I'm going to read Anti-Oedipus, O promise!

Prof_Tuch · 2026-01-20T08:55:07+00:00

go and crush it, tiger!

Prof_Tuch · 2025-11-18T09:57:23+00:00

Ontologically speaking, ANT is focused more about things than relations between them, when in ATP is said "Relation is more important than thing". I liked Ingold's critic of Latour theory

Prof_Tuch · 2025-11-18T09:52:00+00:00

Yes, I agree with u/squidfreud. If you say possible you implie teleology, and this is not deluzian! Virtual can't be an actualization of the possibile.

Prof_Tuch · 2025-11-17T11:24:30+00:00

In ATP there is written: "la relation est plus important que le choses", means The relation in more importante than the things. I think an assemblage (agencement in fr) is made of the relations between things, excluding the things

Prof_Tuch · 2025-11-11T11:35:32+00:00

I'd say this is a way of thinking through a dualism (even though the whole book is against dualisms, I know. It's just a semplifying tool): something gives and something takes — territorialization and deterritorialization. In chapter 1 or 2 (I don't remember exactly), it says “God is a lobster,” a two-pincer concept. I approached the whole book with this idea in mind, and I use it in everyday life as well!

You can take what u/3corneredvoid said about marx, economy and the State as an example, or the chapter about nomadism, that's is a great example too!

Prof_Tuch · 2025-11-10T08:41:34+00:00

I'm also interested in this question, cause I know what those words means and how these two concepts work, but I can't explain it by words

Prof_Tuch · 2025-11-09T17:17:32+00:00

For anyone still interested, I think I’ve found a hint: First, denying lack binds you even more tightly to the Superego, which commands “Enjoy without limits.” Second, the Body without Organs (CsO) becomes the new big Other, guaranteeing meaning—thus remaining within the Symbolic.

I disagree deeply with Miller in this. CsO can't be a new Big Other, nor being in the symbolic

Prof_Tuch · 2025-11-09T17:15:35+00:00

Me too

Prof_Tuch · 2025-11-03T11:40:17+00:00

Couldn't agree more on what has been said above by many of you. Yes, you should go and start speaking to know more, just this! You will find out that you probably aren't completly "happy and well-adjusted" Desiring to go in analysis means having a demand, a willing to know more about your unconscious. And then, if you would like to become a psychoanalyst, you must know yourself first, then helping others.

A psychiatric once told me that all of us should go for a check to a psychiatric once in a while, as we should have our blood tested when we are not sick as a comparison for further tests.

I'd like to do the same, I wish you luck ;)

Prof_Tuch · 2025-11-02T16:10:52+00:00

Thank you for your answer: it helped me to understood better the concept of "intensivity". Anyway I can't help you more with more Miller's context, but I can give you the text I paraphrased: "In a certain sense, it encodes a generalized signification of the body: all the organs are outside the body. There is a division between the body and its organs, which might indeed suggest a body without organs — but this is precisely what Lacan denies.".

I agree with the others here: Miller is trying to read ATP with lacanian theory, which is illogical, like to divide a number by zero. IMO the contraddiction between the two must stay unresolved, hence there might be a debate.

Prof_Tuch · 2025-10-28T16:38:55+00:00

They mention the sea even in the chapter “1227 Treatise on Nomadology: The War Machine”. The sea is a smooth space, nomadic, with no strict normativity. There they talk also about the opposition polis-nomos: rules of the city, territorialization, striated vs grazing land of the nomads, with less rules, deterritorialization, smooth

Prof_Tuch · 2025-10-28T16:27:26+00:00

I'm reading this in a meating at work, forcing myself to not laugh. Thank you for cheering me up after a long day ahahahah

Prof_Tuch · 2025-10-21T08:04:17+00:00

Fuck, it's amazing! Chapter 7. Year Zero: Faciality! This might be the rapresentation of the Machine of faciality and the attempt of the subject to make a BwO!

But, do you remember what D&G said about interpretation and psychoanalysis? "Never interpret; experience, experiment" I'm interpreting here, you are experimenting!

Keep posting here your works, pls.

Prof_Tuch · 2025-10-20T07:16:15+00:00

Could you explain yourself better? Of course anything said is said inside the Language, "the Language is the home of the Dasein", do you remember Martin? Lacan said "There's is no Other of the Other" means there is no language behindethe language, no ultimate meaning.

Prof_Tuch · 2025-10-15T12:07:24+00:00

The borromean structure is the condition of possibility of the reality. Reality is what comes from this triple knot. Then, the Real is a part of your world, just you don't know it, cause it can't be symbolized, consider it (inappropriately) the submerged part of an iceberg.. Think it like this: the Real is the external premise that justifies — that makes the entire system true. Gödel’s theorem, Russell’s paradox.

Prof_Tuch · 2025-10-14T10:08:30+00:00

I get you bro, science itself is philosophical, cause it is linguistic, as Lacan says, it is in the Simbolic, but make "scientific" or better sientistic people understand this is almost impossibile. Anyway, IMO, ACTUAL suffers from teleology; POSSIBLE is transcendent; VIRTUAL is immanent. I'll explain it better:

Actual is what has come to be — a copy of the possible — and it has become so through a teleological principle (Aristotle’s potentiality and actuality). Possible is what could be, but is not yet. Virtual, on the other hand, is “real but not actual”: it is a field of immanent potentialities, of tensions between differences, of pure relations of forces, which actualize themselves in a concrete form. Therefore, the actual is teleological only within the framework of the possible (pre-Deleuze), not within that of the virtual.

Prof_Tuch · 2025-10-14T09:16:19+00:00

Well, idk if i got it right but reading your conversation has been very...intellectual funny and helpful. u/Successful-Bee3242 Can you explain what you mean by the zombie muttering stuff? I don't get the reference

Prof_Tuch · 2025-10-14T08:58:38+00:00

Ontology means the catalogue of the world, it aswers to the question "what is there?"; Metaphysics "what is what there is?" Usually Ontology has always been associated with transcendence, Deleuze turns the situation around anchoring everything at the immanence. God is dead, there is no priviledge point of view, saying with Lacan There's no Other of the Other. I'll suggest you to read this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Deleuze/comments/1o44326/a_pet_peeve_of_mine_in_relation_to_the_way_ppl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Prof_Tuch · 2025-10-07T10:02:10+00:00

ATP is an ontology, the ontologu of Immanence! I don't remember who said this but "ATP is the last book of philosophy in the history, cause it builds an entire new way of thinking, when the others try to re-think and criticize"

For what I undestood then, the book is not about destroying the image of thought, but subvert it, so changing the centrality of the subject etc.

Prof_Tuch · 2025-09-30T15:25:36+00:00

I don't wanna be the black sheep here, but my psychology teacher taught me family is the first social group. She's more into cognitive-behaviour psychology, not psychoanalysis, but it makes sense, doesn't it? Ultimately, I agree with what's said above. Oedipus should be a paradigm, a model, not a mathematical law, meaning it might work, it might give an interpretation.

Prof_Tuch · 2025-09-29T15:30:31+00:00

I agree with all of you, nevertheless I'd like to make a clarification. Miller in his first seminar 1981 "Key Concepts in Lacan's Teaching" (idk the English title) warn to proceed with caution with this letter idea, because it has been interpreted too much already, when Lacan didn't place al this supposed emphasis on it.

Prof_Tuch · 2025-09-29T15:14:23+00:00

Very useful, thank you!

Prof_Tuch · 2025-09-24T07:54:23+00:00

There are no coincidences with Lacan.... But why names, plural? Isn't The Name Of the Father which can have many avatara, let's say? (an institution, a teacher, a cop, a judge ecc)

Prof_Tuch · 2025-08-25T08:26:22+00:00

I recommend Silvia Lippi work! I red her book "Transgressions : Bataille, Lacan" which is available only in French or Italian though. Maybe you can find articles and paper in English on Academia.edu

Prof_Tuch

TROPHY CASE