An insult has occurred.
When a subject is said to be in a state of enjoyment, it is because flows of enjoyment passes through him. An-Other appears to take that enjoyment away from the subject. A duel between the both subjects marks the beginning of the insult. The subjected is that which enjoyment flows out from and the subject is that which enjoyment flows into. This is the intuitive understanding of the modern altercation – two subjects fighting to obtain enjoyment from each other. The insult serves as a key. A kind of acknowledgment to let the other know that the duel has commenced. The subject becomes the aggressor as he attaches himself to leach off flows of enjoyment. The subjected retaliate in return, making him a sucking-machine, attempting to win back the enjoyment. The subject also retaliates, making him a sucking-machine as well. The classic image of the tug-o-war of both subjects “pulling the ropes” this model is very limited because it cuts off the external world operating behind it.
When a subject is said to be in a state of enjoyment, it is because flows of enjoyment passes through him.
First, enjoyment doesn’t automatically make it the state of pleasure most people associate with the word “enjoyment.” Enjoyment can also be this idea of the lack of any foreseeable discomfort. Or it doesn’t have to be anything at all. A subject that is unbothered in a thoughtless stupor can also be said to be in a state of enjoyment. The problem is that enjoyment lacks any history. It simply appears as soon as it is on its way out. It is impossible to be in a state of enjoying one’s own feeding off of the external environment that brought the subject into a state of enjoyment. It isn’t until someone else tries to take it away that the possessiveness of this enjoyment takes the subjected ahold. This paradox illustrates that the limits of enjoyment as it exists as a representation. It represents a repression “– the repressing representation itself-”  as D&G puts it. “Enjoyment” limits our understanding of machines, flows, and attachments.
We will abandon “enjoyment” for desire because desire has history. Desire already comes negated.
Going back to Plato and the Greeks, desire was seen as a tragedy. The tragic sense of desire moved hands to Kant’s sense of delirium. Desire went from being tragic to a disease. Freud followed up Kant’s delirium of desire and added that desire could or should be repressed. Desire injected into the libidinal economy, with proper sublimation, could be turned into something useful and practical. So, the libidinal economy was built from the scientific method. It was thought that the unconscious could be coaxed into proper channels. Of course, this has several implications about freedom and freewill.
Desire was experienced as lacking and by splitting desire and the object-of-desire, one merely desire desire itself. The object-of-desire carries it’s “essence of lack” and desire is left to repress itself [2, p. 25].
Here’s where adults repress desire, but the question becomes, if desire desires itself, how are adults produced to repress it? We’ve learned how desire already comes in its negated form by investigating history in the philosophical tradition. When the adult receives this negated form of desire, he rejects it, disapproves of it, curses it, and by doing so, he reproduces it. But how can something that must be repressed can also be reproduces at the same time?
The Growing Adult
We must understand what an adult is. The question is not what the function of an adult is. But the question becomes where does the adult comes from and who produces the adult? We can speculate whether an adult is someone who takes up responsibility. We can determine if that means the taking up of sacrifices. He places needs ahead of desires. Adults places favor of something more noble. The question of what makes someone a grown-up is not an interesting question because the answers are already known. (An adult is someone with authority, responsibility, places need in favor of desire, etc.).
Desire was experienced as lacking and by splitting desire and the object-of-desire, one merely desire desire itself.
When an adult gives away desire in its repressed form, he expects it in return. Not that he anticipates the delivered package in return, but the package was set up by history to come back. – The receiver receives the package as an empty ‘void’ in which its cavernous and vacuous gravity pulls the subjected individual into it. (The package carries a negative momentum meant to head back to its original giver.) – By history, we mean that it came from the original body without organs or, the full body of the earth, coded all the way back. In today’s molar aggregate, the absolute limits represent the economy where these values are stored or released. The package was dressed up to appear unconcealed. What was concealed was the entirety of history in the philosophical tradition. The dialectical method unaffirmed and vengeance.
The entity is desirous-revenge. Desire as an antiflow and revenge as a flow of words. Desire is an antiflow because adults must repress desire. When an adult denies desirous-revenge, psychic repression holds him responsible to “bit the bullet.” Deep inside, he is raging and ravaging in anger. But psychic repression is all just a wild guess. It is childish at best and irresponsible at worst. Adults can gift desire it as an order (voluntarily)… as if it’s the right thing to do. When the subject receives it in return, again, psychic repression holds him to be affirmative of the returning. The feeling of sacrifice is all just repression (or representational repression). The feeling of the sacrificial desire is itself engineered from within the Modus Operandi. It is “living capitalism” that grows with psychic repression. When this occurs, desirous-revenge is displaced into life-force, it gives the adult permission to self-feel.
Only adults can do this successfully.
When subject participate in flows-of-growth, they are called growing-adults. Growing-adult are Global Persons representing someone else. It is said that the youth learn by growing. And they grow into adulthood as if it is something that everyone aspires to do. This growth is not the usual time-centered growth that comes with time passing by, it is a compounding of time where time overcodes into individual’s body without organs. Growth is done by becoming absent from the psychic repression in the world. Production, which comes from the philosophical tradition of territorializing smooth spaces must now be de-territorialized with growth instead of production but growth imamates at the same time production take growth-codes as its own and appropriates it for its own use. Both adults and youth who engage in flows-of-growth, are called growing-adults. Growing-adults are tasked with repressing desire but because desiring-production is the same as social-production, desire must be reproduced as it’s being repressed. Only adults can do this successfully. They do so by imposing the language-of-production.
This causes a couple of problems. Adults are discouraged to self-feel desirous-revenge. For an example, we’ll look at parody to explore this concept. An adult who insults a young person inadvertently puts the youth in a better place than when he has found him. Because the youth also participates in flows-of-growth, the youth “learned his lesson” The youth actually gained something that he never intends to return. But psychic repression would call for the adult to take it back. This is why when the youth retaliate in return, it is given back, but the price has gone up. How? Well, psychic repression calls for the youth to retaliate voluntarily and by paying the price on top of what the growing-adult has given it by. The growing-adult gave it in a canceled fashion using the language-of-production. The gift was actually overcoded but in a concealed manner. The concealment was done by flows-of-growth. It is because it was done in flows-of-growth that the transaction (flow) was allowed to pass through. But don’t think that the growing-adult anticipated the return because if he did, the Modus Operandi would account for the anticipation. (And remember, the youth must return the gift voluntarily). However, because psychic repression reigns supreme in modernity, the returning happens because the language-of-production deems the return involuntary. Astoundingly, this is how growth can happen according to growing-adults, “it is for your own good.” The adult is said to participate in “loving capitalism” when he takes advantage of the life-force that goes all the way back the full body of the earth. We are continuedly indebting the Socius from the front end (or the limit), causing everyone to anticipate in return, causing a cascading effect of anticipation all the way down the present moment. Codes then begin to fall through and overcode themselves by the future. That is how psychic repression works, by insisting that obligation follows growth. To obligate someone means that they must indebt themselves to them by getting the thing up front.
By definition, if money is used to make more money, money begins to be useless. This is inflation at its basic understanding. What is at work here is an obligatory force that is tangentially synthesized from the markets that fluctuate up and down. When money is printed into existence at the present moment? Where do intensities that are passively synthesized come from. By money obligating itself to be “invested” in the first place. Is what gives money its value. Deleuze mentions in his Ant Oedipus that the meaning behind “God is dead” is not some psyche altering apparatus that unlocks a certain way of being from the modern mind. But rather it is the time it takes for the phrase to be uttered, and the realization that it makes no effect whatsoever. Whether it comes from an actual deity or a made up one, Nietzsche, who obviously did not believe in the Christian God, utters “God is dead” for a God that cannot die because it doesn’t exist. But it requires an entire series of efforts needed for a non-existent investment, not of money, but at a basic level, a necessary transaction of appropriate sacrifices.
1. Deleuze, Gilles and Guatarri, Félix. AntiOedipus. New York : Penguin Group, 1977, p. 164.
2. —. AntiOedipus. New York : Penguin Group 1977.
3. Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Félix. AntiOedipus. [trans.] Helen R Lane, Robert Hurley and Mark Seem. New York : Penguin Group, 1977, p. 25.