What the fuck is body without organs

What the fuck is body without organs

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xluU71Ogp98
youtu.be/5EHnrE3j9kg
youtu.be/lajsoQJ0V6A
twitter.com/AnonBabble

bone

delete

>What the fuck is body without organs

Incapable of processes. Useless. A meaningless facsimile.

as in, the person does not think, he does not digest his food, he does not hear music...

Most sensible answer desu

Is this a stealth belated halloween thread?

bones are made of tissues, they're organs.

With lungs the size of everything

It is an ‘architecture’ that parts can freely drift in and out of, and that resists the Judgment of God (rigidity). For example, Veeky Forums is a Body without Organs. If the userbase became fixed and stopped producing new content it would be ‘cancerous’, and if everybody left it would be ‘empty’. As it is, it is dynamic, flows can occur, its development is rhizomal rather than linear, it is ‘schizophrenic’. The implementation of bad site-wide policies, poor moderation, or capture by r/the_donald could lead to the judgment of god.

some shitty meme made up by either WS Burroughs or the surrealists, as I recall.

total surface, an octopus

Nice analogy.

Read Lacan before reading Deleuze

Best explanation I've read ... ever. Basically, D&G kind of want you to have fun with their ideas/terminology and 'play around' with them creatively. If Deleuze was alive he might actually have found this amusing

Another thing people seem to forget when it comes to D&G is they're not limiting themselves to the 'medical' diagnosis/model of schizophrenia

youtube.com/watch?v=xluU71Ogp98

An amorphous body (not limited merely to an anatomical one) crossed through with zones of potentiality. D&G use comparisons to the embryo, which consists of unformed elastic matter yet to be actualized / stratified as organs. The BwO is a limit; it can only be approached asymptotically. In approaching it, a subject becomes "molecular", "supple", and is opened to a space of pure immanence.

You're both correct in that D&G don't want their concepts limited by a single strata, what can be used to describe the organization of a human or animal or plant body can be used to describe the organization of a society, even if there are obvious differences, as long as it is productive. Philosophy as concept creation tends to be an 'in-between' even though it has its oen content: between economy and psychiatry (Capitalism and Schizophrenia) using concepts that capture (abstract) both such as desiring production (that which produces every experience, normal or pathological, through synthesis) describing reality better than the specialized fields can do on their own in isolation (even if specialization has obvious benefits, we live in the century of interdisciplinarity at least on paper).

Just remember that D&G disagreed about the BwO in Anti-Oedipus and that's why it seems weird there. In the BwO chapter of A Thousand Plateaus you get a much clearer empirical description of how it functions in experience so that everyone understands its effects if thry ever fell in love or did drugs or had a masochistic connection (that 'transforms' pain without it ceasing to be pain, through an unlikely, rhizomatic, connection known as a Becoming).

As always, I advise skimming through the five essay and interview collections in no particular order: Desert Islands, Two Regimes of Madness, Essays Critical and Clinical, Dialogues, Negotiations and then moving on to Nietzsche and Philosophy as an intro to Deleuze's main themes. Letter to a Harsh Critic in Negotiations is also a very good and short intro into how Deleuze expects his text to be read.

Also the usual videos:
youtu.be/5EHnrE3j9kg

youtu.be/lajsoQJ0V6A

And anything by the Actual/Virtual Journal (including the stuff on Klossowski, especially on his relation to Nietzsche) and Manuel DeLanda's courses, both on Youtube and some on Vimeo exclusively as well. Also Deleuze's Abecedaire can probably still be pirated with English subtitles. And maybe Deleuze for the Desperate series on Youtube.

Also, keep in mind that molecular refers primarily not just to size, but to connection, to a multiplicity as opposed to a one-multiple duality. Basically to the relations established between elements (sometimes qualitatively different elements) which allow them to have new properties as a multiplicity.

So like Nietzsche's Last Man?

Differentiate BwO from flow.

No Nietzsche's Last Man is a person who has his little pleasures for the day and little pleasures for the night, lives for happiness and doesn't aim for 'greatness'. Netflix, Starbucks, IPhone.
>OMG this moca latte its soooooo good we gotta stop by Starbucks. did you hear they have the new pumpkin spice weeeee got to try that like right now.

ngl this made me laugh

A cell, by definition.

no.
Gutted, by definition.

pre-cum

flow is change. a healthy BwO has the possibility of flow.

The skin is an organ, you retard, you fucking moron, you absolute dunce.

>bones aren't organs

Hello brainlet.

> this entire thread

How are you guys so stupid? The body without organs = body without organization

Translation: Be weird with your body

D&G are 68er baby boomers. They unironically believe being a free spirited yuppie artist is revolutionary and impossible to co-opt.

People have careers dedicated to reading this guys...

fuck without orgasms

A mannequin ;)

skinned and gutted then, you tosspot.

>People have careers dedicated to reading this guys...
But you don't have any career, which enables you to understand French psychoanalytic theory and the whole of the 1960's with your, what, high school diploma and experience cutting grass at the country club? Or did the j00z make you drop out of high school?

yo mama after im done with her

Me and Nick Land are among the few individuals to fully understand the implications of Deleuzean thought and achieve the BwO. It is no coincidence that we both went insane soon after. Six visits to the psych ward later after deterritorializing myself with hardcore psychedelics, I have now returned to the fold of Platonism. The ethics of difference, it would seem, end only in a padded cell or a coffin. For my mother's sake, I now adhere to virtue ethics. Kinda miss fucking bipolar scene sluts but then again that's probably how I ended up with HPV. I only hope my future wife can forgive me my immature philosophical infatuation.

>tfw no bipolar scene slut

> I'm stupid therefore philosophy is bad

A body pillow.

>D&G use comparisons to the embryo, which consists of unformed elastic matter yet to be actualized / stratified as organs.
sigh

There's no contradiction between your pic and the quote though. The shaping still has to take place. I guess the difficult (and maybe controversial part) is that for D&G this forming is more like applying force to something rather than something just necessarily following instructions towards a goal. At least if I understood then correctly.

The thing called embryo is territorialized af, it already has a front and back, a ventral and dorsal surface, a center and periphery. On top of that every single cell composing it and predating it is itself a body with organ(elle)s, each with a membrane of its own, because we're eukaryotes.

I wish we lived in the timeline where 20th century French philosophers were interdisciplinary.

Deterritorialization and territorialization go together, you can't have one without the other except in abstract.

The point, as far as I get it, is that there is a movement between order and chaos even though order prevails for thr most part (otherwise there would be no persistence) and this movement persists even after something is fully constituted. As for the cell part, I'm not sure what the point of calling it a BwO is since the BwO is best observed in this movement between chaos and order that goes beyond the organs in an organized strata, disorganized but without necessarily breaking down organization permanently.

Sorry, I meant I'm not sure why calling it a Body WITH Organs helps rather than treating it as a Body WITHOUT Organs. BwO tends to stand for the latter.

> when you listen to a 20 minute lecture by Deleuze and he's talking about how you de/reterritorialize your thumb

very interesting philosophy

thank you, may 68

Lefebvre is more 68er. Deleuze really had nothing to do with it.

Read a bio. Deleuze was involved and was genuinely shocked that socialists didn't win...

Lefebvre is good and I have nothing bad to say about him. He's not really a 68er in the same sense as D&G (ie. radical liberal 'Marxism').

Thought Lefebvre was the foremost theorist for 68 and influenced the situationists. I haven't gotten through all of Critique of Everyday Life yet though

And you're not a Maoist who happens to have a dislike of potatoes, are you?

> everyone who thinks D&G aren't perfect is literally Badiou!

Maoism is a meme, but slightly less so than blatant liberalism barely disguised as Marxism.

You don't know 68.

People's War!

We will reterritorialise kekistan. Shadilay brother.

> Deleuze was involved and was genuinely shocked that socialists didn't win...

Requesting word for word source as well as an exact page.