The Problem with Field Recording.

Deleuze & Guattari famously contest the singularity of man's species-clinging (to dead objects) by conceiving the breast and mouth as machines that are capable of both directing and cutting off the flow of immanence in the form of lactose, for differing regulatory purposes of production that are never simply or exclusively either reproductive or destructive of a subject, or its reified things, but which rather record and edit the entirety of life productive activity:

It is at work everywhere, functioning smoothly at times, at other times in fits and starts. It breathes, it heats, it eats. It shits and fucks. What a mistake to have ever said the id. Everywhere it is machines—real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections. An organ-machine is plugged into an energy-source-machine: the one produces a flow that the other interrupts. The breast is a machine that produces milk, and the mouth a machine coupled to it (Deleuze & Guattari, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, pg.1).

The totality of mechanistic relations as a matrix of productive relations requires necessary subdivisions for their productive functions to register on the surface of consciousness, but these divisions are dividends of a perspective that has no grounding in the immediate nature of the machines it proposes, they are the playback returns of a recording and editing process engineered by a subject without substance, the fabricated memories (Gm. Erinnerung) and plug-ins of a schizoid man's (and we are now eerily traversing the 21st Century…) interface, who fears the invasion of his individuality and the imposition of immanence (Gedachtnis) in the form two constitutive grumbles: that of his undead food, and that of his unfed digestive tract. This is the everyman of the self-conscious subject who sees the logo-less machinery of the animal as a type of predation and threat that a real animal could never conceive of or act on, even as the Alaskan Grizzly swallows the Grizzly Man, who has only called the clan his brethren to avert the radical truth of their thingless difference, and his reduction to the organic zero he would become if bears truly were his kin. Likewise, and following Freud, if the mother’s breast were merely an object of the reproductive process, it would not have the capacity to install in man the trauma of the oceanic feeling, the being in the world "like water in the interior of water," that undoubtedly agitates centuries of religious practice, the wondrous fondling of a long-inherited luxury items that appears as an apparition in the palm of one’s hand, and the iconoclastic demolition of the eighteenth through twentieth-century revolutions that circulate as emergent hauntologies (Jacques Derrida,Specters of Marx) throughout human history, perpetually destroying humanity’s stable image of itself; the bastard counter-editing of the dominant species’ patriarchive (JD, Archive Fever,pg.14) by its daughters and its orphans. The self-conscious man is a paranoid, empty body, arranging organs outside himself, accumulating the instincts he perceives in other animals, which are only instincts that the jealousy of his instinctless artifice (to invoke the speculative-historical developments of eighteenth-century discourse) can decipher with desire, which is of course, encoding. This paranoia though, is a shortsightedness that supposes man’s dissolution would reduce him to one of his things, either not recognizing or being proprietarily obsessed—enslaved—by the living objects of his accumulation, that his immanence would never permit him to be prey to beasts in the way that his subjectivity mandates, even if he were defecating on the street, sniffing crotch in a dog park, and being devoured by the wolves waiting at the garbage disposal.