceptualize breaking desiring-machines from the oedipal family system would actually mean, however, and what it would look like. If nothing else, I bet it would be terrible to raise children who weren't conditioned to believe that being in a "mommy-daddy-me" family was normal; kids by age 13 are already sure that their parents are evil and holding them down.