O tome gdje bi se Deleuze i Lacan ipak trebali ponovno sresti
On where Lacan and Deleuze should nevertheless meet again

Summary/Abstract: The debate on the relationship between Lacan’s and Deleuze’s theoretical opus usually stops in 1972 when Anti-Oedipus was published, a work Deleuze published with Guattari. The biography written on Deleuze and Guattari by François Dosse and most of the interpretations (Žižek, Monique David-Ménard, Kerslake, Hallward, Badiou) agree that one cannot speak about any parallels between the two opuses after this work. However, it is not really so despite continuous critique of psychoanalysis by Deleuze failing to once mention Lacan and despite the fact that Lacan also fails to mention Deleuze’s name again. But Lacan whom Deleuze is criticizing is not a later Lacan from the seventies, just like the Deleuze Lacan knew is not the Deleuze of the 60’s any longer. This can only be seen if we put aside the usual arsenal with which one approaches the Deleuze-Lacan encounter, i. e. Oedipus, Law, signifier, lack etc. Despite unsurpassable differences concerning their understanding of philosophy, psychoanalysis, ontology, science and politics, my thesis here is that there are many parallels between a later Deleuze and a later Lacan in terms of understanding the contingent, that which Lacan calls The Real and all that is related to a change in the conception of the unconscious in Lacan, which now becomes the real-unconscious.

• Details
• Contents