I thought the discussion about desire and will was very interesting. Nietzsche's sentiment of people desiring to will nothing than not will at all is used to show how "in both cases, the desire to desire is a willingness to desire precisely that which would foreclose desire, if only for the possibility of continuing to desire" (61). My question is, what is the purpose of this continuity of desire? If there is nothing we desire, why do we still want to desire? What does this interpretation say about us?
The first section of the reading, which for my purposes will be the intro through chapter 2, deals extensively with the Subject and his relation to the social and to his subjection. The idea of a person as subject connotes a very negative meaning which springs from the definition of subjection that was laid out at the beginning of the intro. Combined with the ideas of bondage, being a subject awakens thoughts of slavery, servitude, and meaninglessness. However, the subject, especially in the context of The Psychic Life, has a much higher status, and if not status at least role.
In the Introduction to the Anti-Oedipus, I thought the section on Desire was interesting since we just came out of talking about Foucault and sexuality last week. The repression of desire is discussed in this essay in a very negative way, however. Desire, if repressed, "no matter how small, is capable of calling into question the established order of a society" (xxiii).
Do people think that this contradicts or parallels Foucault's discussion of sexuality? Foucault, however, discussed sexuality in almost a desireless sense with the concepts of scientia sexualis.
I was interested in Anderson's discussion of Lyotard's pre-Postmodern Condition turn away from structural Marxism toward an analysis of systemic manipulations of libidinal drives and erotic enjoyment.