Body without organs

Yet it flees any (self-contained) idea of totality as expressed by an organism

the BWO is a smooth, unbounded plane of pure undifferentiated intensity that exists prior to any processes of stratification that carve up the body with limits, axes, asymptotes, thresholds, etc.. The idea is that the BWO is defined by its limitless potentiality– everything that could plausibly exist already resides in its virtual field, waiting to be actualised. Think of it in terms of emergent phenomena– Even though no two snowflakes are the same, their shape, size, pattern, etc. is already determined by the various interrelated currents and vectors of the solution. The same goes for genetics - all of the different kinds of babies you could have are already contained in your testicles, its just you have to bust a nut in order to actualise one of them. D&G's point is essentially that those unrealised babies are no less 'real' than the one who actually did make it.

So the buddhist "emptiness'?

youtube.com/watch?v=NJOMqC2TFDI&t=0m30s

Can you please elaborate? This a neat effort-post.

based, bataillepilled and nice digits

It's not empty, in fact its quite the opposite– the bwo is both a crystal smooth surface (for the schizoid to skate over) and a volume of writhing, teeming, polymorphous complexity underneath, not quite alive, never entirely deceased.

There are different kinds of BWOs, which is why my example of genetics played out like a joke. If you've read Deleuze and understand what I mean when I say "assemblage" then it makes sense to plug a bwo into a humouring machine if Deleuze can plug a bwo into a desiring (masochistic) machine. The idea is to gradually seal or contain all orifaces (breaks to the Outside) so that one can vibrate with a purely intensive feeling (I have no mouth, but I must scream). it's almost impossible to talk about 'The' bwo (if such a thing exists) because its always referred to metonymically, as the imminent ground from which emerges distinct causal relations.

The emptiness of Buddhism is pure potentiality, it's quite different from what one initially think of when one thinks of emptiness. The emptiness is that which every phenomenon appears from, is in, and dissolves into - it's always there and wakefull.

You could just read the BwO chapter in A Thousand Plateaus, it's much clearer than their initial conception in Anti-Oedipus where, by their own admission, they disagreed on the concept which is why it's so hard to understand.

generation-online.org/p/fpdeleuze2.htm

Attached: 1499923628793.png (515x587, 432K)

Emptiness in Buddhism as I understand it pertains to the emptiness of independent separate essence in all phenomena due to the interdependence of all things. If something only exists in relation to another thing it cannot be said to exist independently, to have individual essence.
>"If things could not exist
>Without essence
>The phrase, "When this exists so this will be,"
>Would not be acceptable."
-Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (translated by Jay L. Garfield)

based and Deleuzepilled

the Indians are way ahead of you Georges

Attached: e5039df25cbc6da8f77fe325d645e8b9.jpg (720x740, 98K)

So it is just Aristotelian potentiality? I don't get the fuzz.

Bump without organs

10 episodes on netflix

Is it that we are just looking in?

Its the AT-field.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Okay then what does this idea have to do with a body and the lack of organs. The metaphor is just misleading.

Deleuze would probably say that the virtual is of a different nature than the actual (even if they are intertwined) whereas older conceptions of potentiality are just a doubling of the actual minus its existence. So the virtual is real and everpresent and constantly striving to actualize, it has its own existence so to speak.

Yeah, apparently it's not a body "without organs" but rather a body that isn't like an organism. So why go with Artaud's terminology?

it is egg

if you read the book you might learn that organs are machines that work against one another, or for their own purposes, the heart pumps blood, the liver retards blood, ect. the body without organs is like the drug addict whose whole metabolism has become dependent on and aimed towards junk

but in egg is snek

It's not a metaphor. 'body without organs' is necessarily a contradiction-in-terms because a body is nothing if not a constitution of organs, but as a phrase it highlights the way that the outward projection of bodily/formal unity is not 'real' but rather a screen stretched over a volume consisting of innumerable vectors and intensive flows. It's not literally a body lacking organs, its the body as it exists prior to the development of organs. It's why its associated with the dogon egg and the world described by ancient mythology. A BWO still contains the potential to develop organs (though D&G argue this is a painful process that scars its surface). The idea is that the BWO is the reality of the virtual– It is everything that is yet to exist, as the germs of everything that will exist are already contained within the innumerable and minute movements beneath its surface.

Good post. It's important to note that D&G argue that there are different kinds of bodies without organs– a junkie bwo is hollowed out, inevitably leading to exhaustion or death, whereas the masochistic bwo (through bondage and ball gags) approaches the undifferentiated, intensive state of a bwo fit to burst by sealing off all orifaces.

good effort post

Whats the use of all this knowledge? dont seem so practical

So what is a BwO? BwO is essentially a Spinozist concept, which describes the potentialities, affects or connections a body can have, of which one is usually ignorant about. To "make oneself a body without organs" is to rip oneself away from a stable body image, to experience. It is processial understanding of the body, declaring that body's limits are always moving. It means losing of identities and boundaries to become something else. This is why D&G also tell you that you cannot ever ultimately reach the BwO, since it is actually the de-organ-ized outer limit.

While it may sound like a emancipatory concept, BwO was not meant as a ethical or political guideline to make you happy little hippy, breaking all the boundaries and consuming all the drugs and sex you want. Rather, it means the virtual dimension of bodies (and this means any bodies, not only human bodies, in some instances D&G even write about BwO of the Earth). In Mille Plateaux D&G differentiate between three kinds of BwO: cancerous, empty, and full. Full is the nice and healthy BwO, keeping just the right amount of identities and selfhood. Empty BwO is the one of a drug addict or a paranoid, outside flows totally controlling the individual. Cancerous BwO is described as fascism on the individual level. Somehow this BwO is caught in a loop, grabbing some flows, and endlessly repeating them, yet without a totalizing unity.

All in all, in my humble opinion, BwO is a bullshit concept, with little practical or philosophical value.

>taken from r/philosophy