File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1996/d-g_Jun.96, message 41


Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 03:28:21 GMT
From: twall-AT-oz.net (Thomas Wall)
Subject: Re: Re[2]: BwO & Expression


Karen Ocana's postings are quite brilliant as always.  I am struggling with
the notion of the BwO myself and I'm now trying to work out the temporality
of it.  It's a "pure past" isn't it?  That is, a past that was never
present and that is nevertheless simultaneously always still
possible--always still to come.  The BwO is the fact that the body *with*
organs has a past that it still must be.  So I try to understand it in the
way that Blanchot talks of the "sick" hand in his essay *The Essential
Solitude*--the hand that cannot not write. Such a hand is not really a hand
therefore and it is not really writing.  But that's as far as I go.  I'm
hung up on that "past that still must be"--inexhaustible--the very notion
of the inexhaustible--that I can't quite express properly.  The notion of a
body I still must be conjures up images from Lovecraft or Cronenberg (the
potentially infinite versions of Brundle-flies at the end of *The Fly*) and
Shaviro's book on film *The Cinematic Body*.  Every body *with* organs,
every articlated writing, is a trace of that "must" or "cannot not"...it's
like a point where time and ethics meet or are the same or are
indistinguisable from each other...but a very strange point...I seem
incapable of thiking it through somehow...

baffled,
Tom




     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005