Re: schizoanalizys for beginners

Posted by manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic | Thu Jan 19th 2006 5:28 p.m.

MANIK'S pitiful direct to confirmed bachelor Miklos The Simpatico Boy:

No,no Mikly,I seed no! Milky The Boy,ones again NO!
First- Foucault is not God,he's more than that,he's The Man who
make some sense for historyc structure of world in my pathetic,romantic,pra=
emodernistic mash of brain.He carry some order in to chaos (which I'm goi=
ng to try to do with you in this short letter,but you know I'm"artist",pain=
ter,and I paint great acryl on canvases|160X240cm|"All painting are acryl o=
n canvas",you remember?
I will be always grateful to this bold man for this delicate operation.In m=
y age friends leave fast and this process is particularly cruel without old=
friend from books.One of them is M.Foucault.At least he teach me in his gr=
eat books how to appreciate thorough knowledge.
I've wrote next(at least,I remember them for sure):
"Birth of the Clinic", "The Order of Things","The Archaeology of Knowledge"
" Discipline and Punish","The History of Sexuality",and one book with his p=
ublic lecture from
"College de France,1977:Il FAUT DEFENDRE LA SOCIETE(I don't speak French,li=
ke English,
after all ,that's why I put capital letters on last title.But,it's not so b=
ad,I mean all those
book.Of course I've forgot most details.
For example,"The Archaeology of Knowledge"was particularly different for me=
to read...
Let's get to "subject":you find Foucault(further F.)"...projecting
unconscious personal issue such as a real or
imagined fear of discourse?" Where did you get this stupid idea?In fact tha=
t he
see more than obvious social processes which are reflected in language/disc=
ourse.F.said nice:"
In every society the production of discourse is
at once controlled, selected, organized and
redistributed according to a certain number of
procedures, whose role is to avert its powers and
dangers, to cope with chance events, to evade its
ponderous, awesome materiality."
Where to hell you see there at least trace of *unconscious*?
He's clear like spring,that's why you make this overturn;
cleans filthy&vice versa.When is something very close
you see that hard,in blur,instead to move away,you pick
nose and scribble crazy thing about F.unconscious!:-/
And what's wrong with milk?Drug ans smoking and alcohol are bad not milk,
of course in reasonable quantity.And what's problem with next(could you
explained that with your own words)?
"Don't you think Foucault was " Yes danger is
present in all matters but the real meaning of
discourse is surely not to evade itself?"( Simply Mikly ...)
Cheers
MANIK

Mikly's letter to some French Dirk:
>Dirk wrote:
>
>Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious
>mistakes.

Foucaul is another deity but then we read a quote like below...

In every society the production of discourse is
at once controlled, selected, organized and
redistributed according to a certain number of
procedures, whose role is to avert its powers and
dangers, to cope with chance events, to evade its
ponderous, awesome materiality.

Y-YMichel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge

I personally thought the production of discourse
is managed principally to administer the social
structure? To make sure the guy goes to work to
make the nuts that fit the bolts that run the
pump that milks the cow whose milk will be in the
store in a few days so that children will grow up
healthy?

In Foucault's text I see the following words as a
smokecreeen; "the production of discourse is at
once controlled, selected, organized and
redistributed". This could be shortened to
"manage" yet it's eloborately structure to
distract full attention from his following
statement,projecting
unconscious personal issue such as a real or
imagined fear of discourse?
that discourse is managed "to evade its dangers,
ponderous, awesome materiality".

Don't you think Foucault was " Yes danger is
present in all matters but the real meaning of
discourse is surely not to evade itself?

Miklos
  • Marisa Olson | Thu Jan 19th 2006 6:07 p.m.
    I know there is a facetious pun at play here, but I just wanted to chip in
    about a subject very important to me...

    I have long been appalled by the way that theorists supposedly steeped in
    psychoanalytic readings could misdefine schizophrenia and then
    consistently glamorize this very serious, very misdefined condition as
    some sexy alternative to 'reality.' There is a long list of scholars
    who've become quite famous in the course of building and upholding this
    farce.

    Now I'm all for creativity, metaphor, and wordplay, but I feel that any of
    us with a ligitimate interest in these discourses or in contributing to
    any kind of meaningful conversation have a personal responsibility not to
    entrench this kind of grossly irresponsible scholarship.

    IMHO!
    marisa
  • qwerty | Thu Jan 19th 2006 8:28 p.m.
    totally!!!!

    On Jan 19, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Marisa Olson wrote:

    > I know there is a facetious pun at play here, but I just wanted to
    > chip in
    > about a subject very important to me...
    >
    > I have long been appalled by the way that theorists supposedly steeped
    > in
    > psychoanalytic readings could misdefine schizophrenia and then
    > consistently glamorize this very serious, very misdefined condition as
    > some sexy alternative to 'reality.' There is a long list of scholars
    > who've become quite famous in the course of building and upholding this
    > farce.
    >
    > Now I'm all for creativity, metaphor, and wordplay, but I feel that
    > any of
    > us with a ligitimate interest in these discourses or in contributing to
    > any kind of meaningful conversation have a personal responsibility not
    > to
    > entrench this kind of grossly irresponsible scholarship.
    >
    > IMHO!
    > marisa
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Plasma Studii | Thu Jan 19th 2006 9:27 p.m.
    totally!!!!

    On Jan 19, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Marisa Olson wrote:

    > I know there is a facetious pun at play here, but I just wanted to
    > chip in
    > about a subject very important to me...
    >
    > I have long been appalled by the way that theorists supposedly steeped
    > in
    > psychoanalytic readings could misdefine schizophrenia and then
    > consistently glamorize this very serious, very misdefined condition as
    > some sexy alternative to 'reality.' There is a long list of scholars
    > who've become quite famous in the course of building and upholding this
    > farce.
    >
    > Now I'm all for creativity, metaphor, and wordplay, but I feel that
    > any of
    > us with a ligitimate interest in these discourses or in contributing to
    > any kind of meaningful conversation have a personal responsibility not
    > to
    > entrench this kind of grossly irresponsible scholarship.
    >
    > IMHO!
    > marisa
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Eric Dymond | Thu Jan 19th 2006 10:53 p.m.
    Plasma Studii wrote:

    > totally!!!!
    >
    >
    > On Jan 19, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Marisa Olson wrote:
    >
    > > I know there is a facetious pun at play here, but I just wanted to
    > > chip in
    > > about a subject very important to me...
    > >
    > > I have long been appalled by the way that theorists supposedly
    > steeped
    > > in
    > > psychoanalytic readings could misdefine schizophrenia and then
    > > consistently glamorize this very serious, very misdefined condition
    > as
    > > some sexy alternative to 'reality.' There is a long list of scholars
    > > who've become quite famous in the course of building and upholding
    > this
    > > farce.
    > >
    > > Now I'm all for creativity, metaphor, and wordplay, but I feel that
    > > any of
    > > us with a ligitimate interest in these discourses or in contributing
    > to
    > > any kind of meaningful conversation have a personal responsibility
    > not
    > > to
    > > entrench this kind of grossly irresponsible scholarship.
    > >
    > > IMHO!
    > > marisa

    I think the issues that Deleuze and Guttari were addressing in their discourses were ones of "fitting in" and how social structures can be more disabling for schizophrenics. It is currently a devestating condition.
    In Mircea Eliade's research, the role of the schizophrenic is enabled by some tribes and excluded by others. In complex social networks, which we are a part of, the schizophrenic is excluded and sent to the shadows.
    As well capitalism has no room, or need for the schizophrenic. They don't contribute to the nations wealth in an open market system. Witness the homeless today and the Bedlams of the past. Providing a social space doesn't cure the chemical imbalances, but it can give them a nurturing environment and a sense of belonging.
    It isn't a cure, but it does provide needed dignity.

    Most people are frightened by schizophrenics. The fear is reinforced in the current social climate. The fear drives the schizophrenic further from the support network. As the isolation is amplified, the schizophrenic feels they are being persecuted. They are being persecuted. It's not a delusion.

    That’s really simplified read of the issue ( and Deleuze and Guttari) , but there is a seed of truth there that can offer a starting place for inclusion rather than depending solely upon pharmaceutical companies. After inclusion, maybe progress can be made.
    well, there ya go,
    Eric
  • Eric Dymond | Thu Jan 19th 2006 11:09 p.m.
    As well, we should all take note of the "normal people" in the Oval Office.
    Eric
  • Pall Thayer | Thu Jan 19th 2006 11:18 p.m.
    I disagree. I don't think that D & G's schizoanalysis was about
    schizophrenics. It was about breaking down the social molds of
    psychoanalysis. Schizoanalysis is a way out. Instead of using the
    averaged idea of a "normal" (the Oedipal triangle) person as a
    starting point, they propose setting the starting point on an
    individual basis. It fits into the whole concept of Nomadology,
    smooth spaces and numbering numbers. It wasn't necessarily about
    social structures being disabling for schizophrenics, but for anyone
    at all.

    Pall

    On 20.1.2006, at 00:53, Eric Dymond wrote:

    >
    > I think the issues that Deleuze and Guttari were addressing in
    > their discourses were ones of "fitting in" and how social
    > structures can be more disabling for schizophrenics. It is
    > currently a devestating condition.
    > In Mircea Eliade's research, the role of the schizophrenic is
    > enabled by some tribes and excluded by others. In complex social
    > networks, which we are a part of, the schizophrenic is excluded and
    > sent to the shadows.
    > As well capitalism has no room, or need for the schizophrenic. They
    > don't contribute to the nations wealth in an open market system.
    > Witness the homeless today and the Bedlams of the past. Providing a
    > social space doesn't cure the chemical imbalances, but it can give
    > them a nurturing environment and a sense of belonging.
    > It isn't a cure, but it does provide needed dignity.
    >
    > Most people are frightened by schizophrenics. The fear is
    > reinforced in the current social climate. The fear drives the
    > schizophrenic further from the support network. As the isolation is
    > amplified, the schizophrenic feels they are being persecuted. They
    > are being persecuted. It's not a delusion.
    >
    > That's really simplified read of the issue ( and Deleuze and
    > Guttari) , but there is a seed of truth there that can offer a
    > starting place for inclusion rather than depending solely upon
    > pharmaceutical companies. After inclusion, maybe progress can be made.
    > well, there ya go,
    > Eric
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p\_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Marisa Olson | Thu Jan 19th 2006 11:19 p.m.
    Hi. Millie Niss asked me to forward this info about a recent project of
    hers to the list. I particularly enjoyed Michael Szpakowski's performance
    of her lyrics!

    She said in a follow-up email, "The project will eventually have stuff
    about other categories of drugs (I have stuff in the works about pain
    killers) as well, and I hope it will address the cultural role of
    pharmaceuticals as well as the medical issues."

    On 1/19/06, Millie Niss <men2@columbia.edu> wrote:
    > I completely agree with you about the misuse of the term
    "schizophrenia." I
    > have serious mental illness myself and I also lived for four years with
    > someone who has bad schizophrenia. I also know many others who suffer
    from
    > this awful illness.
    >
    > On the topic of web art and mental illness, I have just made some work
    about
    > psychotropic medication (it's critical, but not against p[sych meds as
    such,
    > which help many people, only against irresponsibel use of these drugs).
    > There is a song, video, and a small flash app which documents many real
    > people's experiences with psych meds: www.sporkworld.org/pills
    >
    > Comments are welcome, this work is still in progress!
    >
    > Millie
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Marisa Olson" <marisa@rhizome.org>
    > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Cc: <manik@ptt.yu>; <miklos@sympatico.ca>
    > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:07 PM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: schizoanalizys for beginners
    >
    >
    > >I know there is a facetious pun at play here, but I just wanted to chip in
    > > about a subject very important to me...
    > >
    > > I have long been appalled by the way that theorists supposedly steeped in
    > > psychoanalytic readings could misdefine schizophrenia and then
    > > consistently glamorize this very serious, very misdefined condition as
    > > some sexy alternative to 'reality.' There is a long list of scholars
    > > who've become quite famous in the course of building and upholding this
    > > farce.
    > >
    > > Now I'm all for creativity, metaphor, and wordplay, but I feel that
    any of
    > > us with a ligitimate interest in these discourses or in contributing to
    > > any kind of meaningful conversation have a personal responsibility not to
    > > entrench this kind of grossly irresponsible scholarship.
    > >
    > > IMHO!
    > > marisa
    > >
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >
    >
    >
    >
  • Eric Dymond | Thu Jan 19th 2006 11:48 p.m.
    Pall Thayer wrote:

    > I disagree. I don't think that D & G's schizoanalysis was about
    > schizophrenics. It was about breaking down the social molds of
    > psychoanalysis. Schizoanalysis is a way out. Instead of using the
    > averaged idea of a "normal" (the Oedipal triangle) person as a
    > starting point, they propose setting the starting point on an
    > individual basis. It fits into the whole concept of Nomadology,
    > smooth spaces and numbering numbers. It wasn't necessarily about
    > social structures being disabling for schizophrenics, but for anyone
    > at all.
    >
    > Pall

    The Three Ecologies

    From Transference to Transversality

    "Guattari developed the concept of transversality through his interest in finding a kind of therapy adequate to an institutional context; in other words , what happens to classical psychotherapy technique focussed on the cure of an individual on a couch when the environment changes to a psychiatric hospital...
    The Institution, Guttari argued, was not simply a backdrop against which classical dual analyses might be undertaken, regardless of their Freudian or Lacanian lineage. The analyst had to come to terms with the effects of the setting on how s/he would normally proceed.Indeed the analyst was called upon to translate and reevaluate technical and conceptual notions in relation to what Guattari called the 'institutional object'."
    Eric
  • Francis Hwang | Fri Jan 20th 2006 11:22 a.m.
    On Jan 19, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Marisa Olson wrote:

    > I have long been appalled by the way that theorists supposedly steeped
    > in
    > psychoanalytic readings could misdefine schizophrenia and then
    > consistently glamorize this very serious, very misdefined condition as
    > some sexy alternative to 'reality.' There is a long list of scholars
    > who've become quite famous in the course of building and upholding this
    > farce.
    >
    > Now I'm all for creativity, metaphor, and wordplay, but I feel that
    > any of
    > us with a ligitimate interest in these discourses or in contributing to
    > any kind of meaningful conversation have a personal responsibility not
    > to
    > entrench this kind of grossly irresponsible scholarship.

    Good thing Rhizome doesn't try to have an official stance on psychiatry
    ;)

    I'm not familiar with D&G's writings on psychiatry, but it's quite
    possible to be critical of mainline psychiatry without necessarily
    glamorizing the condition of schizophrenia. A lot of the good
    "anti-psychiatry" theory moves to put such conditions out of the
    individual context, and into the social context, which was part of
    psychiatry's brief in the beginning but has been slowly leached out of
    the practice as it became more closely lashed to modern technocratic
    society.

    I agree with much of what Eric wrote here:

    > In Mircea Eliade's research, the role of the schizophrenic is enabled
    > by some tribes and excluded by others. In complex social networks,
    > which we are a part of, the schizophrenic is excluded and sent to the
    > shadows.
    > As well capitalism has no room, or need for the schizophrenic. They
    > don't contribute to the nations wealth in an open market system.
    > Witness the homeless today and the Bedlams of the past. Providing a
    > social space doesn't cure the chemical imbalances, but it can give
    > them a nurturing environment and a sense of belonging.
    > It isn't a cure, but it does provide needed dignity.

    Though I'd go a little further and say that ultimately it may not be
    correct to describe schizophrenia as a condition requiring a "cure" ...
    You could also remove the normative aspect from psychiatry altogether
    and simply that schizophrenia is a condition, a statistical outlier,
    but not necessarily more or less healthy, just different.

    I don't want to trivialize or glamorize the problems faced by those
    with mental illnesses. In fact, my dad works in the industry, so I grew
    up with all sorts of terrible stories about mental illnesses.

    But if you're not normal, and that makes it difficult to live in
    society, who's to blame for that, exactly? Homosexuality was only
    removed from the DSM within the last 50 years. If you grew up gay in a
    Christian fundamentalist household in a homophobic small town, and
    revealing your desires to anybody might get you condemned or beaten or
    killed, and then you grow up with serious intimacy issues, whose fault
    is that?

    Or, to take a much more harrowing example from the cutting edge of
    psychiatric pathology: Some psychiatrists are beginning to look into
    what is currently called Body Integrity Identity Disorder, which is the
    overwhelming desire of a person to voluntarily amputate a very specific
    part of their body. These patients (who are almost always men) feel
    that a certain part of their body (almost always below the waist)
    simply doesn't belong to them, and that they would be more whole
    without it. Like pre-op transsexuals, they often dress the part, for
    example by tying their leg back and wearing loose fitting pants that
    are clipped up where the missing part would be.

    And, although research on this is extremely preliminary, at this point
    it would appear that the only known treatment is actually amputation.
    Some of these patients are able to pursue this in a proper medical
    setting, but as you might imagine some are forced to do it themselves,
    using whatever tools you might imagine a person might use if they were
    forced to self-amputate without the benefit of a medical staff, an
    operating theatre, or anesthesia.

    The New York Underground had a pretty amazing documentary on the
    subject (I think two years ago), and a few of the interviewees were
    people who had taken this step. They all looked astoundingly happy.
    Their condition was cured. They were just without one leg or foot or
    whatever ...

    Now, this is pretty horrifying stuff, and it's clearly not normal in
    the statistical sense, but why is it unhealthy? We know, for example,
    that plenty of people who lose their limbs in accidents are capable of
    living rich, fulfilling lives. So why can't the same be true for
    somebody who loses his limb on purpose? And what should society's
    response be to this? Should we make it easier for people to get, to
    twist a Christian fundamentalist phrase, "amputation-on-demand"? Or
    should we force them to pursue years of experimental treatments--shock
    therapies, medication, aversion therapy, etc., etc.--in lieu of just
    getting an amputation, which is on its own a very established, safe
    medical procedure?

    Anyway, back to schizophrenia ... It's quite possible that the world is
    going to become increasingly hostile to its schizophrenics, largely as
    a result of the spread of global capitalism. Cities are worse for
    schizophrenics than the countryside, so a future in which more than
    half the world's population is urban doesn't bode well for them. The
    complex web of invisible power relations--whether technical, financial,
    social, or legal--required to get along in the 21st century probably
    don't do any good for the schizophrenic's propensity for paranoia.

    Maybe the trade-offs are worth it, maybe they're not. I personally
    can't claim to be pure in this respect, anyway: I live in a big city
    and I work with the internet and I even find the Economist to be
    interesting reading. But maybe it's a shame that we're implicitly
    deciding that from now on, society has no place for the schizophrenic.
    And maybe it's a copout to say that it's because of biology that they
    don't fit in, when it's just as much because of culture.

    Or maybe the decision isn't so final. Maybe the fragmentation of
    culture that comes with the spread of information technology actually
    works against the idea of reality as consensus--and thus in favor of
    the schizophrenic. Any world that has a place for furries and centaur
    porn and Everquest economies and transgenderism and people who dress up
    like Uruk-Hai on the weekends might actually have a place for
    schizophrenics, right? Who's to say.

    Francis Hwang
    Director of Technology
    Rhizome.org
    phone: 212-219-1288x202
    AIM: francisrhizome
    + + +
  • Rhizomer | Fri Jan 27th 2006 9:41 a.m.
    the production of discourse"
    Hence the key word "production"
    Another word close enough to replace production in this context is "distribution"

    Faucault is simply saying what happens "WHEN" discourse is in circulation.......when it hits society.....affects society.......influences society.......etc..

    Your probably reading into it to much...lol

    As for foucault making mistakes......thats common to men

    If he didn't have a few kinks in his armor I probably wouldn't read him

    But I don't find him arrogant or self righteous

    He was an explorer, a searcher, a genius in my book

    Marisa Olson wrote:

    > I know there is a facetious pun at play here, but I just wanted to
    > chip in
    > about a subject very important to me...
    >
    > I have long been appalled by the way that theorists supposedly steeped
    > in
    > psychoanalytic readings could misdefine schizophrenia and then
    > consistently glamorize this very serious, very misdefined condition as
    > some sexy alternative to 'reality.' There is a long list of scholars
    > who've become quite famous in the course of building and upholding
    > this
    > farce.
    >
    > Now I'm all for creativity, metaphor, and wordplay, but I feel that
    > any of
    > us with a ligitimate interest in these discourses or in contributing
    > to
    > any kind of meaningful conversation have a personal responsibility not
    > to
    > entrench this kind of grossly irresponsible scholarship.
    >
    > IMHO!
    > marisa
    >
    >
Your Reply