Accueil
https://fr.book4you.org/book/2632772/594c4e?dsource=recommend
"In making the object of critique the real genesis of our actual experience rather than the conditions of all possible experience, Deleuze & Guattari transform Kant’s syntheses of the understanding into passive syntheses of the unconscious. Based on his so-called “Copernican revolution” in epistemology, and speaking in the name of reason, Kant had asserted that the conscious mind utilizes a specific set of processes (which he called the “syntheses of apprehension, reproduction, and recognition”) to arrive at knowledge, and had insisted furthermore that knowledge would have to conform to these processes or else stand condemned as illegitimate. Of crucial importance for Kant was the idea that, since these processes were constitutive of conscious thought, they provided immanent criteria for judging knowledge as valid or invalid, depending on whether it was based on legitimate or illegitimate use of the three syntheses. In a similar way, but speaking not in the name of reason but in the name of desire and especially schizophrenic desire, Deleuze & Guattari insist that the unconscious operates according to a specific set of syntheses to process or constitute experience, and that psychoanalysis must either be shown to conform to these processes or else stand condemned as invalid. While this first transformation renders the syntheses passive and unconscious, a second transformation shifts the locus of the unconscious from the individual subject to the historically specific groups and social formations to which a given subject belongs. The unconscious thereby becomes something like a “collective unconscious”—but one that is specific to historically-situated groups and institutions rather than eternal or universal. The result, finally, is that critique becomes fully social rather than just epistemological: ultimately, schizoanalysis condemns psychoanalysis as a reflection or projection of capitalism; as a historical materialist psychiatry, schizoanalysis will call not just for psychoanalytic doctrine, but for social relations in general, to conform to the syntheses of the unconscious. Schizoanalysis is thus revolutionary in a Marxist sense, whereas psychoanalysis is not. Yet here Deleuze & Guattari’s Marxist analyses acquire a distinctly Nietzschean foundation: the social ideal is not what best represents the interests of the proletariat (or humanity as a whole), but what least contradicts the “logic” of the unconscious and the bodily forces animating its syntheses; revolutionary society, too, will have to conform to these unconscious processes or else stand condemned as repressive."
-Eugene W. Holland, Deleuze and Guattari’s ’A Thousand Plateaus’. A Reader’s Guide, Bloomsbury, 2013.
"In making the object of critique the real genesis of our actual experience rather than the conditions of all possible experience, Deleuze & Guattari transform Kant’s syntheses of the understanding into passive syntheses of the unconscious. Based on his so-called “Copernican revolution” in epistemology, and speaking in the name of reason, Kant had asserted that the conscious mind utilizes a specific set of processes (which he called the “syntheses of apprehension, reproduction, and recognition”) to arrive at knowledge, and had insisted furthermore that knowledge would have to conform to these processes or else stand condemned as illegitimate. Of crucial importance for Kant was the idea that, since these processes were constitutive of conscious thought, they provided immanent criteria for judging knowledge as valid or invalid, depending on whether it was based on legitimate or illegitimate use of the three syntheses. In a similar way, but speaking not in the name of reason but in the name of desire and especially schizophrenic desire, Deleuze & Guattari insist that the unconscious operates according to a specific set of syntheses to process or constitute experience, and that psychoanalysis must either be shown to conform to these processes or else stand condemned as invalid. While this first transformation renders the syntheses passive and unconscious, a second transformation shifts the locus of the unconscious from the individual subject to the historically specific groups and social formations to which a given subject belongs. The unconscious thereby becomes something like a “collective unconscious”—but one that is specific to historically-situated groups and institutions rather than eternal or universal. The result, finally, is that critique becomes fully social rather than just epistemological: ultimately, schizoanalysis condemns psychoanalysis as a reflection or projection of capitalism; as a historical materialist psychiatry, schizoanalysis will call not just for psychoanalytic doctrine, but for social relations in general, to conform to the syntheses of the unconscious. Schizoanalysis is thus revolutionary in a Marxist sense, whereas psychoanalysis is not. Yet here Deleuze & Guattari’s Marxist analyses acquire a distinctly Nietzschean foundation: the social ideal is not what best represents the interests of the proletariat (or humanity as a whole), but what least contradicts the “logic” of the unconscious and the bodily forces animating its syntheses; revolutionary society, too, will have to conform to these unconscious processes or else stand condemned as repressive."
-Eugene W. Holland, Deleuze and Guattari’s ’A Thousand Plateaus’. A Reader’s Guide, Bloomsbury, 2013.
Dernière édition par Johnathan R. Razorback le Mer 1 Juin - 17:43, édité 1 fois
