/lit/ - Literature

receding hairline probably
can't relate

I'm going to use this thread to ask a question: is the idea of the body without organs that we should reexamine concepts we take for granted and extend the boundaries of them?

If I understand it right, preCONCEPTIONS (hyuk hyuk) of certain concepts are kind of like atomic elements of irreducible stuff, and that we should challenge those concepts and push them beyond a perceived limit?

>>22985282
I'd give my fucking thirty year old NEET/sped/permavirgin hairline for two extra inches of dick, honestly. Just fucking kill me. In a literary way, obviously.,

Sensitive fingertips.

>>22985276
look at his fucking nails. Theres obviously a mental problem

>>22985276
too schizo (based) for biology so he went ahead and did what he had to do

>>22985276
He did a fuck ton of drugs with Guattari and hung around actual schizophrenics at Felix's hospital. They actually stole some of the patienats derranged writings so they could put it in their work.

>>22985276
he understood philosophy

his book on spinoza was really good

>>22985276
Being French in like the 70s was an odd time

>>22985276
>what the fuck was his problem
his brother was killed by Nazis' so he dedicated his life to destroying all forms of coercive , centralised, totalitarian power...... right at the nub, at its base.

>>22985276
brain too big

>>22985316
>is the idea of the body without organs that we should reexamine concepts we take for granted and extend the boundaries of them?
that's a persistent theme throughout deleuze's work, but the BwO is something more specific.

keep in mind deleuze's project in anti-oedipus, the book where the BwO is defined, is developing new ways to understand desire.

that means he wants to avoid conventional ideas of desire: desire as lack (i don't have it, therefore i want it), or desire as oedipal or libidinal (i want to have sex, probably with a mother-figure).

the BwO is sort of a theoretical zero-point. before all the "machines" (deleuze's term for any process which produces things) start producing, there must be a blank surface on which they can operate. the BwO is that blank surface. so the original, fundamental desires are those that the BwO itself has, prior to its connection to any machines.

to produce, the BwO has to connect with machines; at this point, it's no longer a body without organs, because the machines are organs. it's just a body. the machines then "record" information on the body, which transform its desires.

deleuze's example of this is a kid playing with a train set. on the freudian account, the train is a penis, the tunnel is a vagina, and the child is simply acting out oedipus. but on deleuze's account, the kid begins as a body without organs, attaches the toy-train-machine to himself out of a positive desire to play, and then comes to desire the function implicit in the designs of the train and tunnel. the kid is no longer expressing a fully organic desire, but a desire shaped by the machines he's plugged himself into.

of course, it's arguable that there's never a body without organs, since the kid is already part of many social machines, including the family machine, school machine, and so on. but the kid must at one point have had a BwO, if only when he was a newborn, and keeping that in mind while analyzing him yields better results than assuming from the start that all his desires boil down to wanting to fuck his mom.

t. currently in an anti-oedipus reading group

>>22987293
I want to hate Deleuze but he was a pretty smart guy even a genius maybe.