Deleuze quotes

Wehavetocounterpeoplewhothink"I'mthis,I'mthat,"andwhodoso,
moreover,inpsychoanalyticterms(relatingeverythingtotheirchildhood
orfate),bythinkinginstrange,fluid,unusualterms:Idon'tknowwhatI
amI'dhavetoinvestigateandexperimentwithsomanythingsinanon
narcissistic,nonoedipalwaynogaycaneverdefinitivelysay"I'mgay."
It'snotaquestionofbeingthisorthatsortofhuman,butofbecoming
inhuman,ofauniversalanimalbecomingnotseeingyourselfassome
dumbanimal,butunravelingyourbody'shumanorganization,exploring
thisorthatzoneofbodilyintensity,witheveryonediscoveringtheirown
particularzones,andthegroups,populations,speciesthatinhabitthem.
Who'stosayIcan'ttalkaboutmedicineunlessI'madoctor,ifItalkabout
itlikeadog?
Speaking/arguingfromprivilegedexperienceisbadandreactionary
Repressiveforcesdon'tstoppeoplefromexpressingthemselves,but
rather,forcethemtoexpressthemselves.Whatarelieftohavenothingto
say,therighttosaynothing,becauseonlythenisthereachanceof
framingtherare,orevenrarer,thethingthatmightbeworthsaying
deleuze
youcan'tfightoedipalsecretionsexceptbyfightingyourself,by
experimentingonyourself,byopeningyourselfuptoloveanddesire
(ratherthanthewhiningneedtobelovedthatleadseveryonetothe
psychoanalyst)
There'snoquestionthatpsydtoanalysishasshakenupthewholeareaof
mentalhealth,it'sbeenlikeabombsmuggledinside.Thewayit'sbeen
compromisedfromthestartdoesn'treallymatter,it'sshakenthingsup,
it'sforcedpeopletoorganizethingsdifferently,it'suncovereddesire.You
yourselfciteFreud'sanalysisofpsychicalapparatuses:there'sthewhole
aspectofmachinery,theproductionofdesire,productionlines.Butthen
there'stheotheraspect,ofpersonifyingtheseapparatuses(asSuperego;
Ego,andId),atheatricalmiseenscenethatsubstitutesmerely
representativetokensforthetrueproductiveforcesoftheunconscious.
desire'smachinesbecomemoreandmorelikestagemachinery:tift!
superego,thedeathinstinct,becomesadeusexmachina.Theycometo
workmoreandmorebehindthescene,inthewings.Orlikemachinesfor
creatingillusions,specialeffects.Alldesiringproductioniscrippled.
Whatwe'resayingisthatFreudatoncediscoversdesireaslibido,as
productivedesire,andisconstantlyforcingtheHbidobackintoa
domesticrepresentationwithintheOedipuscomplex
Foucaultsaidpsychoanalysisremainsdeaftothevoiceofunreason
Wesetagainstthisfascismofpoweractive,positivelinesofflight,because
theselinesopenupdesire,desire'smachines,andtheorganizationofasocial
fieldofdesire:it'snotamatterofescaping"personally,"fromoneself,butof

allowingsomethingtoescape,likeburstingapipeoraboil.Openingupflows
beneaththesocialcodesthatseektochannelandblockthem.Desirenever
resistsoppression,howeverlocalandtinytheresistance,withoutthechallenge
beingcommunicatedtothecapitalistsystemasawhole,andplayingitspart
inburstingitopen.Onethingwerejectisalltalkofaconflictbetweenmanand
machine,ofmenbeingalienatedbymachines,andsoon.Thoseinpower,sup
portedbypseudoleftwingorganizations,triedfromthestartofMay68to
convincepeopleitwasjustaloadofspoiltchildrenattackingconsumer
society,whilerealworkersknewwellenoughwheretheirrealinterestslay,and
soon.Nobodywaseverattackingconsumersociety,thatidioticnotion.What
wesay,infact,isthatthere'sneverany thinglikeenoughconsumption,never
anythinglikeenoughcontrivance:people'sinterestswillneverturninfavorof
revolutionuntillinesofdesirereachthepointwheredesireandmachine
becomeindistinguishable,wheredesireandcontrivancearethesamething,
turningagainstthesocallednaturalprinciplesof,forexample,capitalist
society.Now,thispointisbothterriblyeasytoreach,becauseit'sthereineven
thetiniestdesire,andterriblydifficulttoreach,becauseitbringsintoplayall
ourunconsciousinvestments.

We'reproposingschizoanalysisasopposedtopsychoanalysis:justlookatthe
twothingspsychoanalysiscan'tdealwith:itnevergetsthroughtoanyone's
desiringmachines,becauseit'sstuckinoedipalfiguresorstructures;itnever
getsthroughtothesocialinvestmentsofthelibido,becauseit'sstuckinits
domesticinvestments.
Wereinterestedinhowsomethingworksfunctionsfindingthemachine.Butthe

signifier'sstillstuckinthequestion"Whatdoesitmean?"indeedit'sthisvery
questioninablockedformButforus,theunconsciousdoesn'tmeananything,
nordoeslanguage.
Theonlyquestionishowanythingworks,withitsintensities,flows,processes,
partialobjectsnoneofwhichmeananything.
GD:Wefeelthesamewayaboutourbook[antioedipus].Whatmattersis
whetheritworks,andhowitworks,andwhoitworksfor.It'samachinetoo.
It'snotamatterofreadingitoverandoveragain,youhavetodosomething
elsewithit.It'sabookweenjoyedproducing.We'renotwritingforpeople
whothinkpsychoanalysisisdoingfineandseestheunconsciousforwhatit
is.We'rewritingforpeoplewhothinkit'sprettydullandsadasitburbleson
aboutOedipus,castration,thedeathinstinct,andsoon.We'rewritingfor
unconsciousnessesthathavehadenough.We'relookingforallies.
Whatwelookforinabookisthewayittransmitssomethingthatresists
coding:flows,revolutionaryactivelinesofflight,linesofabsolutedecoding
ratherthananyintellectualculture.
IsitourfaultthatLawrence,Miller,Kerouac,Burroughs,Artaud,andBeckett
knowmoreaboutschizophreniathanpsychiatristsandpsychoanalysts?
[interviewer:Thewaytheopinionmakerstalk,you'dthinkwedidn'tneedany
conceptsatall.Thatwecouldgetbyjustaswellwithsomevaguesubcultureof
magazinesandreviews.

Werecognizemetaphorassomethingthatjustconfusesmattersandhasnoreal

importance);

It'sbecomeacommonplacethesedaystotalkaboutthebreakdownofsystems,
theimpossibilityofconstructingasystemnowthatknowledgehasbecomeso
fragmented("we'renolongerinthenineteenthcentury...").Therearetwo
problemswiththisidea:peoplecan'timaginedoinganyseriousworkexcepton
veryrestrictedspecificlittleseries;worsestill,anybroaderapproachisleftto
thespuriousworkofvisionaries,withanyonesayingwhatevercomesintotheir
head.Systemshaveinfactlostabsolutelynoneoftheirpower.thegroundwork
foratheoryofsocalledopensystemsisinplaceincurrentscienceandlogic,
systemsbasedoninteractions,rejectingonlylinearformsofcausality,and
transformingthenotionoftime.

Philosophy'sjobhasalwaysbeentocreatenewconcepts,withtheirown
necessity.Becausethey'renotjustwhatevergeneralitieshappentobein
fashion,either.They'resingularities,rather,actingontheflowsofeveryday
thought:it'sperfectlyeasytothinkwithoutconcepts,butassoonasthereare
concepts,there'sgenuinephilosophy.It'sgotnothingtodowithideology.A
concept'sfullofacritical,politicalforceoffreedom.
Peoplesometimescriticizeusforusingcomplicatedwords"tobetrendy."
That'snotjustmalicious,it'sstupid.Aconceptsometimesneedsanewwordto
expressit,sometimesitusesaneverydaywordthatitgivesasingularsense.
hefirstideaistodowithwork.IthinkGodard'sconstantlybringinginto
questionavaguelyMarxistschemethathasspreadeverywhere:there's
supposedtobesomethingprettyabstractcalled"labor"thatonecanbuyorsell,
insituationsthateithermarkabasicsocialinjusticeorestablishalittlemore
socialjustice.ButGodardasksveryconcretequestions,hepresentsimages
touchingonwhatexactlyisbeingboughtandsold.Whataresomepeople
preparedtobuy,andotherstosell,thesenotnecessarilybeingthesamething?
Ayoungwelderispreparedtosellhisworkasawelder,butnothissexuality
bybecominganoldwoman'slover.Acleaninglady'shappytosellthetimeshe
spendscleaningbutwon'tsellthemomentshespendssingingabitofthe
"Internationale"why?Becauseshecan'tsing?Butwhat,then,ifonewereto
payherfortalkingaboutnotbeingabletosing?Aspecialistclockmaker,on
theotherhand,wantstogetpaidforhisclockmakingefforts,butrefuses
tobepaidforhisworkasanamateurfilmmaker,whichhecallshis"hobby";
buttheimagesshowthatthemovementshemakesinthetwoactivities,the
clockmakingsequenceandtheeditingsequence,aresoremarkablysimilarthat
youcanmistakeonefortheother.Butno,saystheclockmaker,there'sagreat
differenceofloveandwarmthinthesemovements,Idon'twanttobepaidfor
myfilmmaking.Butthenwhataboutfilmmakersandphotographerswhodoget
paid?What,furthermore,isaphotographerhimselfpreparedtopayfor?He's
sometimespreparedtopayhismodel.Sometimesthemodelpayshim.But
whenhephotographstortureoranexecution,hepaysneitherthevictimnorthe
executioner.Andwhenhephotographschildrenwhoaresick,wounded,or
hungry,whydoesn'thepaythem?Guattarioncesuggestedata

psychoanalyticalcongressthatanalysandsshouldbepaidaswellasanalysts,
sincetheanalystisn'texactlyprovidinga"service,"it'smorelikeadivisionof
labor,twodistinctkinds
ofworkgoingon:there'stheanalyst'sworkoflisteningandsifting,
buttheanalysand'sunconsciousisatworktoo.Nobodyseemstohave
takenmuchnoticeofGuattari'ssuggestion.Godard'ssayingthesame
thing:whynotpaythepeoplewhowatchtelevision,insteadofmak
ingthempay,becausethey'reengagedinrealworkandarethem
selvesprovidingapublicservice?Thesocialdivisionoflabormeans
it'snotonlyworkontheshopfloorthatgetspaidbutworkinofficesand
researchlaboratoriestoo.Otherwisewe'dhavetothinkabout
theworkersthemselveshavingtopaythepeoplewhodesignthethingsthey
make.Ithinkallthesequestionsandmanyothers,alltheseimagesandmany
others,tearapartthenotionoflabor.Inthefirstplace,theverynotionoflabor
arbitrarilysetsoneareaofactivityapart,cutsworkofffromitsrelationtolove,
tocreativity,toproductioneven.Itmakesworkakindofmaintenance,the
oppositeofcreatinganything,becauseonthisnotionit'samatterof
reproducinggoodsthatareconsumedandreproducingitsownproductive
force,withinaclosedsystemofexchange.Fromthisviewpointitdoesn'tmuch
matterwhethertheexchangeisfairorunfair,becausethere'salwaysselective
violenceinanactofpayment,andthere'smystificationintheveryprinciple
oftalkingintermsoflabor.

perceivingissubtractingfromanimagewhatdoesn'tinterestus,there's
alwayslessinourperception.We'resofullofimageswenolongerseethose
outsideusforwhattheyare.
allourthought'smodeled,rather,ontheverb"tobe,"IS.5Philosophy's
weigheddownwithdiscussionsaboutattributivejudgments(theskyisblue)
andexistentialjudgments(Godis)andthepossibilityorimpossibilityof
reducingonetotheother.Buttheyallturnontheverb"tobe."Even
conjunctionsaredealtwithintermsoftheverb"tobe"lookatsyllogisms.The
EnglishandtheAmericansarejustabouttheonlypeoplewho'veset
conjunctionsfree,bythinkingaboutrelations.Butwhenyouseerelational
judgmentsasautonomous,yourealizethattheycreepineverywhere,they
invadeandruineverything:ANDisn'tevenaspecificconjunctionorrelation,
itbringsinallrelations,thereareasmanyrelationsasANDS,ANDdoesn't
justupsetallrelations,itupsetsbeing,theverb...andsoon.AND,"and.
..and...and..."ispre.ciselyacreativestammering,aforeignuseoflanguage,as
opposedtoaconformistanddominantusebasedontheverb"tobe."
Neitheracomponentnoracollection,whatisthisAND?IthinkGodard'sforce
liesinlivingandthinkingandpresentingthisANDinaverynovelway
makingitworkactively
Godard'stryingto"seeborders,"thatis,toshowtheimperceptible.Theconvict

andhiswife.Themotherandchild.Butalsoimagesandsounds.Andthe
clockmaker'smovementswhenhe'sinhisclockmakingsequenceandwhenhe's
athiseditingtable:animperceptibleborderseparatesthem,belongingto
neitherbutcarryingbothforwardintheirdisparatedevelopment,inaflightor
inaflowwherewenolongerknowwhichistheguidingthread,norwhereit's
going.Awholemicropoliticsofborders,counteringthemacropoliticsoflarge
groups.

Now,supposeacharacterfindshimselfinasituation,howeverordinaryor
extraordinary,that'sbeyondanypossibleaction,ortowhichhecan'treact.It's
toopowerful,ortoopainful,toobeautiful.Thesensorymotorlink'sbroken.
He'snolongerinasensorymotorsituation,butinapurelyopticalandaural
situation.Here'sanewtypeofimage.TaketheforeignwomaninRosselini's
Stromboli:shegoesthroughthetunafishing,thetuna'sagony,thenthe
volcano'seruption.Shedoesn'tknowhowtoreact,can'trespond,it'stoo
intense:"I'vehadit,I'mafraid,it'ssostrange,sobeautiful,God..."Orthe
poshlady,seeingthefactoryinEuropa5r:'Theylookedlikeconvicts..."
That,Ithink,isneorealism'sgreatinnovation:wenolongerhavemuchfaithin
beingabletoactuponsitua.onsorreacttosituations,butitdoesn'tmakeusat
allpassive,itallowsustocatchorrevealsomethingintolerable,unbearable,
eveninthemosteverydaythings.It'saVisionarycinema.
[onFoucault]
perhapshapsweallhadthesameconceptionofphilosophytoo.Wehadno
tasteforabstractions,Unity,Totality,Reason,Subject.Wesetourselvesthe
taskofanalyzingmixedforms,arrangements,whatFoucaultcalled
apparatuses.9Wesetouttofollowanddisentanglelinesratherthanworkback
topoints:acartography,involvingmicroanalysis(whatFoucaultcalledthe
microphysicsofpower,andGuattarithemicropoliticsofdesire).Welooked
forfociofunification,nodesoftotalization,andprocessesofsubjectificationin
arrangements,andtheywerealwaysrelative,theycouldalwaysbedismantled
inordertofollowsomerestlesslinestillfurther.Weweren'tlookingfor
origins,evenlostordeletedones,butsettingouttocatchthingswherethey
wereatwork,inthemiddle:breakingthingsopen,breakingwordsopen.
Valery'smaximthat"there'snothingdeeperthanskin"
you once toldMichelFoucault:"You werethefirsttoteachussomethingquite

basic:theindignityofspeakingforothers."

Now,whatdoesitmeantospeakforoneselfratherthanforothers?It'snotof
courseamatterofeveryonefindingtheirmomentoftruthinmemoirsor
psychoanalysis;it'snotjustamatterofspeakinginthefirstperson.Butof
identifyingtheimpersonalphysicalandmentalforcesyouconfrontandfightas
soonasyoutrytodosomething,notknowingwhatyou'retryingtodountil
youbegintofight.Beingitselfisinthissensepolitical.
Ihaven'tapproachedthingsthroughstructure,or
linguisticsorpsychoanalysis,throughscienceoreventhroughhisto

ry,becauseIthinkphilosophyhasitsownrawmaterialthatallowsittoenter
intomorefundamentalexternalrelationswiththeseother
disciplines.Maybethat'swhatFoucaultmeant:Iwasn'tbetterthantheothers,
butmorenaive,producingakindofartbrut,15sotospeak;notthemost
profoundbutthemostinnocent(theonewhofelttheleastguiltabout"doing
philosophy").
PeopleactedasthoughFoucaultwastalkingaboutthedeathofexistingmen
(andtheysaid"that'sgoingabitfar")orasthough,ontheotherhand,he
wasjustnotingachangeintheconceptofman("that'sallhe'ssaying").Buthe
wasn'tsayingeitherofthesethings.Hewastalkingaboutaplayofforces,and
adominantformemergingfromit.Takethehumanforcesofimagining,
conceiving,wanting...andsoon:withwhatotherforcesdotheycomeinto
playatsomeparticularperiod,andwhatcompositeformemerges?Itmay
happenthathumanforcesenterascomponentsintoaformthatisn'thumanbut
animal,ordivine.Intheclassicperiod,16forexample,humanforcescomeinto
playwithinfinitaryforces,"ordersofinfinity,"withtheresultthatmanis
formedintheimageofGodandhisfinitudeismerelyalimitationofinfinity.
TheformofManemergesinthenineteenthcentury,whenhumanforces
combinewithotherfinitaryforcesdiscoveredinlife,work,language.Then
thesedaysit'softensaidthatmanisconfrontingnewforces:siliconandno
longerjustcarbon,thecosmosratherthantheworld...Whatreasonisthereto
thinkthattheresultingcompositeformisstillMan?

It'sallverywellinvokingfociofresistance,butwherearesuchfocitobe
found?AndittakesFoucaultalongtimetofindasolutionbecauseheactually
hastocreateone.Canwesay,then,thatthisnewdimension'sthatofthe
subject?Foucaultdoesn'tusethewordsubjectasthoughhe'stalkingabouta
personoraformofidentity,buttalksabout"subjectification"asaprocess,and
"Self"asarelation(arelationtooneself).Andwhat'shetalkingabout?Abouta
relationofforcetoitself(whereaspowerwasarelationofaforcetoother
forces),abouta"fold"offorce.Aboutestablishingdifferentwaysofexisting,
dependingonhowyoufoldthelineofforces,orinventingpossibilitiesoflife
thatdependondeathtoo,onourrelationstodeath:existingnotasasubjectbut
asaworkofart.
He'stalkingaboutinventingwaysofexisting,throughoptionalrules,thatcan
bothresistpowerandeludeknowledge,evenifknowledgetriestopenetrate
themandpowertoappropriatethem.
waywe'renotGreeks,notChristians,butbecomingsomethingelse.History,in
short,iswhatseparatesusfromourselvesandwhatwehavetogothroughand
beyondinordertothinkwhatweare.