French Transcript

French Transcript

This final session's transcript commences in mid-session, with Deleuze discussing how psychoanalysis prevents the emergence of a subject's own statements (with several notable examples), but also presenting the positive query as what condition would allow this very emergence of individual or group statements. He refers to the previous year's critique of Oedipus through the distortions produced in a patient's statements during the psychoanalytic session, and Deleuze suggests locating blocs of childhood and childhood memories, not Oedipal details, but machinic connections forming the true life of the unconscious. Deleuze briefly refers to Kafka as a counterexample, his inscription of childhood memories in the “Letter to the Father” which reveals, Deleuze argues, Kafka's humor, whereas in other texts (Deleuze cites The Castle ), Kafka injects blocks of childhood into adult scenes, thereby producing diverse coordinates. Deleuze then reviews the conclusions reached in the previous discussion of Baudrillard, notably statements being produced by the transformation of exchange-value into sign-value. Then Deleuze proposes to consider recent writing by Jean-Pierre Faye, Langages totalitaires (Paris: Hermann, 1972) , i.e., texts that provide evidence of material conditions of exchange. Deleuze maintains that engendering the power of statements or production of the unconscious never emerges from the circuit of exchange, but rather is based on a fundamental heterogeneity of quantities, notably a differential relationship of varying powers ( puissances ). In response to a student, Deleuze addresses the question of converting money into purchasing power in relation to capital's mobility, maintaining that in any economic field, there's not only the differential relationship between quantities with different powers, but also a relationship between these quantities that must be called

“nomadism”, whereas the disempowered flow will be entirely subordinate to the requirements of capital. After a break, Deleuze provides a brief summary of his reading of Baudrillard and Faye connects Foucault's The Archeology of Knowledge to their analyses, the statement having a form “as such” ( en tant que tel ), that is, its emergence as innovation, as a kind of multiplicity within a discursive formation, particularly in Foucault's discussion (in The Archeology of Knowledge ) of the production of nineteenth-century statements in specific types of space.

讨论的主题包括让-皮埃尔·法耶、关于陈述的各种观念、融资的流、与此前考量过的鲍德里亚文本的比较，以及开始讨论一篇福柯的文本。

Les sujets de la discussion comprennent Jean-Pierre Faye, les conceptions de l’énoncé, les flux du financement, une comparaison avec le texte de Baudrillard considéré auparavant, et le début d’une discussion d’un texte de Foucault.

Baudrillard and statements

鲍德里亚与陈述

Baudrillard and statements

English Translation

论《反俄狄浦斯》，1972–1973

Sur L’Anti-Œdipe, 1972-1973

On Anti-Oedipus, 1972-1973

第五讲，1973年6月4日

5ème séance, 04 juin 1973

Conceptions of the Statement – Flow of financing

关于陈述的各种观念；融资的流

Les conceptions de l'énoncé; Flux de financement

There is a critical thread and a very vague positive line of research. The critical thread is that evidently, far from favoring the emergence of statements, psychoanalysis prevents any emergence of statements, and it deprives us of any chance of holding onto statements which are our own. This runs through everything. But the positive part, what interested us, was: what are the conditions of the production of statements which are specific to us, whether they are statements of individuals or statements of groups? And by virtue of the same thing, what are the conditions of a [ indistinct word ]? It is not surprising that psychoanalysis, by nature, deprives us of all possibility of enunciation; it is truly by nature that it considers the unconscious as something after the fact. The unconscious as, once again, something which is always already there, and to be reduced through a machine of interpretation. For our part, we consider the unconscious, on the contrary, as something which is never there, and which is to be produced, to be produced by a machine of experimentation. If I tried to sum up everything I have developed this year, it is that.

……有一条批判的线索和一种极为模糊的肯定性研究。批判的线索在于：显然，精神分析非但不能促成陈述的涌现，反而阻止任何陈述的涌现，并剥夺我们拥有属于我们自己的陈述的任何机会。这一点贯穿始终。但肯定性的部分，亦即我们所感兴趣的，是：生产属于我们自己的陈述的条件是什么，无论这些陈述是个体陈述还是群体陈述？由此同样，实验的条件又是什么？精神分析出于其本性剥夺我们一切陈述行为的可能性，这并不令人意外；它确实出于本性把无意识视作某种事后之物，再次把无意识视作某种总已在此、须由解释机器来消减的东西。我们则相反，把无意识视作某种从不在此之物，是须去生产的，须由实验机器来生产的。若我尝试概括这一年我所展开的一切，便是如此。