Skip to main content

Quick note on desiring machines and the ontology of flows

There is a sense in which the speculative method of Whitehead is somehow applied in Deleuze and Guattari's sketch of an ontology of desiring machines in Anti-Oedipus. Deleuze took his take in metaphysics to be close to the style of Whitehead (see Robin Mackay's article in the Collapse volume on Speculative Realims). Desire is an immanent connecting force that acts as a centrifugal element by connecting items indifferent to their ranks, orders or species. The psycho-analytically blessed nuclear family as it appears in the Anti-Oedipus is an institution that preserves a centre by making the flows (in the capitalist territorial machine) always come back to a nuclear unit of dream and desire. The flows are the flows of capital and those of desire that are turned centripetal by the Oedipal devices. Instead of letting the capital flow in a riverbed of centrifugal desire, capitalism makes room for accumulation by making it return home which is always where desire ought to remain.

When we think of an ontology of desiring machines, we think of an centrifugal ingredient, such as contact itself, that makes order transient. Desire is not subjected to any sexual order, it unties the nodes, it produces flow. The capitalist territorial machine controls the flow by making desire controlled, and directed to a private unit. If desire is everywhere, there are many articulations of flow. It acts like Eros and like Eris, a force of dissipation.


  1. I'm not sure if I understand correctly the end of your note, because of the punctuation. I think you are saying that desire is both eros and eris, both break and flow, both connect and cut. So maybe it would be less misleading to talk of an "ontology of breaks and flows"
    In a similar vein, Deleuze often talks in terms of positivity and affirmation, as if the negative were excluded from his ontology. Yet the recurrent prefix (that is to say operator) "de-", as in deterritorialisation is an index of "good" negation that does not create lack but openness. Or the "dé-pli" the unfolding that accompanies the fold. Or "dé-faire" unmaking, as in unmaking the strata.
    So your opposition of centrifugal flows and and centripetal oedipus may need to be at least complemented by the opposition of stratification and de-stratification. Centripetal/centrifugal suggests to me systole/diastole, and so are two poles of desiring flow. As in the commentaries on Francis Bacon.
    Other indices of negativity are the prefix (operator) "a-" or "an-", as in a-signifying, a-subjective, an-egoic. And also "in-" as in "in-forme". So there seems to be a notion of "positive negativity", as in Deleuze and Guattari's claim that deterritorialisation is primary.
    This seems to be in accordance with your reading of Eris not as oppositional strife, but as a "force of dissipation". So the desiring machine is a dissipative assemblage.

  2. Yes, I didn't mean in Eris and Eros as in Empedocles, as love and strife. Desiring machines are dissipative assemblages and they are de-stratifying as they are centrifugal. Stratification is often done by producing centres, like the nuclear family as the supposed arriving point for the flows - desires and capital. An ontology of flows (and centripetal, centrifugal forces) could be a way of providing a philosophy of nature that fits the bill of a Schellingian avoidance of somatism (in Iain Hamilton Grant's terms). In other words, such ontology would deal with the genesis of bodies (and other centres) rather than start out with bodies (or things). Flows (like forces) are candidates to be unthinged, not reducible to things, something whose existence is different from what can fit in a predication.

  3. Thanks for your clarifications. I wonder if your ontology of flows ties in with William Connolly's "world of becoming"? I think that Deleuze and Guattari's ontology is still the most promising, but that it needs to be worked over to open up its terminology and analyses to new contexts. This is the sort of work that William Connolly, Manuel Delanda, and Levi Bryant have been doing. I do not know Grant's work, but the anti-somatism argument seems good to me. Badiou, however, represents a regression from this point of view.

  4. Thanks for your comments. I don't know Connolly's work, any pointer to where he goes to the point? I think Deleuze and Guattari's ontology are both promising and the right response to somatism. I'm very fond of chapter 3 of Mille Plateaux where they develop the idea of the double articulation (and of Deleuze's Pli). Hamilton Grant goes in this direction as well, he reckons that the crucial question of how the Idea becomes matter has been systematically neglected since Plato. In this sense, Badiou doesn't seem to be going in the same direction. I'm involved with teaching Grant's Philosophies of Nature since Schelling right now in the context of my course on contemporary speculative ontologies. I take a lot of these ontologies were directly or indirectly provoked by Deleuze and Guattari.

  5. Two good lectures:

    and his most recent book:


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne

Necropolitics and Neocameralism

It is perhaps just wishful thinking that the alt-right seemingly innovative and intrepid ideas will disappear from the scene as Trump's reign comes to an end. They have their own dynamics, but certainly the experiences of the last years, including those in the pandemics, do help to wear off their bright and attractiveness. Neocameralism, what Mencius Moldbug and Nick Land with him ushered in as a model of post-democracy that relinquish important ingredients of the human security system, is one of these projects that is proving to be too grounded in the past to have any capacity to foretell anything bright beyond the democratic rusting institutions. It is little more than necropolitics - which is itself a current post-democratic alternative. Achile Mbembe finds necropolitics in the regimes were warlords take over the state-like institutions (or mimick them)  to rule on the grounds of local security having no troubles killing or letting die whoever is in their path. Neocameralism pos