Talk:Schizoanalysis

Talk
I'm not sure the final paragraph of this article makes any sense. It has a bunch of spelling and grammar mistakes, and i was going to correct them, but i decided against it because i think the entire paragraph might be completely nonsensical. There are no citations either, so this might just be completely made up. Read this article. Does it make sense? Wolololian (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it is definitely badly written. I'll try to clean up what's here a little bit. Arided (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we discussing this paragraph? "Anywhere the microscopic transsexuality, which makes women contain man, and man woman, being able to enter each others, in relation to the desiring production that turn away the statistical order of sex. Making love is not act by one, even two sexes, but act of hundred thousand. The desiring machines or non human sexes are. The schizo-analysis is the varitable analysis of the n... sexes in a subject, beyond the anthropomorphic representation that the society imposes this subject and with which it represent its own sexuality. The schizo-analysic slogan of the desiring revolution will first of all to each own sexes."
 * If so, I agree. How does this sound - "Anywhere the microscopic transsexuality, which makes women contain man, and man woman, being able to enter each other, in relation to the desiring production that turns away the statistical order of sex. Making love is not act by one, even two sexes, but an act of a hundred thousand. The schizo-analysis is the veritable analysis of the n sexes in a subject, beyond the anthropomorphic representation that the society imposes this subject with and which it represents it's own sexuality." I've been bold and changed it, still needs work, even from a layman perspective. Desdinova (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion
This article was quite inappropriately deleted in February and turned into a redirect, with the dubious claim that it constituted a blog entry rather than an encyclopaedia article. Was there something wrong with the ten sources listed in the article, perhaps? DionysosProteus (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The list of sources is just a bibliography, not connected to the text of the article. It's not useless to have these but it's not encyclopedic either. I think I'll move the things that aren't cited directly onto the discussion page. Arided (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Extra citations
These were culled from the article, they could be added in if they are ever going to be used directly Arided (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC) 1984. Molecular Revolution: Psychiatry and Politics. Trans. Rosemary Sheed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-055160-3.
 * Abou-Rihan, Fadi. 2008. Deleuze and Guattari: A Psychoanalytic Itinerary. London: Continuum.
 * Guattari, Félix. 1995. Chaosophy. Ed. Sylvère Lotringer. Semiotext(e) Foreign Agents Ser. New York: Semiotext(e). ISBN 1-57027-019-8.
 * Guattari, Félix. 1996. Soft Subversions. Ed. Sylvère Lotringer. Trans. David L. Sweet and Chet Wiener. Semiotext(e) Foreign Agents Ser. New York: Semiotext(e). ISBN 1-57027-030-9.
 * Massumi, Brian. 1992. A User's Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Deviations from Deleuze and Guattari. Swerve editions. Cambridge, USA and London: MIT. ISBN 0-262-63143-1.

Eugene Holland's books
I'm a bit surprised that Baudelaire and Schizoanalysis: The Socio-Poetics of Modernism and Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus: Introduction to Schizoanalysis -- both by Eugene W. Holland -- are not discussed in the article. The second one is mentioned in the list of references. I haven't read them (yet) but presumably they have some worthwhile things to say on the topic. Arided (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)