Science has emerged as a disciplining practice/ technology. Every other discipline has been assigned its place in the universe of knowledge in relation to science and technology. Science enjoys hegemony and has occupied an imperial position. Following Gilles Delleuze and Felix Gauttari , we might say that it constitutes a revolutionary force in a sense that when one reaches it, it only establishes a line of thought, a position that wields power and transforms our ways of being in the world. In some way, science and technology provides the condition for the emergence of a subject. Science and technology cannot get out of themselves. In fact, they produce an outside which becomes a condition of production of our self. Hence, how science and technology work is more important than what is science and technology. Science and technology are a human construct and they construct humanity. Science and technology do have immense power over us. Science is a body without organ. Technology as can be viewed as a body without organ. They provide several lines of flight and we ride them differently to Oedipalise as we face it as the law of the father in our society. Science and technology fix us to a place/ position of triumph or swaps us away by a sense of humiliation. They in several ways shape our identities. We can trace this in India. The claims of Vedic science shape the self of several Indians ranging from triumphant, narcissistic fundamentalism to silent victimhood of the minorities. To others, science and technology legitimate the self that is standing against tradition. To others, it reinforces their western outlook, to still others, it supports a progressive/ literate self. Indeed, science and technology is coding (shaping our life with its own order of things) as well as decoding (taking community away from us). It can make us poor, worthless, marginal, and even sorry. The self emerges in dramatic haecceity (thisness) while encoding itself in the nest of science and technology. We have become Schizos in the power of it. It operates as the law of the father and we Oedipalise out of fear of castrations.
In this study, an attempt is made to understand how our desire drives us to ride several lines of flight emerging from science and technology. There is a libidinal economy that animates the ride of the lines of flight. Humans are both products and agents of their desire. Science and technology become part of the desiring machine, where the subject is caught like a cog. Science is fecund and allows us to create our selves differently over a wide range of possibilities. We ride the lines of flight like Schizos anchoring in rhythms that assist us to face the law of the father in our society. Indeed, science has become the law of father to all knowledge production and distribution as well as self-production. Science has become a vital source of our self. Self is colonized by science. Schizoanalysis is an attempt to seek decolonization of this self. Hence, here we raise the question of how or the mechanism and explore how science produces our selves. It will lead us to move beyond the oedipal form of science.
Psychoanalysts do not agree on the nature of desire. The term desire shares semantic resonance with love, drive, libido, jouissance etc. We follow Deleuze and Gauttari to understand the productive nature of desire.
Desire in Freud
Freud sees desire chiefly as a flow of energy that is said to put pressure on the individual to move from sensual autonomy to a relation to the world. In this model, desire modeled the drive or infantile excitation that operates throughout the subject’s life with regard to relation to objects: primary objects in the original caring environment like the breast of the mother and secondary ones through which the subject can repeat the experience of desiring in its adult life. Thus, desire becomes visible only when it reaches something to which it can attach itself and the scene of this drive has to be in relation to a repetition of another scene. This embodied and possible repetition opens desire to fantasy, anxiety, and discipline. It also opens desire to the death drive which Freud sees as taking pleasure in pain. If pleasure (life drive) is a stabilizing force, the death drive is a disruptive force. For Freud desire is rebellious and its essence is anti-social and has to be held in check. It has to submit to the law of the father championed by the super-ego. Hence, desire induces castration anxiety and the subject oedipalises opting for the disciplining law of the father. The law of the father organizes or channelizes desire in a normative manner. Self can be reproduced with the normative centers of our society. 
Desire in Lacan
Lacanian Model of desire looks at it less as a drive that is organized by objects and more as a drive that moves beyond its objects always operating with them and in excess of them with aims both to preserve and destroy them. Lacan perceives lack as triggering desire which is built into language conceived as self-referring signifiers. Self is fundamentally a lacking self. Desire is propelled by a lack/ object a but is paradoxically accessed by running the risk of symbolic castration. Object a is a polyvalent notion in Lacan. Object a is a remainder of the hypothetical mother-child relationship to which the subject clings in fantasy to achieve a sense of wholeness. Thus, desire basically becomes the other’s desire. As other’s desire object a becomes a jouissance object. Thus, object a is that part of the mother which the child takes with its separation. But to satisfy one’s desire one has to face death. Oedipus is faced by castration anxiety in the face of his desire. One has to face death to fulfil one’s desire. The death we evoke here is symbolic. It is a point of loss of signification. This means Oedipus had to transgress the law but due to castration anxiety, he submits to the law of the father. Lacan teaches that guilt marks the field of desire. There is a book-keeping or debt to be paid for a subject for not giving up on one’s desire. It is in the face of guilt that we submit to the law of the father and give up on our desire.
Desire in Deleuze and Gauttari
Deleuze and Gauttari give up on the psychoanalytic account of the family matrix where desire is to operate. They reject that desire is anti-social and have to be curbed. Think that Oedipus is useless. To read and interpret it, they use delirium of the anti-Oedipus to render desire visible not necessarily legible. Oedipus can be still a tool of reading desire according to the requirements of an ‘expressive unconscious’ . This means it basically assists us to understand desire mainly in terms of its meaning. Schizoanalysis proposed by Deleuze and Gauttari open ways of inscribing and recognizing desire according to the requirements of a productive or pragmatic unconscious. This means we are looking for what it does and not what it means. They replace the problem of meaning with the problem of functioning. This shift is necessitated by their Deleuze’s own critic of representation worked out in his book, Difference and Repetition. They think that unconscious exists to the extent we produce it. They teach that unconscious is not a dark force that constantly threatens to undermine and betray of becoming ourselves. In their view, it is the ability of the mind whose limits are being tested without ever being reached. When we take the position of production we can see that desire has two poles or two fundamental ways of distributing and organzsing itself and as subjects, we constantly oscillate between them. They describe these two poles as ‘paranoiacfacisizing and ‘schizorevoutionary’ desire. Often the desire of the same person will invest in two divergent ways at once. This is libidinal investments in politics and economy makes sense only when we stress the productive nature of over its hermeneutic nature. 
Deleuze and Gauttari focus on what Body-without-organs does to understand what it is. It is what Freud called the death instinct. It is the desire that desires desire when it no longer desires.
Body-without-organs in Antonin Artaud
French poet and dramatist Antonin Artaud is credited to be the origin of the concept of Body-without-organ. Artaud is more interesting as a philosopher despite his contribution to the domain of theatre studies. He is said to be an early post-structuralist. His ideas of western society, body, metaphysics, and language are useful in contemporary studies in the field of cultural studies. The de-centric orientation in his thought attracted Derrida and Deleuze to his thought. Deleuze draws our attention to his important concept of an empty body or body without organs. This concept decentres and de-hierarchizes the Body. It opens the body for a new ordering or organisibility or plasticity. He does this by undermining the role of language in the theatre. The rejection of language brings about the rise of the body. Artaud introduced his notion of a body without organs in his radio play ‘to have done with the judgment of God.’ This notion of the body without organs can be related to the declining health of Artaud. He was at that time afflicted by schizophrenia, drug abuse, and cancer and his own body was declining and he was dying. Artaud seeks freedom from the regimes of organs over his body. He wants to reach the limit that body can take him. He thinks that it becomes a leap or transgression from the physical into the metaphysical. The metaphysical is spiritual for Artaud. In fact, it is body-without-organ is not even a concept. It is a practice or a set of practices. We cannot reach it. It is the limit of what we can reach. It is a state that opens us to God who is not a body.
Deleuze and Gauttari and Body without Organs
Deleuze and Gauttari further developed Artraud’s notion of Body without organs. They do this mainly in Anti-Oedipus and partly in A thousand Plateaus. Like Artaud , Deleuze and Gauttari aim at the liberation of humans from the flesh. But they move further because they seek not just liberation from instincts and flesh but seek liberation from fixations of habits and social structures. Thus, the body without organs becomes the stage, the process or struggle to escape instinctual, habitual and the social. It stands for the human potential for freedom. Body without organs is a site of locus of coding where desire operates and assigns its determinate aims and goals. It is also the locus of decoding where desire exceeds and subvert any and all social encodings. Thus, for Deleuze and Gauttari the concept of Body without organ is political and essentially subversive and rebellious. It has an ambiguous nature and floats between determination and freedom. It is described as the echo of a lost ideal. Thus, when an alcoholic says he wants to drink, it is the body without organ that speaks. He is riding a desire to encode the organs to the regime of drinking. It is close to death instinct and desires a lesser existence. The theme of refusal is central to the notion of a body without organs. It is the refusal of all codings and encodings. This is why it is decoding by its very nature. Deleuze and Gauttari teach that when schizophrenic desire goes into a hyper-productive drive firing off thoughts and association faster than the subject can process and put into perspective, body without organs emerges as a counterweight as a force of anti-production slowing things down and eventually bringing them to a halt.
Schizoanysis as a Practice
It follows the Artaud subversion of language. It does way with the semantic or meaning aspects and takes up what it machinic or the question of what the unconscious/ desire does. Deleuze and Gauttari replace the theatre of cruelty of Artraud with the theatre of the unconscious. They hold that schizoanalysis has a stated goal to overturn the theatre of representation and ring in the order of desiring machines.
Discerning the Operation of the Desiring Machines
Deleuze and Gauttari compare the unconscious to a machine. This is why they have been accused of reviving mechanical philosophy of nature but their concept of desiring machines is not mechanistic not reductionist ( which are allied to a closed deterministic worldview). Since they move away from language and meaning, he takes up machinic models which remain open and creative. But in doing so, they rethink the concept of the machine by introducing their dynamic notion of assemblages. To them, the term machine refers to functioning assemblages which are composed of heterogeneous elements, as a running set up that can include the technological object. Their concept of desiring machine is an oxymoron. It attempts to join two realms of the organism and the machinic that are best kept separate in other discourses. These desiring machines are the working parts of the machinic unconscious. It is their operation that schizoanlysis is attempting to understand. Thus, the desire of the desiring machines is not an individual human yearning or lust for another but is an impulsion driving all levels of natural and artificial connections, production and reproduction. Thus, Deleuze and Gauttari propose uncontrolled productivity of desire through their desiring machine. Desire in their view becomes a stream into which flow connections, junctions, and circuits, as for instance between body and organ or the mouth of the infant and the breast of the mother. Desiring machines is anti-oedipal by nature and the subject is formed by the connections or assemblages triggered by the desiring machines.
Discerning of the Operation of Partial objects
Deleuze adopts and adepts the notion of partial objects developed by Melanie Klein. The notion of partial objects in Deleuze is a child of Klein’s thought but a rebellious child nonetheless. For an infant, the mother’s breasts are parts of assemblage with its mouth that gives milk. Klein understands that during the first few months of the life of an infant is in a state of anxiety due to the operation of death instinct (thanatos). She teaches that in order to cope with this anxiety, the infant resorts to phantasies of splitting, projection identification and introjections. The ego of the infant being under developed the infant is not able to have a stable image of self or that of others. Therefore, relationships are maintained with parts of objects like the breasts rather than the mother and are split between good and evil. Negative feelings are projected outward unto the mother while the positive sensations are internalised in a process called binary splitting. This process links the self to positive sensations. Deleuze and Gauttari teach that the infant’s mouth (partial object) connects to ‘a’ nipple (not mothers breast: just a partial object), some valuable flow is produced ( it is both nutritional and erotic). When the infant is satisfied the sucking is stopped and the connection is dropped (the nipple is expelled from the mouth). This means a product is produced and the intensity of the pleasure taken in the productive process vanishes to zero. Production succumbs to anti-production, but not without the later recording the image of the nipple as an object of satisfaction on a surface of body without organs. The mouth of that is connected to nipple of the mother, at another instance, producing another valued energy flow, but being distracted, sucking is stopped in favour of eye-face connection, or mouth figure connection, mouth-penis connection, mouth-cigarette connection, or the anti-production is an energy of inclusive disjunction that enables it to go multiple objects and modes of satisfaction and record on the surface of body without organs future reference. This opens the infant for limitless modes of satisfaction. What we for the infant also occurs for adults over three levels of synthesis of time. If the first synthesis of time lets humans remain fixated on the breast for nourishment or oral gratification, the disjunctive synthesis (second level) works in tandem with connective synthesis in a continuous process of attraction, repulsion and differentiation of drive-partial object relations producing the staggering variety of human experience. The multiple modes of satisfaction produced by the anti-productive force of inclusive disjunction and recorded on the body without organs get qualified in and by social representation as good , bad or as taboo or permitted or required. Here the antiproductive arises not from satiation or distraction but from repression proper. Deleuze and Gautarri call it social repression and is exclusive disjunctive by nature. All this is the work of the unconscious and remains so until the results of the connective and disjunctive synthesis are recognized by the third synthesis, the conjunctive synthesis –consumption or consummation. It is at this level that the sense of self emerges.
Science and Technology as Sites of Terrritorialisation of Self
Being a site of territorialization of the self, it becomes a space of temporary fixation and point of demarcation of the boundary between the self and its other. Science is a body without organs that is organized by a desire to from different assemblages that opens different possibilities of shaping one’s self. We have to be attentive to the way science constructs us.
Science and Technology as an Anchor of Desire
Science being a body without organs offers different desires to territorialize. Different flows of desires are attracted to it so that several desiring machines can take shape. Desire being anti-oedipal can for all forms of connections beyond the person’s name, familial bonds, gender, familiar titles, caste, religion or economic status. It offers space for the Schizo in the person to appear. Thus, the same science and technology become space to define oneself alongside its other. Thus, one can become a sanskari nationalist by joining the circuit that regards ancient Indian science as perfect science. Others may use science and technology to nurture and shape themselves as enlightened selves. To the self science and technology offer possibilities to connect with an outside and ride the intensities of one’s desire. In some real way the self loses its face as well as finds itself. Because science and technology connect us with an outside, it becomes an escape but it generates a new world into which the self can bloom. Science and technology open several possibilities for the self to schizolize itself. Our intensities of desire can amplify and fructify on plasticity offered to the self by science and technology . Science becomes the springboard where selves are configured as well as disfigured. This means science as a revolutionary force that generates lines of flight for different intensities of desire to ride. This is why science and technology become different things to different persons depending on the kind of desire that attracts them to it. Science becomes a space that moulds the different selves to take shape. Our desire relates to its partial object that it finds in science and technology. Science, thus become a medium that generates Schizo’s satisfying the intensities of desires that assemble with it. Science and technology therefore construct the Schizo in us. Thus, science locates us into a here and now as well as we lose our self into the world of science. These are not two successive moments but are simultaneous as one collapses into a schizoid self offered made possible science. The self is thus a split being located and being lost into the world of science.
Pleasures of Losing and Finding the Self
Science and technology become a zone that offers possibilities of deriving the pleasures of losing and finding oneself. Several people schizolize with science and technology. They split science and technology to ride their desires. Intensities of desire can populate the world of science. It offers several intensive desires to find stable centres within it and mould the self evolve into different forms. The self territorialises and enjoys the dynamism of emerging as a Schizo. To deepen our understanding of territorialisation, we have to learn from Lacan. Lacan teaches us that the new-born infant exists in a plenum. It does not distinguish itself from its care-givers like the mother, father and others. It does not also distinguish itself from its environments like the blankets, doors, bed etc., it exists in pure materiality and experiences sensations, pleasures and hunger. Lacan teaches that there is no notion or sense of absence at this stage. Everything is presence and present. The child is boundless. This stage is called real. For Lacan, territorialisation is a consequence of maternal nurture and nourishment of the infant’s libido. The infant is first configured and territorialised by maternal care. It is in this context, that it begins to find an exterior that fulfils its longings. The mother’s nipples, voice and gaze become the points that split and draw the boundaries between the infant and its other. Lacan teaches that these boundaries between the self and its other become rigid at the mirror stage where the infant identifies itself with the image in the mirror. This is the very important fixation that an infant has with its image in the mirror. Thus, there is the sense of being ‘at once the self and so very not’ in the primary process of territorialisation. This is the point that child is finding itself as well as losing itself simultaneously and emerging as a Schizo. This extraction of the self from its other continues in different forms. Thus the territorial possibilities offered by science that are in resonance with the territorializations of the self open possibilities of becoming self. Science and technology, thus, have room for the anti-Oedipal self to stand up.
Becoming an Anti-Oedipal Self
Lacan has taught us that the unconscious is structured like a language. He teaches that language inserts into our sense of self like the father stands between the mother and the infant. Language thus is a medium and therefore belongs to the symbolic. It bans our direct access or immediacy to the mother. It mediates how we join the larger social world. It mediates relations through laws, codes, representations, norms, etc. We can hear loud no in all these mediations and we oedepalize under castration phobia. Science is also mediating our social relations. Science belongs to the symbolic. It is organising, regularizing, regulating, coordinating and classifying social relations. We can ride the flows that operate within the symbolic of science and nurture our Schizoid self. Deleuze and Gauttari challenge us to become an anti-Oedipus by choosing other possibilities of becoming that are open to us. To become and anti-Oedipus is to transcend and rise above mediated ways of becoming. The mediated relations of science or the symbolic are modes of ordering life and not the order of life. There are always other ways of ordering life both within and outside science. We cannot oedipalize to any of them. None of them can be the law of the father. We can find our own territorialities, de-territorializations, regimes or lines of flight. Becoming an anti-Oedipus thus may be viewed as a challenge to continuously semiotize ourselves instead of submission to the reigning semiology of science and technology. We have to choose to deterritorialize the way science and technology organize, codify and regulate ourselves and open ourselves to other emancipative modes of territorializations. It is in some way a return to the materiality and intensities of Lacanian Real or Deleuzean body without organs. It makes room for new territorializations as well as lets us stand above all of them by choosing an anti-Oedipal option to all our becomings. This means we do not submit to our territorializations but choose to stand above them. This means we become enlightened Schizos, wherein the assemblages that we forge are tenuous and mobile (nomadic). This way we live in what Gauttari calls chaosmos which chooses order (cosmos) but always remain open to chaos.
The schizoanalysis of science and technology reveal that Both science and technology are is a semiotic resources for the self. An anti-Oedipal self continuously semiotizes it along its lines of flight. This awakening has opened us to spasticity of science and technology and manifested how it lends itself to Self that schizolysis it to ride different flows and intensities some of which are oppressive. This is why schizoanalysis a kind of semiotic black hole that traps all semiosis so that it returns to its unformed materiality and lay the ground open for the self to open new emancipative possibilities of being-in-the-world.
 The notion of disciplinary practice owes its meaning to Michel Foucault. See Thomas Flynn, “ Foucault’s Mapping of History” in Garry Gutting, Ed. , Cambridge Companion to Foucault ( Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2005), 30-34.
 We can locate Deleuze and Gauttari’s thinking in the realm of free and unbound thinking that is released from the chains of representation, primacy of the Cogito, of intentional consciousness of phenomenology and of the pathology of Oedipus complex.
 Here we follow Deleuzian view that sees Science as a production.
 Foucault has already demonstrated that subjects emerges more as a product of power rather than as product of meaning. See Thomas Flynn, “Foucault’s Mapping of History” in Garry Gutting, Ed. , Cambridge Companion to Foucault p. 35.
 Science and technology carry forward the age old Platonic tradition. It is based on model of thought that shares closeness to the tap root. It is like a perennial tree under which Plato teaches his pupils. Against this model, schizoanlysis bases itself on rhizome. It makes our thought nomadic that builds itself on exteriority and not on an ordered edifice of interiority. It does not reflect the world but is immersed in changing the world. In this sense it follow Karl Marxs.
 We will study this notion with critical attention in this paper.
 Schizoanlysis deals with Desire as a machine, it comes close to what we call technology. We have several technologies besides one emerging out of science. Schizoanalysis tries to study a technology that runs our desire lets our selves emerge/appear. This is why we shall use the term science from now on to stand for science and technology.
 Lauren Berlant, Desire/Love (New York: Punctum books, 2012), 19.
 Ibid., 20.
 Deleuze teaches that Freud had set desire into an image of theatre unto the order of classical Greek theatre. With the analogy of Oedipus, he teaches that desire locked into a familial context. It triangulates between the father, mother and the infant. But it settles for the reign of the father. In place of the stage (family) and the theatre Deleuse and Gauttari model desire unto a factory/ work place. Leen De Bolle, Deleuze and Psychoanalysis (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2010), 16.
 Deleuze and Gauttari base themself on Reichain axiom that teaches that desire is revolutionary in its essence. See Steven Best and Dougles Kellner, Postmodern Theory : Critical Interrogations ( London: Mackmillan Education, 1991) p. 86.
 Ian Buchanan, Tim Matts, Aidan Tynan, Deleuze and the Schizoanalysis of Literature (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 12.
 Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, Trans. Paul Patton ( New York: Columbia University, 1994).
 Ian Buchanan, Tim Matts, Aidan Tynan, Deleuze and the Schizoanalysis of Literature , 13.
 Within the universe of productive nature of desire, we see why Deleuze and Gauttari schizophrenia as the withdrawal of energy from the objects but like Freud, they do not see as detachment from reality but on the contrary it leads to unlimited production and creation of various realities. Leen De Bolle, Deleuze and Psychoanalysis, 21.
 See Antonin Artaud, The Theatre and its Double , Trans. Mary Carolyn Richards, (New York : Grove Press, 1958).
 To get some sense of what attracted Derrida to Artaud see Marc James Leger ‘The cruelty that renders Art History: Derrida, Artaud and the Subjectile’ https://legermj.typepad.com/blog/2011/12/the-cruelty-that-renders-art-history-derrida-artaud-and-the-subjectile.html acccesed on 21/09/2019.
 Antonio Artaud, ‘To have done with the judgement of God’ http://www.labster8.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Artaud-ToHaveDoneWithJudgementofGod.pdf accessed on 21/09 /2019.
Gills Deleuze and Felix Gauttari, Anti-Oedipus Schizophrenia and Capitalism, Trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, Helene R Lane (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1983).
 Gills Deleuze and Felix Gauttari, Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Trans., Brian Massmi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1987).
 Ian Buchanan, Tim Matts, Aidan Tynan, Deleuze and the Schizoanalysis of Literature , 66.
 Leen De Bolle, Deleuze and Psychoanalysis, 17.
 Leen De Bolle, Deleuze and Psychoanalysis, 17.
 Melanie Klein, “A contribution to the Psychogenesis of Maniac-depressive States” https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3c6a/9fff5a09c0783402e55001ac53f497b36a18.pdf accessed on 10/06/2019.
 Stephen A. Mitchell, ‘The origin and nature of ‘object’ in the theories of Klein and Fairbairn 12” https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5c77/fa8e50622bb79347da72bc8d8a5205fac8fd.pdf accessed on 28/09/2019.
 Euzene Holland, “Deleuze and Psychoanalysis” file:///C:/Users/Victor-pc/Documents/Deleuze_and_Psychoanalysis%20(1).pdf in https://www.academia.edu/upgrade?feature=searchm&trigger=mentions-view-download-onsite-ping&after_upgrade_path=%2Fmentions accessed on 28/09/2019.
 Chris L. Smith, Bare Architecture: A Schizoanaysis (New York: Bloomsbury, 2017), 26-28.
 Ibid, 31-32.
 Ibid, 34.
 Felix Gauttarin in his book Chaosmosis discusses three main genealogies that have come to influence our cultivation of self. These three categories are broad and may overlap with each other. Self to him is always entangled and is an assemblage. The first assemblage is collective or existential territories. This is an assemblage that we mistook as primitive hunter gatherer society. It articulates itself through pre-institutionalised religious practices such as dance, chants, ritual drug-use and animism and affects a positive de-territorialised infinity. It is though this humans stayed open to the immaterial or the cosmic and other universes of value and their consequent potentials. The second phase in the genealogy is that of the transcendental universals or capitalist deterritorialised assemblage. In this context, society erects an autonomised pole of reference which proceeds the individuation of a subject and shapes its individuation as progress and natural process of being human. It creates hierarchies of will, reason, understanding and affectivity and legitimates a dual and dialectical worldview. The third genealogy that Gauttari favours is called as processual immanence. This is where we find ourselves partially immersed today. Gauttari traces its roots in contemporary art practice. Art contaminates homogeneity by promoting creativity and affirming the extremis. This lets us to stay open to our mutant creativity that lead to plural cultivation of selves and actualisation of the heterogeneous otherness. But in this cultivation of otherness the self does not closes into an isolation of being an individual but stays linked to collective as well as partial subjectivities. See Felix Gauttari, Chaosmosis: an Ethico-aesthetic Paradigm, Trans., Paul Bains, Julian Pefanis (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995).