In a forensic investigation, interrogators use mental exhaustion to get suspects to confess. Lying takes a considerable amount of effort and it can only be sustained for a while. Interrogators use this strategy to get the suspects to surrender their front. In order to deal with lying, interrogators would place a suspect in a position where they allow him or her to relax. Then, they would speak as if they were friends in order to build rapport in a non-threatening way. Causal conversation induces mirror neurons to fire, thus, build a sense of security around them. But all of a sudden, interrogators would switch up to induce mental fatigue and apply pressure to the suspect’s sense of security. Once a threat is detected, the suspect’s awareness goes off like an alarm. This on and off repeats until the suspect lets his guard down completely.
Societies of Control
We live in ways in which we are constantly exposed to mental fatigue. Societies of control offer rest from all this mental exhaustion. However, humans are skeptical about letting their guard down. So, societies of control make the relaxation worth any resistance to surrender. But they must also convince people to accept their own oppression. It would seem that society primes individuals to the “requirements” needed to undertake. It seems that the same ticket that offers the anxieties and neurosis is also the cure.
The human body has a limit to the trauma it can take. But the mental world gets stretched and pulled beyond its limits. Most people think of the unconscious or couscous world is an infinite, world without boundaries. That’s because the mental, infinite world is invisible.
Enjoyment as a case against life
There’s a type of individual that must account for all the expenses that incur around his surroundings. He is capable of storing up the expenses that others spend as enjoyment. And this individual places himself in between the flow of codes that inscribes when every transaction takes place. And so, he must account for all transactions by remembering levels of enjoyment. This takes a toll on his mental strength and will begin to feel resentful from observing others enjoying life. He is the accountant type where he accounts for all the costs in life. If life seems a bit wrong, it because he hasn’t undertaken the right sacrifices in life. This accountant walks barefoot with shards of glass everywhere. He must walk carefully or else he could slip. If he slips, he could slice his foot with a shard of glass. If blood gushes out from his wound, then individuals will collect his blood and infuse his blood as life-force.
The poetic side of Deleuze gives us a picture of a world that is fragmented and partialized. The disjunctive world is partialized with partial objects. Every time the accountant must walk through time, he must walk through fragmented partial objects “forced to communicated with non-communicative vessels.” Every drop of blood gets siphoned-in by others who desire to enjoy life. No one will give up their life-force and societies of control are developed to be libertarian. This means individuals are given the freedom to choose whether or not they want to donate life-force. This means that cruelty is creative more than ever. Language can get a victim trapped in limbo. So people walk around without a “feeling” subject. They are only seeing, hearing, or smelling subjects.
The application to mental exhaustion is a little different in a society of control. Many thinkers come to the conclusion that the comforts of life are arranged into the circuit as a way to make people desire them. But Deleuze convinces us that there’s a little more nuance than that. Desiring-machines aren’t placed within us because of malicious intent. They are taken before the formation of the “real.” Within the circuit, desiring-production works by desiring-machines constantly breaking down. This breaking down places us in a suspension of voluntary and involuntary purging of instincts: anger, rage, vengeance, competitive drives that capitalism brings out of paranoid individuals. Desiring produces weather or not people places the “real” out of the immanent realm of production. The “impossible real” is non-representable, which means that the real is constantly produced by desiring-production. But the social formation can globalize people to condition us to produce desires that are superimposed.
On occasion people will speak to somebody in a distasteful tone that insinuates conflict. One such tone is achieved by speaking condescending. The condescending speaker speaks as if he’s coming from a higher place. The listener refuses to accept his position as lower, thus brewing up conflict. Speaking in a patronizing manner is another example. A patronizing tone puts the listener above the speaker for the purpose of ensnaring them as soon as it is convenient. As soon as space collects its debts, the patronizing speaker betrays his listener to space. His subject is left feeling shortchanged.
We owe our existence to space. Space demands to be given what is worth. Enjoyment incurs benefits but it also incurs debts. These expenses incur in the virtual field, but they are immediately accrued as soon as enjoyment is affirmed. This means that a “winner” and a “loser” is automatically chosen in the actual field. The winner enjoys life, and the loser pays for it. It also makes enjoyment a case against life. It makes the one who witnesses somebody else enjoying life to take it away for himself. In order for the exchange to happen, a gift of space is given as a form of ensnarement. Speech can betray subjects by ensnaring them to space. Then the subject can pay for the enjoyment of the other. This can happen in two ways
with an offer
What is an offer? An offer is a gift where the receiver has the option to accept it or not. When the gift is accepted, it registers onto a surface fromed by its own intensity. It is an immanent surface that forms in order to in-script all those exchanges. The layer (or surface) homogenizes these exchanges as comparative codes. Transactions flows smoothly because they are comparative with one another. When codes move fast, effortless, and frictionless, it is productive. The nomadic movement describes the first productive codes coming out from paranoiac investments from within the nomadic subject.
Nomadism first laid out developing territories from productive codes. A successful territory means that intensities within the nomad found closure by exhausting it. This means that development in nomadism never went past beyond closure. Developments ended as soon as the exchanged inscribed itself as a surface. This was the entire operation, to build a territory and then to abandon it for another. This is what it means for codes to be productive; value is exchanged with an equal and matched intensity found along the surface. Then, they move towards its own end because it exhausts itself into its own surface. This is how nomads territorialized one society after another before migrating to another. The surface (space) demands all costs because it was accrued for in the virtual field
The intensities from the natural, raw Earth must to return back to the Earth eventually. Nomads used productive codes to territorialize their land from raw resources. They knew that one day, the Earth will come and claim its debts. Death was imminent. When tyrannical forces conquered nomadic tribes, they forced their productive codes into developed codes. This is called growth. Growth takes on the movement by appropriation. Productive codes no longer wish to vanish into its own surface which means that the despotic machine must create a new surface that falls back to the original one and it must perpetually grow off of paranoiac investment.
Tyrannical forces conquered nomadic tribes by force. The despot forced productive codes into developed codes because they wanted to purge paranoiac investments out into the social field rather than have them exhausted back into the original body of the Earth. So, once in the social field, these investments continued to grow. Once developed, growth codes grew off of their own growth. Whenever someone insults somebody else, the intensity first travels in the nomadic kind. Then, is returns in the despotic kind. For someone to enjoy life, they must first take it from someone else. But capitalism forces codes to return to their original state. They must pay for enjoying life off of their expense. The offender must do this before capitalistic forces reterritorializes developed codes back into productive codes. Otherwise there won’t be an offence. He will come off too forceful, brutish, and cranky “old Mr. Stingy.”
The despotic machine forces comparative (homogenous) spaces into non-comparative (heterogeneous) spaces. This causes developed codes to all back to their original productive codes. Ironically, non-comparative spaces make codes compare with one another. But the developed surface is a quasi-cause because when developed codes fall back to their original surface, they appropriated productive ones. In other words, the despot takes the comparative codes and forces them to be non-comparative so that his victims can exists in both surfaces. The operation can now proceed as an insult by forcing paranoiac investments to be willed out from the victim by his own voluntary will. In capitalistic spaces, the despot can lose the operation if he undershoots his attack. Capitalism reterritorializes all codes back to productive codes. Before this happens, the investor must set up his pre-insult as a gift that travels in one surface and returns at another. All while standing in at the same surface as the victim but speaking to him as above him or below him. This is the tone that comes out as condescendingly or patronizing. The patronizing tone is the investor offering deterritorialized space while the condescending is receiving the gift back. He receives it back because the developed codes are already over-coded. It is often the case that the person who insults first or brutally over attacks his victim is the loser. This happens because capitalistic spaces muted the reterritorializing attempted from the offender to by getting there first.
The paradox is observed when a one receives the gift of knowledge. The learner is better off than before because he can now grow in a developed economy. Afterall, one must be in the wrong before being in the right. The goal is to shortchange the victim before capitalism returns developed codes back to productive ones thereby effectuating a Sadomasochistic relationship. When the insulter turns his victim into a masochist, the flow stops because the insulter now becomes a sadist. Both purges paranoiac investments into each other. To form human currency, it happens by placing the victim into a double bind. The gift of knowledge i not free. A common phrase uttered in altercations is “I want to teach you a lesson.” Once returned, the gift contains overcoded intensities that can be purged by watching his victim in misery. Thus, an insult has occurred
What does it mean when a county has a developed economy? Do developing economies fall under the appropriate mark? Developed nations often spend more than they can earn. It faces a paradox. It is the social formation that paranoiac forces must represent as the case against life. But it is enjoyment itself that is the case against life. And people fight to attain enjoyment even if it’s from other. All trauma, all dissatisfactions, all depression is conditioned under the eye of developed nations. This is why insults are the purest form of offers. It allows one to stand with the victim in growing or developed codes, all while speaking in productive language. This forces everyone to be a salesman by selling deterritorialized space in order to purge paranoiac investments into he social field. Failure to do so will involve the social formation as the reason to complain about life. The terror of capitalistic space befalls on the subject who failed to wholesale deterritorialized space before capitalism deterritorialized non-comparative codes back to their productive codes. If individual within capitalistic spaces refuses to be in the business of wholesaling life-force, the individual must will himself out of a will-to-will. He keeps falling behind productive spaces. The vary own social formation becomes the reason to blame the individual for his own lack of success. Because every code must be intermediated by the social formation, all psychic repression becomes secondary. This means that oppression only exists within himself.
The double-bind works because the capitalistic space demands the victim has a choice. The problem comes when the despotic machine gives no choice but forces the gift to return. The solution is the have the gift return by productive codes. So he places the individual above him through condescending language. He gifts the gift through those measures, the individual is forced to give it back involuntarily because he was placed anti-positioned to space thorugh condescending language. But the victim also has choice in developed codes. The measure of one’s adultness by maintaining compose. It is giving oneself to emotion that the composure is lost. This is how the victim becomes trapped in the double-bind. If the victim gives into this emotional and “snap” back at his aggressor, he voluntarily returns the gift. But it would’ve return though the despotic machine nonetheless. But the still has the option to not return; This would make to difference.
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.