The schizophrenic is not man and woman. He is man or woman, but he belongs precisely to both sides, man on the side of men, and woman on the side of women... 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 non-decomposable space..."
-Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Oedipus
We enter this world with no preconceived code ov ethics. This 'lack ov morality' is what led Freud to conclude that child sexuality is perverse. Ov course, thee Oedipalized Individual is thee 'normal' point ov reference. But a child is more or less uncoded, uninscribed, unconditioned: A Body Without Organs, to Deleuze and Guattari- a surface on which recording takes place. Or, to Robert Anton Wilson , s/he is like (computer) hardware, localised, whose functioning will be, to a large extent, determined by software (which is non-local). Thee child is, more or less, unprogrammed. To Nietzsche ,s/he is a Self-Propelled Wheel. To Crowley, thee Child is Crowned and Conquering.
But thee child is a recording surface, and he or she is initiated into a theory ov Normality- a time-space specific culture. Thee child is over- coded. What Nietzsche called thee "Innocence ov Becoming" was like Heraclitus' notion ov "flux"- that you can't step into thee same river twice. By thee same token, an "initiated" Individual cannot return to her/his "original condition", so to speak, but is constantly changing. Nor would s/he want to. Thee task must therefore be to re-direct or, less incorrectly, inhibit limitations ov direction. It is not a matter ov rebirth, but ov regeneration.
In Process: Thee Individual must strive to becoum a Self-Propelled Wheel. To becoum a Body Without Organs. To becoum a Crowned and Conquering Child through a process ov deconstruction ,or systematic decoding. It is a breaking down ov symbolic regimes and languages.
Symbolic and linguistic structures are primarily tools, but they have thee tendency to direct thought and behavioural patterns through thee repetition ov association. Second-hand language posits limits rather than opening possibilities for meaning and expression, reflecting thee mindsets ov its former manipulators, long dead and redundant. So we must break down language and use it and shape it instead ov being used and shaped by it. We must reassess thee distinctions between thee real and non-real, good and evil, dream and reality, order and disorder, masculine and feminine and all other definitional limitations that thee Individual inherits from self-perpetuating socio-cultural grids. Yet we must not become ensnared in thee traps ov homogeneity by reducing two contraries to an identity ov thee same. Rather, we must affirm thee distance which relates any two (or more) terms as different. So, instead ov confining ourselves into contradictions, we open out into new fields ov meaning with everything dividing, but dividing into itself. Thus can we become free. This is where Surrealism comes in- striving for total human emancipation. This is pure an(archy), where no terms are being dictated and we are left to create our lives as we desire. This is thee essence ov TOPY (TOPI).
The action characteristic of Oedipal recording is the introduction of an exclusive, restrictive and negative use of the disjunctive synthesis. We are so molded by Oedipus that we find it hard to imagine another use... It becomes nevertheless apparent that schizophrenia teaches us a singular extra-Oedipal lesson, and reveals to us an unknown force of the disjunctive synthesis, an immanent use that would no longer be exclusive or restrictive, but fully affirmative, nonrestrictive, inclusive. A disjunction that remains disjunctive, and that still affirms the disjointed terms, that affirms them throughout their entire distance, without restricting one by the other or excluding the other from the one, is perhaps the greatest paradox. 'Either...or...or' instead of 'either/or' "
-Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Oedipus
Thee Processes ov conditioning and programming are often very subtle and their effects difficult to trace. People are usually unaware that they are for thee best part ov their lives in playback mode, inscribing deeper grooves cut out in earlier recordings ov organization. Ouspensky and Gurdjieff saw this and said that thee world was 'full ov sleeping people', behaving mechanically. This view ov thee habitualisation ov human behaviour into unconscious programming is comparable to Robert Anton Wilson’s metaphor ov software in thee brain-computer metaphor. It is thee construction ov morality, ov meaning, ov heirarchy: effectively turning a Body Without Organs into a Body ov Laws, where thee Laws are dictated by, usually, a "phallocentric discourse", ie: a social construct ov identity emanating from a singular point ov reference (eg: sex/gender) whereby all Individuals are defined in terms ov that reference point. To Freud, 'thee little girl is a little man'. Thus, we humanity becomes represented as a reduction where 'every man is a woman is a man', instead ov thee non-decomposable distances between terms being explored, without renouncing any ov thee disjointed terms.
Thus, thee constructions ov meaning are more often than not determined either by thee exhibition ov a characteristic, or lack thereov. This is a process ov polarising difference into opposition, turning multiplicities into binaries which are then reducable to a singularity. Thee result ov these ‘grids ov meaning’ is an ubiquitous limitation ov all qualities and Individual identity through a dictation ov thee terms. It is ontological fascism. Psychick Fascism.
Yet thee difficulty with deconstruction- thee ‘revaluation ov all values’- is that thee target is not fixed. We need to destroy thee software, thee programmes themselves. We cannot destroy Control by destroying thee manifestations ov Control. If we burn down a factory, another factory will go up. Likewise with churches. Thee reason being that thee mechanisms conducive to thee cultivation ov these (hierarchical) structures still exist. We must drive thee stake through thee heart ov thee vampire.
But thee heart, like all thee Organs, is non-local. They are everywhere, everywhen. Thee targets- sites ov Control- exist not as super-structures, thee Master -pieces themselves, but as Organs without Bodies, which are recognisable by thee Organisms they engender- thee organization ov Bodies without Organs. In other words, no-one controls Control.
So, to become a Body Without Organs, thee organism must be ruptured and thee organs dislocated from thee organization. That is, thee organs must be deterritorialised, so to speak, so that they may become nomadic Intensities, inhabiting freely thee Body Without Organs or plane ov consistancy. For example, to sever thee connection made between biological sex and sexual identity, releases sexuality into thee field ov possibilities, to allow it to flow freely and uncoded.
Deconstruct thee Organism. Un-inscribe thee Body. It is a process ov strategic annihilation, or deprogramming whereby thee sediments ov recordings are stripped from thee recording surface. But proceed with caution! Thee full BwO egg can be destroyed leaving but a shell, a qiphoth. For there is such thing as a fascist BwO!
Thus it seems best to work co-operatively, in an experimental way, so as to maximise efforts and minimise thee re-absorbtion ov isolated success back into thee Control Organism. It seems our only choice, as thee alternative is to accept thee internalization ov notions ov our personal separation from others and Individual independance, and thus remain permanently ineffective, disabled and fragmented. In short, one can only approach thee BwO collectively, by helping each other to become Bodies Without Organs, different but connected, whereby we render thee Organism powerless- and thee organs becoum free to move and flow...
Whether it be called magick, surrealism, an(archy), deconstruction or whatever makes no difference, it just affirms thee non-decomposable, positive distances between thee terms- us. It thus makes all thee difference in thee world!
* Thee spelling "an(archy)" here is used as Roland Perez does in his On An(archy) and Schizoanalysis, published by Autonomedia, 1990:
"What Nietzsche wanted above all was (1) to go beyond moral hier(archical) oppositions so as to disseminate them in order to make them free flowing rather than fixed; and (2) to go beyond the inscription of institutional hier(archical) structures in order to undermine the repressive coding of institutions... Nietzsche's an(archy) was the first non-political an(archy) and, of course, the first truly structureless an(archy) in the history of philosophy."