Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 15:15:35 GMT From: twall-AT-oz.net (Thomas Wall) Subject: Re: Ethics: BYO >Thomas Wall wrote; >> >> Here I think D disagrees with you, Phil. From Massumi we learn that there >> is not an impenetrability but an all-too-porousness that characterizes the >> BwO. In fact, may we venture to say that the BwO only *is* at all insofar >> as, and for as long as, it is penetrated (i.e. enfolds). That is, it is >> not a piece of something--matter, substance--waiting to be penetrated. It >> *is* (only) "its" intensities--as I learned from Seigworth's post directing >> us to ATP, 153. Its Neutrality is its extreme vulnerability to, and >> indifferent enfolding of, an Outside. And I believe it is the very >> indiffence of its continual, more-than -passive, more-than-vulnerable >> enfoldings, that, at bottom, forces us to think. Not to immediately think >> of that which is enfolded (as if thought is a harried hotel manager >> struggling with more guests than he has rooms for) but rather, thought is >> the obsession with a door that can't be closed. (kinda sorta). (And >> somehow this vulnerability relates to its acting in some convoluted way >> which also relates to time. --I'm working on it). > >How within this kind of understanding of BWO would you deal with those >assemblages such as the `perverse, >artistic, poltical, military, intellectual', technological, technocratic. Does >a text say this one as an >assemblage of statements have its own BWO ? I'd suggest it does. Because >assemblages are always assemblages of >desire. Consider the human/computer/internet assemblage which i am currently a >part of as i write this. Not >that dissimilar to the knight/horse assemblage D&G were always so keen on. >steve.devos-AT-dial.pipex.com Steve-- No answer. The assemblage thing is beyond me now except that I understand it as a multiplicity. I am turing my attention back to cinema. --Tom ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005