Anti-Oedipus 2.4: The Disjunctive Synthesis of Recording

To reiterate, the first paralogism is: a partial object is lifted out of the multiplicity.

What happens next is the law of the father.

To understand the second paralogism, we must remember that the second synthesis of the unconscious — the disjunctive synthesis — is responsible for recording points on the surface of the BwO. Through the recording of these points, organs are given particularized functions, yet everything still remains interconnected. Inclusive disjunctions refer to recorded points on the surface of the BwO coexisting and connecting without excluding one another. However, in the second paralogism, desire misuses this process:

“When Oedipus slips into the disjunctive syntheses of desiring-recording, it imposes the ideal of a certain restrictive or exclusive use on them that becomes identical with the form of triangulation: being daddy, mommy, or child” (AO, 75).

Can the daddy be the mommy? Can the daddy be the child? Can the mommy be child? According to the rules of the exclusive disjunction: no. Therefore, a restrictive use is imposed upon the synthesis of recording. In this manner, Oedipus is guided by the exclusive disjunction’s “either/or” instead of the schizophrenics’ “either…or…or…”

“This is the reign of the ‘either/or’ in the differentiating function of the prohibition of incest: here is where mommy begins, there daddy, and there you are — stay in your place” (AO, 75).

So… what’s the second paralogism?

Paralogism 2: An exclusive use is imposed upon the disjunctive synthesis.

• “…The introduction of an exclusive, restrictive, and negative use of the disjunctive synthesis” (AO, 76).

To make this point abundantly clear, Deleuze and Guattari are not suggesting that the schizophrenic embodies both man and woman, mommy and daddy, parent and child simultaneously. Instead, they articulate that “[the schizophrenic] is man or woman, but [the schizophrenic] belongs precisely to both sides, man on the side of men, woman on the side of women” (AO, 76).

Unlike exclusive disjunctions where one is either categorized as a man or a woman (either/or), the schizophrenic operates within inclusive disjunctions, marked by the open-ended possibilities — either…or…or… This fluidity of identity emerges as the schizophrenic approaches what defines a man, woman, parent, child, or any other categorization. Consequently, the schizophrenic does not rigidly identify as both man and woman simultaneously, nor are they confined to an exclusive identification as either a man or a woman.

Understanding this line of reasoning can be challenging within the framework of oedipalization, where we tend to view elements like gender as fixed and immutable. However, it is vital to remember that desire transcends these fixed categories because it is not bound by traditional notions of man or woman, father or mother. The fluid identity of the schizophrenic defies conventional boundaries and remains dynamic and open-ended — always in a state of becoming.

The schizophrenic is constantly being produced by and through inclusive disjunctions on the surface of the BwO. Deleuze and Guattari write:

“The schizophrenic is dead or alive, not both at once, but each of the two as the terminal point of a distance over which he glides. He is child or parent, not both, but the one at the end of the other, like the two ends of a stick in a nondecomposable space” (AO, 76).

As the schizophrenic traverses a spectrum of states and is constantly produced by these states, the schizophrenic undergoes a continuous process of inscription on the BwO. This process is underpinned by the disjunctive synthesis, responsible for the differentiation of organ-machines, marking distinct points of functionality on the surface of the BwO. Each organ-machine possesses its unique set of functions, and similarly, like the schizophrenic’s journey, organ-machines encounter and absorb distinct differentiations and functional roles. However, for the schizophrenic, these recorded points of differentiation cannot exist in isolation from one another; they are interconnected and inseparable, rendering the disjunctions inherently inclusive in nature. This does not entail that the schizophrenic does not pass through the states of what constitutes man or woman — they are always passing through these states at a molecular level.

Consequently, the schizophrenic is in a perpetual state of identification with, and simultaneous disidentification from, each of these differentiated states they encounter. This process reflects the ever-fluid nature of their identity and experience as they adapt and relate to various states, embracing and yet distancing themselves from each one.

In stark contrast, exclusive disjunctions function to meticulously document precise points on the recording surface, with the aim of firmly cementing identity categories in place. Within this framework, individuals are confined to binary classifications such as man or woman, parent or child, leaving no space for anything beyond these rigid and exclusive delineations. In Figure 5, we see a gridding of the BwO with various points inscribed on its surface. The ultimate question at hand is how these points are recorded: can these points be all-encompassing of one another? Or are they recorded exclusively? This analysis starkly underscores the difference between the fluid, inclusive disjunctions inherent to the schizophrenic and the unyielding, either/or nature of exclusive disjunctions.

Figure Six: Points Recorded. Image Link.

Furthermore, “that is why the schizophrenic God has so little to do with the God of religion” (AO, 77).

The logics of man or woman, parent or child, presuppose a stable and fixed identity upon the subject. In the context of religiosity, the God of religion always identifies the subject as either a man or a woman, a parent or a child, a human or an animal, a good person or a bad person: the God of religion requires a subject with a fixed identity. Ultimately, this God predominantly operates through the exclusive use of the disjunctive synthesis, enforcing strict and inflexible categorizations.

In stark contrast, the schizophrenic God, known as nature, transcends such limitations, knowing no fixed categories like man or woman, because the concept of man and woman is merely a series of states and intensities that the schizophrenic moves through and assimilates. In this regard, Deleuze and Guattari position the schizophrenic in the middle of history, traversing an array of states. They reference Nijinsky, who expressed this concept eloquently: “I am God. I was not God. I am a clown of God. I am Apis. I am an Egyptian. I am a red Indian. I am a Negro. I am a Chinaman. I am a Japanese. I am a foreigner, a stranger. I am a sea bird. I am a land bird. I am the tree of Tolstoy. I am the roots of Tolstoy. I am husband and wife in one. I love my wife. I love my husband” (AO, 77).

The schizophrenic, through each interconnected point inscribed on the BwO, identifies with all the names of history. While differentiations between various names in history may indeed exist, they do not signify complete separation or the absence of any partial object. All the names of history are interconnected with the schizophrenic. It is worth noting the striking similarity between the second paralogism and the first paralogism: “The disjunctive synthesis of recording, therefore, leads us to the same result as the connective synthesis: it too is capable of two uses, the one immanent, the other transcendent” (AO, 78). Here, in the second paralogism, ‘immanent’ refers to inclusive disjunctions, and ‘transcendent’ refers to exclusive disjunctions, highlighting the dual nature of these approaches.

Therefore, within the framework of the disjunctive synthesis, God can be apprehended in one of two ways: immanently or transcendentally.

• Immanence: God as nature (“the greatest friend in the miraculating inscription”) (AO, 78).
• Transcendence: God of religion (“the greatest enemy in the paranoiac inscription”) (AO, 78).

The second paralogism revolves around the paranoiac machine exerting control or dominance over the miraculating machine. In the presence of the paranoiac machine, there emerges a profound sense of separation or exclusion among the various recorded points on the surface of the Body without Organs (BwO). It is within this context that the God of religion, characterized by extreme paranoia, compels the subject to exclusively identify with specific recorded points as a means of salvation or healing.

Conversely, the genealogist-madman*, also known as the schizophrenic, adopts a wholly distinct perspective regarding God. In their view, God as nature adopts a different approach, wherein the schizophrenic “lays out a disjunctive network on the body without organs” (AO, 78). This disjunctive network is characterized by inclusive disjunctions, which accommodate all conceivable permutations and combinations.

*Note: The “genealogist-madman” is a reference to Friedrich Nietzsche’s works On the Genealogy of Morals and The Gay Science.

In essence, the contrast lies in the approach to God: the paranoid God of religion enforces rigid and exclusive identification with specific points, while the schizophrenic’s perspective of God embraces a more open and inclusive network that allows for a multitude of possibilities.

Within the confines of exclusive disjunctions, we are no longer dealing with a subject passing through various states on the BwO because there is a transcendent use of the second synthesis. The subject is no longer perceived as passing through oscillations; instead, we have encountered global persons who position their egos at the center of these oscillations and identify with the desiring-machines. (More of this will be in the 2.5)

It is an inescapable reality that we are subjected to oedipalization. So-called “pre-oedipal stages” of childhood development are intrinsically oedipalized because the concept of Oedipus presupposes whatever is meant by “pre-oedipal.” As a result, the subject is ensnared into this oedipal triangle. What makes matters even more daunting is the consequence of deviating from the oedipal triangle. “Oedipus informs us: if you don’t follow the lines of differentiation daddy-mommy-me, and the exclusive alternatives that delineate them, you will fall into the black night of the undifferentiated” (AO, 78).

If you refuse to be Oedipalized, you will get what is coming to you.

Figure Seven: The Oedipal Triangle. Image Link.

The fundamental issue with psychoanalysis lies in how psychoanalysts tend to reify and steadfastly adhere to the Oedipus complex. Even supposed efforts to break free from Oedipus often end up leading individuals back into its intricate web. As Deleuze and Guattari assert, “Oedipus is like the labyrinth, you only get out by re-entering it — or by making someone else enter it” (AO, 79). This statement underscores the challenging nature of escaping Oedipus, as any attempt to do so seems to inadvertently reinforce the existing structure. It is akin to the concept of the God of religion: even if someone follows all the prescribed rules and guidelines, they still fall short as a sinner in the eyes of God. However, if one chooses not to engage with God, they are labeled as a sinner, being under the influence of malevolent forces or seen as opposing the divine.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.

This reminds me of this monologue from the recent Barbie movie:

Figure Eight: Barbie Monologue. Video Link.

Evidently, ‘woman’ is produced as a global person in the first paralogism. Here, the global woman is defined by exclusive disjunctions because women are never able to fully fulfill the role of what constitutes a woman: too thin is unwomanly, not thin enough is unwomanly, not healthy is unwomanly, too healthy is unwomanly, too thin is unhealthy, and too healthy is not thin enough. A truly impossible role to fulfill.

At any rate, because we are so deeply entrenched within the Oedipal framework and are exclusively defined by it, endeavors to break free only serve to further solidify the dominance of this complex. It seems as though we are left with very few avenues of escape. Deleuze and Guattari aptly express this predicament: “The unconscious has been crushed, triangulated, and confronted with a choice that is not its own. With all of the exits now blocked, there is no longer any possible use for the inclusive, nonrestrictive disjunctions. Parents have been found for the (orphan) unconscious!” (AO, 79). This signifies the profound challenges in liberating the unconscious from the constraints of the Oedipal structure, as it has been thoroughly entrapped and circumscribed by it.

A potentially more illuminating way to comprehend the concept of exclusive disjunction is through the idea of the ‘double bind,’ a concept rooted in Gregory Bateson’s work on the “transmission of two kinds of messages” (AO, 79). In this scenario, one message contradicts the other, creating a perplexing and no-win situation. Deleuze and Guattari provide an example where a father tells his son, “go ahead, criticize me,” but in practice, “effective criticism…will be very unwelcome” (AO, 79). This sets up a double bind: if the son criticizes the father, he faces punishment; if the son does not criticize the father, he will face punishment for failing to challenge the established order.

This is the essence of Oedipus:

• If desire appears to fit neatly into the triangulation, it never fulfills the terms of Oedipus because desire is always lacking something. Therefore, fulfilling the terms of Oedipus becomes impossible, and attempts to fit perfectly into the Oedipal triangle result in being defined as neurotic.
• If desire rejects the Oedipal triangle — if one refuses to be oedipalized — “the psychoanalyst is there to call the asylum or the police for help,” and attempts to discard Oedipus are classified as psychotic (AO, 81).

We find ourselves so deeply entrenched in Oedipus, exclusively defined by it, to the point where everything gets reduced to this singular framework. Want to write a blog post? Well, it’s automatically attributed to your relationship with your father. Interested in reading a blog post? That, too, is linked to your relationship with your mother. Deleuze and Guattari express our collective exhaustion with such narratives: “We are extremely tired of those stories where one is said to be in good health because of Oedipus, sick from Oedipus, and suffering from various illnesses under the influence of Oedipus” (AO, 81).

In the end, even Lacan’s effort to distance his analysis from Freud ultimately falls short, as it ironically leans heavily on representations. Deleuze and Guattari aptly critique this reliance: “Everything takes place as if Oedipus of itself had two poles: one pole characterized by imaginary figures that lend themselves to a process of identification, and a second pole characterized by symbolic functions that lend themselves to a process of differentiation” (AO, 82).

What remains crucial to emphaize is that the model propagated by Freud must be discarded. Despite numerous endeavors to reorient, revise, or reconfigure Freud’s psychoanalytic model, they have all ultimately ended up reinforcing the Oedipus complex.

“Oedipus is completely useless, except for tying off the unconscious on both sides.” (AO, 81).