Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 10:53:10 +0100 (BST) From: D Hugh-Jones <dash2-AT-hermes.cam.ac.uk> Subject: Re: BwO Definition On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Aden Evens wrote: > OK DHJ: > > The Body without Organs is a limit. In particular, it is the limit at which > all the flows which constitute the world flow completely freely, each into > the others, so that no distinctions exist among them any longer. Flows?, > you ask. D&G describe a world in which everything flows and everything is > made of flows: not only water, air, magma, blood, paint, electricity, not > only grass, earth, sun, but ideas, people, culture, books, conversations > flow. What allows us to distinguish these flows from each other, to single > out one or another, is a threshold or a point which separates each of them. > Every flow is made by cutting off another flow, by restricting or drawing > off a flow. > > But, in some sense, a flow does not want to be cut-off, to be restricted. > This desire, the desire of a flow to flow unconstrained, is the BwO. The > BwO is real, since the desire is real, in fact, the BwO just is desire. But > it is abstract, for it is a limit: flows are never free, but always > interrupted. Without the interruption and the desire, the flow and its > break, there would be no world at all. > > Why "Body-without-Organs"? The absence of organs means the lack of > organization, or the fact that the BwO is not broken down into parts > distinct from each other. It remains a body, though, even if it only ever > presents itself as an attractor or repeller, a surface to slip over or > bounce off of. For no sooner does a flow return to the BwO, then it is > reconstituted as part of another flow, distinguishing itself from its > surroundings. Nothing lives in the BwO, only over its surface. Since it > allows no distinctions, no identity, it is effectively sterile, a degree > zero; the complete freedom of the BwO is also the undifferentiated of > death. > > The BwO makes paradoxical (!) the problem of freedom. On the one hand, > freedom is the freedom to flow without constraint, the freedom of autonomy. > On the other hand, this same freedom is only death. What would be a limited > freedom? This paradox of freedom is studied as the paradox of capitalism in > _Anti-Oedipus_. If capitalism can make everything fall back on the BwO (of > capital), then how far can it go toward this limit? > > Caveats: > > (1) This definition is one among many possible. It is drawn primarily from > the concept of BwO as described in _A-O_. Its description elsewhere is > significantly different. > > (2) This definition is necessarily an oversimplication. Concepts in D&G are > never hammered down into a final form; rather, they are always being > developed, always under modification, always provisional. One can never > capture the totality of a concept in its definition. > > (3) To be a bit more specific about how this definition is inadequate or > different from others: > > In _MP_, there are many BwO's, not just one, and the question of whether > they are all brought together in a plane of consistency is raised > explicitly. > > The ontological status of the BwO is tricky, even in _A-O_. Does it exist > at all (its first mention is in a purely hypothetical tone)? Is it just a > limit? How does it attract and repel? How does it relate to the full bodies > (socius, money, etc.)? Does it exist on another ontological level, so that > it somehow coexists (insists or subsists) with the flows whose freedom and > death it represents? > > The question of how to make a BwO is crucial, yet I ignore it above. > > Hope this helps, > > > > $$$$$$$$$$$ > Aden > $$$$$$$$$$$ > Having thought about this I would like to ask some questions. First of all, someone suggested to me in a private communication that the 'escape from the judgment of god' was to do with, put simply, anti-foundationalism. If so then would it be right to say that flows can never be ultimate constituent units of the world, because a flow is always across something else, and defined by what interrupts it? If so, is the BwO, as a limit, an impossible totality? And if so, as it is always deflected by capitalism, what would be a possible ideal for practice - if you don't mind me going back to that so soon? Second, is schizophrenia the experience of the BwO? More later Dave Hugh-Jones A Rush and a Push and the Land is ours dash2-AT-cam.ac.uk ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005