/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15350126]

Explan deleuze to me. What the fuck is a body without organs

[Anonymous No.15350138]

no replies to this thread will actually elucidate what a "body without organs" is. the best you will get is a string of obscure neologisms that add up to nothing meaningful. D&G are schizo freaks.

[Anonymous No.15350167]

>>15350138
I’m not at the D. Yet. But the bodily illusions remind me of the aristotilian idea of the “corpore” or the allusion of a society, weither it be familial, communal, national, as a body a lay the leviathan in hobbes. A body of bodies as it were. Is it maybe a deconstruction of this idea?

[Anonymous No.15350179]

>>15350167
>“corpore” or the allusion of a society, weither it be familial, communal, national, as a body a lay the leviathan in hobbes.
but society has organs?

[Anonymous No.15350187]

>>15350167
>the aristotilian idea of the “corpore”
Where can I read about it?

[Anonymous No.15350194]

>>15350126
becoming a BwO is about unbinding potential. Basically, a BwO is a thing which has disavowed itself of allegiance to being and has instead embraced becoming-- a rejection of static identity in favor of deterritorialization

[Anonymous No.15350202]

>>15350126
>deleuzer

[Anonymous No.15350215]

Just watch youtube videos on them. Save the reading for non obscurantist jargonless works

[Anonymous No.15350221]

>>15350187
nicomachean ethics
Most medieval guilds and early modern trade company charters
Leviathan of course.
Most political philosophy with roots with Aristotle really.

[Anonymous No.15350232]

>>15350179
Yes. In a manor of speaking. The brain requires the arm to do something as to feed the whole body. If the arm is defective, the whole body suffer as all the organs are interdependent.

[Deleuzefag No.15350233]

>>15350167
You are actually right on the money, society is a body with organs. The body without organs is a totally deterritorialized socius. BwO is just a socius where all the organs (the territories) on the body are removed. It is a social plane with total potential, as it isn't yet defined by territories/organs/machines/social formations/ ect. Much like the Greeks too, you can apply it to the body as well, make yourself a body without organs, as well as the universe itself, as a plane of potential territoriality by actualities like the mountains of the earth and the heat from the sun.

[Anonymous No.15350238]

>>15350221
thank you

[Anonymous No.15350293]

>>15350233
Sweet, glad my correlation sensors are still worker. The specific use of the words body and organ just seemed too particular in application to not be related if we are talking the same general sphere of academia. I’ve personally had some theories in its deconstruction, but I haven’t read D. Proper, so I don’t feel qualified to expound on his statement, but yours seems pretty followable.

>>15350238
Your welcome. Again, I first would recommend ethics, but if you feel like it, something that I found particularly fascinating was the charter for either the Dutch east india company or the Dutch West Indies company (whichever came first, I forgot which). It’s not that overly long or impenitrable, and it has some really interesting implications when you read in between the lines. It was rather egalitarian, but moreso a great example of the “Aristotelian body”

[Anonymous No.15350469]

>>15350233
By deterritorialization Im understanding a place that is unfiltered or autonomous from social conventions, is this close or am I looking in to it too literally?

[Anonymous No.15350514]

>>15350469
Yeah, I think at the level of society, deterritorialization would be the abolition of social formations like conventions, organizations, stuff like that. At the level of the individual it might be the abolition of ideology or gender or familial relations. At the level of the universe, it might be leveling a forest to open a clearing.

[Anonymous No.15350806]

>>15350194
So.. a romantic?