Isn’t that what’s missing here? Doesn’t the Deleuze/Lacan series make little sense without bringing in Guattari? Isn’t Guattari the displaced element in the series…the paradoxical element if you will (even Deleuze’s LoS in 69–his most Lacanian work, if you will–still implies Guattari’s presence–though not total influence no doubt–because the two met a year earlier. In any case, even when you mention “the concealed lust for a pure language, an absolute presencing of human signification, infinitely capable of endowing all activity with meaning. This suppression is signified, paradoxically, by the privileging of a-subjectification, a-signification.” Aren’t you talking about Guattari, who precisely priviliges these two realms in their positive movements of deterritorialization as catalysts of the possible? But only partly, because Guattari doesn’t have a lust for this pure language…that sounds more like Lacan’s dictum concerning the structure of the unconscious.

I digress, but in any case I think Laruelle should be subtracted…and Deleuze and Guattari should be counterposed against Badiou (axiomatics and diagrammatics) as we have discussed. Furthermore, you say:

“In terms of contemporary theory, Laruelle and Badiou’s anti- or non-philosophy could be said to present a similarly-effective overturning of literary-deconstructive methods — we find a deceptive model of this technique in the work of Derrida, and in a different sense, the work of Deleuze and Guattari.”

Beyond the false conjunction of Badiou and Laruelle (Badiou ultimately still claims to be a philosopher and to uphold the notion of antiphilosophy which is not reducible or equivalent to non-philosophy), this last statement troubles me, or intrigues me even.

In what sense is Deleuze and Guattari deceptive, in a way that at least, for you, is not exactly similar to Derrida’s own deception. You do not seem to be claiming D+G perform deconstructive literary techniques: if anything their analyses of literature serve as real vehicles for constructing their concepts. Not a deconstruction of the work, but a reconstruction through philosophy. Is this deceptive?

Or is it because D+G are too flashy? Are they deceptive with their concepts, have they gone through the white wall of signification into the realms of absurdity (truth?).

I only press the issue because you do something to which I take offense, and I shouldn’t because it’s not personal. But here it is.

You claim an interest in this struggle in psychoanalysis, ultimately Lacan and Deleuze. You do not mention Guattari…except once, the quotation I gave you. So Deleuze is of interest, but Deleuze and Guattari are deceptive. Definitely paradoxical.

Unless, again, we are going to privilege D+R and LoS over Capitalism and Schizophrenia.