At the end of the first section/chapter (pp. 49-50) Deleuze and Guattari draw attention to the consequences of misunderstanding the “precise nature” of desiring production; how Oedipal triangulation traps and “distorts the life of the child and his later development, the neurotic and psychotic problems of the adult, and sexuality as a whole”. Within this distortion, psychoanalysis takes on the cause: it says that it understands what is going on in the unconscious–by having someone sit on the couch and express their innermost thoughts–and also that it holds the cure…more talk to convince the patient to fall in line and play his role in the theater of the unconscious. The power of Oedipus lies in its use of psychoanalysis as a displacement or distraction tool of transference, whereby the social repression crushing desiring-production appears to the patient, alone with the psychoanalyst, as familial.
The task for Deleuze and Guattari in the second chapter is to demystify Oedipus, to pick it apart at every important point of its formation, to explain the processes psychoanalysis and Oedipus engage in to configure an acceptable/curable unconscious. D&G feel that their goal to “schizophrenize the domain of the unconscious”–as THE REAL, as productive and machinic–becomes more of a possibility once Oedipus and Psychoanalysis are demystified, but and along lines similar to Marx the key is that this awareness is followed up with (materialist) productive, creative experiences and engagements with the REAL. The schizophrenic will not emerge however, merely with interventions in the illegitimate…
(question still remains about Kant and immanent criteria–D&G mention that they use it and that its good because Kant did so, but for me this is not enough of an explanation to properly understand it with relation to legitimate vs. illegitimate uses of the syntheses of the unconscious. My guess is that legitimate processes of the unconscious must be defined according to what is immanent to it because the transcendent takes the unconscious out of its element, in the sense that criteria which are not immanent will inevitably be imposing some sort of order on the unconscious–perhaps always a confrontation between the socius and the desiring-machine-schizo/person? (am i allowed to say that?), because it seems that criteria coming from the social-machine or order will generally be repressive, trying to extract some sort of surplus value–usurping desiring-production for its own uses)…
uses of the syntheses of the unconscious. Social repression must be undermined by the schizo. The schizophrenic wall/limit must be challenged, broken through, to let desiring-production free; the unconscious cannot fall back into the grip of the familial if it seeks liberation.
