Let the BwO hit the floor

[Anonymous No.14339432]

What person would be a good example of a BwO, if such an example exists? I'm trying to better grasp this concept.

[Anonymous No.14339453]

>>14339432
A schizophrenic spouting word salad

[Anonymous No.14339512]

>>14339432
a drug addict. all his organs are tuned to one flow, the flow of heroin. he overcodes his human body and becomes a seeker

[Anonymous No.14339542]

its just a plane of immanence

[Anonymous No.14339550]

>>14339432
You could pass one on the street and never know, unless, of course, you're sensitive to that sort of thing, but then you wouldn't be asking the question.

[Anonymous No.14339559]

>>14339432
a strata of intensity

[Anonymous No.14339589]

The body without organs is an egg: it is crisscrossed with axes and thresholds, with latitudes and longitudes and geodesic lines, traversed by gradients marking the transitions and the becomings, the destinations of the subject developing along these particular vectors

[Anonymous No.14339638]

>>14339512
>It is important to emphasize first that Anti-Oedipus was not a triumphalist book. It was written after May 68, when everything that had got opened was closing down, when the masterword, “it was but a dream, let us go back to reality” was already encoding the event as a past memory. Anti-Oedipus gave voice to the trust, an ontological, enacted trust, that this so-called dream we were asked to forget was reality, and that nothing would stop it.
As such, yet, Anti Oedipus was denounced as responsible the catastrophic trajectories of many young people using drugs and self-mutilation as if they had wished to demonstrate the validity of Deleuze and Guattari’s trust and reach Antonin Artaud’s body without organs that Anti-Oedipus had made famous. In A Thousand Plateaus, Artaud and the body without organs are still there, but the important question is now : “How do you make yourself a body without organs ?”, how do you fabricate an escape line from the “Judgment of God” that steals your organs and submits them to the law of an organism ? Deleuze and Guattari do not recant, or admit responsibility. Why would they, since what happened was indeed not a result of their book, but, rather, a consequence of the suffocating closure that crushed all escape lines after 68 ? But they point instead to a technical problem they had not anticipated in Anti Oedipus, the confusion between experimentation and precipitation. “Why such a dreary parade of sucked-dry, catatonicized, vitrified, sewn-up bodies, when the Body without organs is also full of gaiety, ecstasy, and dance ? (…) Emptied bodies instead of full ones. What happened ? Were you not cautious enough ? Not wisdom, caution.” (TP, 150).
>The distinction between wisdom and caution is a crucial one. It means that to the question “What happened ?”, to the accusation that Anti-Oedipus made many victims, the answer will not be “sorry, we feel responsible for the many who were defeated in this battle, now we are wiser and sound the retreat from the battle ground”. Deleuze and Guattari do not address those who would anticipate regrets and excuses anyway. They do not discuss with them. They address only those to which the need must be conveyed for caution, for affirmative, step by step, productive experimentation, against the temptation of precipitation. “How can we convey how easy it is and the extent to which we do it every day ? And how necessary caution is, the art of dosages, since overdose is a danger. You don’t do it with a sledgehammer, you use a very fine file. (…) You do not reach the Body without organs by wildly destratifying. That is why we encountered the paradox of those emptied and dreary bodies : they had emptied themselves of their organs instead of looking for the point at which they could patiently and momentarily dismantle the organization of the organs we call the organism.” (TP, 160).

[Anonymous No.14339651]

>>14339638
68 flopping really ruffled these frogs something fierce didn't it?

[Anonymous No.14339660]

>>14339638
huh this was really interesting