Gilles Deleuze/Gherasim Luca: The Paradoxal Encounter between “Anti-Oedipus” and “Non-Oedipus”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Any reader in the least familiar with Gilles Deleuze's philosophical work will be able to list some writers whose literary production was the focus of his thinking over the years: Kafka, Proust, Artaud, Beckett, and so many others.Among all the names that may be evoked, that of the poet Gherasim Luca would probably not be the first to come to mind.This, despite the philosopher's own pronouncements, in which he claimed, not without some intended provocation, to consider Luca "le plus grand pote de langue franaise vivant" (Abcdaire) 'the greatest Frenchspeaking poet alive.'A member of the Bucharest surrealist group in the 1940s who settled in Paris in the early fifties, Gherasim Luca published poetry collections and tracts, often working in collaboration with painters, and created visual works and poetic performances.He seems to have engendered in Deleuze a genuine fascination, which is reflected in their correspondence as well as in Deleuze's writings and public speeches.The objective of this article is to examine a warm, intellectual exchange between the two, born of a shared fantasy, that of redefining desire outside of the oedipean model.Around 1972, at the time he was about to publish the first volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia with Flix Guattari, Deleuze learned of the poetic work of a certain Gherasim Luca whose "non-oedipean" meditations captured his attention.From that point on, and until the end of his life 1 , he never stopped reading Luca's work, following the course of his artistic activity
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".