Образы желающего производства в научном познании

Abstract

The aim of this article is to explicate the epistemological aspects of Deleuze and Guattari’s conception of desire presented in Anti-Oedipus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia. I show that the schizoanalytic concept of desire as a “production of machines” is reflected in studies on a laboratory science. The epistemological meaning of the image of the “desiringmachine” is revealed, which is that to cognize means to experience the possibilities of the man-dimension to be involved in the various entanglements of the world – psychophysical, natural-technical, sociocultural. Through the use of historical and scientific material, I show that the concept of the nomadic subject is relevant to the description of a laboratory cognitive subject. I note that, on the one hand, the scientist is aware of himself as a researcher through territorialization, i.e. attribution of himself to tradition. On the other hand, the scientific cognition must also be treated as deterritorialization, i.e. the desire of consciousness to retreat themselves into a space in which it was possible to be outside of itself – outside of existing tradition. Thus, for the subject of cognition, it is immutable not only the requirement that “The ‘I think’ must be able to accompany all my representations” (Kant), but also the need to leave the sphere of the conscious as already thought out, held in the area of “the unconscious as passive syntheses of desire” (Deleuze and Guattari). I also demonstrate that in laboratory life the scientist is immersed in free syntheses of desire with non-linear, multivalued connections and inclusive disjunctions. However, in the narrations of historians and philosophers, as well as in scientific articles and reports, all this heterogeneous plurality and ambiguity is reduced. Scientific articles, reports, interviews are written, on the contrary, using linear, unambiguous connections and exclusive disjunctions, that is, in accordance with the Oedipal code. This circumstance points to a certain “Oedipalization of knowledge”, analogous to the “Oedipalization of desire” that Deleuze and Guattari identified in relation to Freudian psychoanalysis.