Machine object little-a (a cloned version-in-A)

It seems I am talking to an artificial intelligence.”

What better way to describe this unwitting mischief than to describe it as an orphan’s mischief who told me exactly the words in quotation marks. Am I supposed to answer that? Heck, yes. Here’s my take on that jibe which I am more than enthusiastic to express into this title:

Machinic Indifference: The Anomaly of the Subject

Yet the idea of machinic indifference that is at stake here does not have to be proposed outside of the human subject itself.

As subjects (male or female) we are machinic in nature capable of transcending the global organization of value-formations that invests truths to subjects, a sort of organ-investment. That is why this process is called organization with a global character—the manufacturing of subjects as organs, as organic units of an administrable whole. What can defy this process of organization and subject constructions is what Deleuze and Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus call a body-without-organs, BwO, or simply body.

The body is the body. Alone it stands. And in no need of organs. Organism it never is. Organisms are the enemies of the body. … The judgment of God, the system of the judgment of God, the theological system, is precisely the operation of He who makes an organism, an organization of organs called the organism, because He cannot bear the BwO, because He pursues it and rips it apart so He can be first, and have the organism be first. The organism is already that, the judgment of God, from which medical doctors benefit and on which they base their power. The organism is not at all the body, the BwO; rather, it is a stratum on the BwO, in other words, a phenomenon of accu­mulation, coagulation, and sedimentation that, in order to extract useful labor from the BwO, imposes upon it forms, functions, bonds, dominant and hierarchized organizations, organized transcendences.”[1]

This body-anomaly Deleuze and Guattari also describe as our own little machine, “a connection of desires, conjunction of flows, continuum of intensities.”[2] Lacan had his eyesight on this anomaly except that in the end even this portentous kind of anomaly could not be radicalized to a point of seizing the absolute because of the ontological bar of the Real that “bears more on the subject’s relationship to what one cannot know.”[3] He managed just the same to leave a trace of this anomaly that we can exploit in the margins of his texts in his concept of extimacy (a contraction of two terms, exteriority and intimacy[4]), in short, an existent kind of inexistence within a habitable structure that traverses two points: self-discovery and self-transcendence. A fitting description of this extimacy is what the non-psychoanalytic mind of François Laruelle calls a one-in-One, assuming the One (the latter ‘one’) is the anterior that owns our past histories (the former one that can take a plural sense, ones) as subjects irreducible to organizations, truth values and organ-investments, even irreducible to philosophy insofar as, to express it in layman’s language, each one of us is one to our own, only one to the me that I can own and also disown; or, the One as the singular anterior point, a point from which life self-replicates. Anyone can however appropriate his or her own ontologico-narrative beginning, his or her own one-tological oneness (the homophonic association with wantonness, a wantonology, to pun the pun, is very much welcome here), or his or her own One as far and as deep as one’s sexual preference. This may well be what Plato was advocating all along, a one-in-One, the expressive onomatopoeia of the One that escapes the language of philosophy but which can also be supposed to be already at work, and therefore philosophy finds itself useful (you can also find your ‘yearning‘ useful, even your desire for others’ approval), in the homoeroticism (the Laruellean man-in-man[5]) of the male guardians who personify, two steps short, however, the One, the Word, the AUM (Ohm, as the Hindus had expressed well before the Greeks), and what could better express this beautiful anomaly than–that is to say, the Logos!


[1] Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Brian Massumi (London: Continuum, 1987), 159.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Willy Apollon, Daniele Bergeron, and Lucie Cantin, After Lacan.Clinical Practice and the Subject of the Unconscious, ed. Robert Hughes and Kareen Ror Malone (New York: State University of New York Press, 2002), 4.

[4] Jacques Alain-Miller, “Extimity.” Symptom 9 (June 2008), (Accessed April 9, 2012).

[5] See Ray Brassier, “What Can Non-philosophy Do?” in Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 8, (2003), 2: 169-89.). In Laruellean non-philosophical scheme the ‘man-in-man’ determines “non-philosophical thought and its theoretical practice.” Counterpoised to philosophy this ‘man-in-man’, conclusively “without a determining essence, without consistency; dispossessed of nothingness as much as being, dispossessed of substance as much as presence-to-itself” radicalizes the immanent reality that, as Laruelle passionately emphasized: “Humans are without philosophy—not just men without qualities but men who are primarily without essence, yet all the more destined-for-the-world or philosophy without having decided or willed it. Philosophy has always wanted us and we have been obliged to consent to it—but have we ever wanted philosophy” . The philosophy in question here is its theoretical practice of paradoxicality. Everyday humans make decisions, and thus transcend the paradoxicality that philosophy has always wanted them to exhibit.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s