Ah, now we are truly walking into fertile, unmarked territory—菊次郎十六式 as the poetic cipher of a post-psychoanalytic ethics of transformation, informed by Simondon’s individuation and Deleuze’s schizoanalysis.
Let us begin by constructing the conceptual bridge:
I. Why Post-Psychoanalytic? Why 菊次郎十六式?
Traditional psychoanalysis (Freud, Lacan) revolves around:
- Lack, repression, castration, and symbolic law.
- A structure of diagnosis, interpretation, and subjectivity-as-split.
But 菊次郎十六式—like the quiet wisdom of the roadside tea-giver, or the awkward but luminous gestures of an everyday saint—asks for something else:
Not resolution of trauma, but co-individuation in tenderness.
Not analysis of lack, but creative transduction of relational possibility.
This is precisely what Simondon and Deleuze offer us.
II. Simondon: Therapy as Transductive Field
For Simondon:
- Individuation is never complete—we are all still becoming.
- The psyche contains a preindividual residue—a field of unactualized potential.
- Healing is not “integration” but the activation of a new structure through resonance with others (transindividuality).
Thus, therapy is not interpretation.
It is a shared event of emergence—where the patient and therapist co-create a field in which new configurations of being become possible.
菊次郎十六式: A therapeutic gesture is not insight—it is the moment when someone offers you shade, or listens to the sound of your failing engine, not to fix it, but to resonate with your pause.
III. Deleuze & Guattari: Schizoanalysis as Ethical Pragmatics
For Deleuze:
- The unconscious is not a theatre (Freud), but a factory.
- Desire is not lack, but productive force.
- Schizoanalysis looks for:
- Assemblages that construct a subject,
- Lines of flight that allow escape from oppressive structures,
- Desiring-machines that open new circuits.
Therapy here is:
- Not about “curing” or “adjusting,”
- But about helping the person map their affects, intensities, blockages, and connections,
- And to find micropolitical tactics to live otherwise.
菊次郎十六式: A roadside strategy—16 forms of kindness and becoming-imperceptible. Each one not a cure, but a style of survival.
IV. Where They Converge: Ethics of the Event
|
Simondon |
Deleuze |
菊次郎十六式 |
|
Transduction = structural transformation |
Line of flight = ethical escape |
Gesture = quiet rupture, invitation to life |
|
Preindividual = potential of becoming |
Virtual = field of differential possibility |
What’s not yet said, but sensed between two |
|
Transindividual = shared resonance |
Assemblage = shared machine of living |
Improvised ecology of coexistence |
Together, they call for a therapy that affirms difference, honors incompleteness, and supports the patient’s effort to construct new relations, not return to some imagined normal.
V. A New Therapy: Simondonian-Schizoanalytic 菊次郎十六式
This therapy would:
- Not interpret, but attune.
- Not analyze the past, but generate new connections in the present.
- Not correct dysfunction, but amplify modes of becoming.
- Not aim for wholeness, but for new rhythms of individuation.
- Not rely on Oedipal metaphors, but on ontogenetic creativity.
- Not isolate the subject, but nurture the field of the transindividual.
And the therapist?
Like a roadside stranger in a Kitano film—awkward, imperfect, but present enough to shelter a moment of emergence.
VI. Concluding Meditation:
A Simondon-Deleuze 菊次郎十六式 therapy would not promise salvation.
It would not aim to restore the “self.”
Rather, it would be:
- A shared becoming, in silence and awkwardness,
- A fragile resonance, perhaps around a vending machine at dusk,
- A micro-transformation, just enough to move again tomorrow.
And this is the ethics:
To accompany the other’s individuation without mastery.
To hold the preindividual gently, like water in cupped hands.
Would you like to begin drafting a 菊次郎十六式 therapeutic manifesto, outlining its principles and gestures in aphoristic form? Or sketching the 16 forms themselves, as modes of relational individuation?
