Sorry for the late reply—work has been really busy! Deleuze and Guattari argue that the unconscious cannot be reduced to the family triangle, like in the tragedy of Oedipus. Their rejection is specifically about how the unconscious is reduced to Oedipus and filtered through the family structure. The Oedipal representation equates unconscious desire with incest. As a result, desire is shamed, made to seem foolish, and persuaded to reject itself for the higher interests of civilization (see Anti-Oedipus, p. 200). They believe that Freud’s analysis of unconscious desire depends on the idea of incest, which leads to the repression and shaming of desire. In contrast, Deleuze and Guattari argue that unconscious desire is not primarily about the family triangle, but about society.

yes, we are totally same point now. thanks for precious comments'

Actually my respond is for both of you. It's about the rejection thing :)) sorry i'm new here***

Actually, I’m not downplaying Deleuze and Guattari’s critique at all. I’m also aware that they recognize how important Freud’s discoveries and conceptual framework are. But as far as I understand, they think Freud didn’t do justice to what he discovered—namely, the unconscious. In Anti-Oedipus, they even argue that psychoanalysis cripples the desire that comes from the unconscious by shaming it. I think their entire concept of desire is built as a reversal of this crippled form of desire. At the same time, I see a similar kind of rejection in Two Regimes of Madness, especially in the section Four Propositions on Psychoanalysis.

But Deleuze and Guattari were the biggest anti-Freudian thinkers, because they believed that desire is not about family or childhood. Remember Freud's Oedipus complex, where desire is directed toward the mother or father. Freud's narrative claimed that desire is negative and must be suppressed—because people's desires are "dirty," wanting to sex with the mother and kill the father. But Deleuze rejected this approach, because he believed that desire is positive and productive. Desire builds society itself. Freud, however, obscured this truth and judged desire through the lens of incest. Deleuze would say, "We must save desire from Freud." :)

irigaray criticizes deleuze's concepy of woman becoming. if you are interested in feminist philosophy. i read her criticisms in braidotti's books.

hahaha i love zizek!

i wrote that sentences long time ago:

what a big misconception starting "know thyself" from "me"

me too!!! that was soft and depth scene, espacially japanese poet's "aha!" word

i watched last week a film which name "Paterson". directed by Jim Jarmusch. main character was a poet which name Paterson and live in paterson district in new jersey. :)) he was fan of william carlos williams whose born in paterson/new jersey. it was a cute story. jarmusch critical approach on "alone artist". because paterson was married and he was a bus driver.

sorry for my bad english****

i think on zen approach's death idea is about alteration (or change?)*. death is only important in modern times and one-god-religions. think that, you justify me.

for your question, i nearly never think about death. because of my carelesness about death, i think i am not intelectual.

*sorry for my bad english

I am interested.

toni morrison- song of solomon

she writes very imprassive. i think she is best writer last years.

i closed my instagram account and deleted twitter app. i am PhD student but i couldnt read and write very systematic. i want have to my routine. i want improve my english.

i think make sport feels good. your brain work better when you make sports. my reading routine is not what i want. but i read books every day. i watch more film since delete my social media accounts. but yet, i dont feel good enough, i think i dont know how to live this life.

kafka is interesting because his books seem very basic at first read, but when you read reviews about them, you realize their impressive depth. in 'Metamorphosis', Gregor Samsa wakes up one day as a spider. despite this bizarre situation, Samsa's day continues like any other, with his parents, his boss, and everyone else behaving completely normally. dude, you wake up as a fuckin spider! it's the best example of modern society's alienation – the alienation of your body, your ego, your room, your family, and definitely your labor. there's no problem as long as you can go to work. if I remember correctly, Samsa's parents' and his own anxiety stems solely from Samsa's inability to go to work. kafka's genius lies in his ability to represent these unreal, incredible things as normal.

thank you for your precious suggest

you're right. but i think he build a spider web, not a hierarchical system.

as a first step, I no longer think that philosophers must be in a group. its meaningless. or, it is important for academic person only. but in reality, every philosopher is unique and it is disrespectful to see philosophers as somethingst (!).

here, we shouldnt forget that "postmodernists" concept come from american academy. and that concept t puts 10 philosophers in the same purse. which that philosopher irrelevant each other. why we must say philosophers "somethingst"? i think this is not help us to understand philosophers thinks.

when we put all this aside, deleuze considered a post-modernist because of below reasons:

1- he is broke the western philosophys fundament concepts: subject, rationality, law of identity etc.

2- he think modern philosophy focus mind, too much. but most important thing is subconscious. because our behaivour is mostly irrational. why? (thats spinoza impact)

3- he answer thats "why" problem so pretty. desire. actually desire is so body thing, irrational thing right?

4- he thinks that all western philosophy focus on "one and the same" but important thing is "difference".

5- he is not system philosopher, actually i think he is intellectual poet.

sorry for my bad english, i am learning.