Notes on 2. 1914: One or Several Wolves?

(p26) “he knew that he was in the process of acquiring a veritable proper name, the Wolf-Man, a name more properly his than his own, since it attained the highest degree of singularity in the instantaneous apprehension of a generic multiplicity: wolves.” So right off the bat we have the ‘anti-oedipal’, ‘anti-patronymic’. He is given Wolf-Man though he is a wolf of many wolves. I don’t understand the name being “his” more than “his own” though.

(p27) “THE rhinoceros horn … field of tiny rhinoceros horns … madness” with THE as neurotic, oedipal, Freudian and field as psychotic/schizo? Psychotic in feeling, but not truly crazy perhaps – the rhizomatic (rhino-matic?) field makes one uncomfortable and feel the presence of psychosis, but the multiplicity (or awareness of the multiplicity) is not so much schizophrenia as it is awareness of the schizo around us (unless he was truly seeing rhino horns… that is madness) “A becoming” of the multiplicity… the multiplicity acting… fabric of a sock becoming a field of vaginas through an aparallel evolution of thought (sock becoming X, vaginas becoming Y and merging on that path)? The sock doesn’t become, but the signifier “sock” becomes reinterpreted. “On the verge of discovery a rhizome, Freud always returns to mere roots.” It’s not socks and vaginas but that process, the action, the verb.

I need to be careful with my claims to free association. (end of p27) “When there is no unity in the thing, there is at least unity and identity in the word. It will be noted that names are taken in the extensive usage, in other words function as common nouns ensuring the unification of an aggregate they subsume.[…] This jeopardizes […] the relation of the proper name as an intensity to the multiplicity it instantaneously apprehends.” Extensivity results in “the despotic Signifier” when the intensive meaning is lost, jeopardized. But isn’t the despotism due also to the intensity of a signifier? Intensivity, then, must be the spark of connectivity a word can induce, while extensivity is a bland and unconnected word with no “pack” of meaning.

(p29) “There is a teeming crowd in it, a swarm of bees, a rumble of soccer players, a group of Tuareg . I am at the edge of the crowd, at the periphery; but I belong to it, I am attached to it by one of my extremities, a hand or foot. I know that the periphery is the only place I can be …” Is the ‘center’ a less stratified, less schizo place? Is there less movement, fewer channels, fewer interactions? And what are the boundaries of a functional schizophrenia; at what point does a field of rhino horns become an ill to oneself and/or society? “To be fully a part of the crowd and at the same time completely outside it, removed from it: to be on the edge, to take a walk like Virginia Woolf (never again will I say, ‘I am this, I am this’)” Living on the edge – constantly asked for a signature but denied privilege to the collective sign. Though I’m not certain I’d like to take the plunge like Woolf, “never again will I say, ‘I am this.’”. The outside view allows one to bear witness to the circles and tribes. I get a sense of feeling the tenuous, peripheral connections to the crowd, as though the connection becomes more palpable on the edge. A problem of assimilation? An unconsciousness that is a crowd of crowds… that feeling is the difference… not the connection but the weakness of it… “(p32) “The wolf, as the instantaneous apprehension of a multiplicity in a given region, is not a representative, a substitute, but an I feel. I feel myself becoming a wolf among others, on the edge of the pack.” Maybe not more palpable on the edge because it is the edge, but because it is becoming. Always becoming. Always Brownian motion.

(p30) “Jung was surprised and point out that there were several skulls, not just one. Yet Freud still…” More on the unconscious being a crowd (of the crowds). Brownian motion: If the self is a big balloon (on the order of 20nm) and each crowd is pushing and pulling that balloon (each crowd being on the order of 200pm), the balloon will have a net motion towards or against the highest gradient. Read the link… its a lot better. “People say, after all, schizophrenics have a mother and father, don’t they? Sorry, no, none as such. They only have a desert with tribes inhabiting it, a full body clinging with multiplicities.” P31 on makes a bit more sense in the context of Brownian motion. “If the unconscious knows nothing of negations, it is because there is nothing negative in the unconscious, only indefinite moves toward and away from zero, which does not at all express lack but rather the positivity of the full body as support and prop.” I’m seeing zero as a sort of funnel or sink… and the surrounding is a flux that offsets continuously the orientation of “the balloon of self’… too many mixed metaphors.

(p33,34) Mass and packs… I’m not seeing the distinction. The pack is constituted by individuals, whereas the mass is defined by the mass?

(p35) “What does it mean to love somebody …to find that person’s own packs … every love is an exercise in a depersonalization on a body without organs yet to be formed…” The best (philosophic) definition of love I’ve seen, I believe. Singers and poets put it a little more romantically, but hey… I found the passage to be steamy. It’s a metaphysical “meeting and joining and penetrating of packs” to create, push towards the creation of, an every, always forming body without organs… a collective “balloon in Brownian motion”, not one with two poles, but the collective motion of both packs of packs. I think I’m going to really piss people (my family, future wife and her family) and include this in my hypothetical, “if/when” wedding ceremony of the future. I’m certain everybody would appreciate the double entendre of penetrate.

(p36) “The distinction to be made is not at all between interior and exterior, which is always relative, changing and reversible, but between different machines, cogs, motors, and elements that are set in motion at a given moment, forming an assemblage productive of statements: “I love you” (or whatever).” Is this to refocus on the power of the push and pull and not on the interpretation? Regardless of the fidelity of transmission, the machines produce. And the product of the machine is not reflective of a single transmission (“I love you” coming from a love-machine) but instead the collective motion/production of all machines (or whatever). And so the individual text (I love you) cannot be understood as it cannot be uncoded (a one-way transmission), given just that statement. My wife of the future is going to kill me.

(p37) “The proper name does not designate an individual …” I cannot figure out what they mean with proper name, and its all over the place. “The instantaneous apprehension of a multiplicity”? Perhaps a solidarity of identity… “speak in their own name.” But isn’t the proper name always becoming? Browning motion (to me) prevents a limit, which is required for an eternal becoming. Eternal return and Brownian motion, are those related concepts? And something about elliptical slopes and rates of change. I am seeing something like… a geneology of the Brownian motion, only it looks like four-dimensional displacement graph with time as an axis… and there an elliptical pattern (slope) emerges? But there will always be outside forces, and there will always be new becomings! I’m confused.