A (BwO)el Movement: In Frths and Ffths
Maggot: “I’ve thought about it… and I won’t make my comments in Unenlightened Overgrind any less schizophrenic. You see, the objective all of this is to use schizophrenic processes, to increase libidinous voltages into schizophrenic processing to PUMP UP this shizo-processing as much as possible.... In other words, there is going to be more schizophrenic processing in the future here, not less.”
Cyber-boy: “I don’t see how this can be even the slightest bit productive or constructive, or even healthy.”
Maggot: “I know you don’t, boy. It would be nice if we could examine just to what extent your (and my) view of what is productive, constructive, and healthy has been conditioned by forces which do everything possible to ensure that we are NOT productive, constructive, or ( particularly) healthy. Then we could see whether or not it is the case that I am wasting my time here.”
Maggot: ( after slight pause) : " It tends to be forgotten that in their plateau on morality, Deleuze and Guattari ( or is it just Deleuze? I don't feel Guattari's influence in this,) call their main character ' Professor Challenger, after the Conan Doyle character who wished to make the earth scream with pain; that in the influential Foucauldian essay about the Enlightenment, from which Dr. Spinoza has presumably taken inspiration for this blog, Baudelaire, not Kant or Voltaire or some famous 'philosophe', is taken as the paradigmatic figure; that Nietzsche speaks of explosions, of destructions, of dangers, and these are not mitigated ( by Nietzsche ) with some divine, transcendental, foreknowledge of these explosions, destructions, and dangers being, in the end and ultimately... creative. Nietzsche may speak of 'the innocence of becoming' , but this 'innocence of becoming' comforting or reassuring? Who finds it so?"
Cyber-boy: “I think your idea that the best strategy for bringing on a revolution of capitalism by finding a way to outpace, to ‘out-schizophrenize’, the massive and expedient processes of schizophrenization of capitalism itself has fallen by the wayside in this conversation. It would be important to remember that to do this is part of what you had in mind when you started off in this direction, what with the dialogues and being in the television studio and all.”
Maggot: “Yes, thanks for reminding everyone. It is of the utmost importance that the bourgeois concepts of freedom and agency are modified and transformed by the Deleuzian concept of ‘body without organs’ ( BwO) … the deployment of (BwO) embodies a significant, if seemingly outlandish, critique of these vital notions... but which part of (BwO) is the signficant part? Its outlandishness, or its critical rationality? How could they coexist? And with this, how could Deleuze, Foucault, or Nietzsche, ever be recuperated by the academy?”
Cyber-boy: “I don’t see how this can be even the slightest bit productive or constructive, or even healthy.”
Maggot: “I know you don’t, boy. It would be nice if we could examine just to what extent your (and my) view of what is productive, constructive, and healthy has been conditioned by forces which do everything possible to ensure that we are NOT productive, constructive, or ( particularly) healthy. Then we could see whether or not it is the case that I am wasting my time here.”
Maggot: ( after slight pause) : " It tends to be forgotten that in their plateau on morality, Deleuze and Guattari ( or is it just Deleuze? I don't feel Guattari's influence in this,) call their main character ' Professor Challenger, after the Conan Doyle character who wished to make the earth scream with pain; that in the influential Foucauldian essay about the Enlightenment, from which Dr. Spinoza has presumably taken inspiration for this blog, Baudelaire, not Kant or Voltaire or some famous 'philosophe', is taken as the paradigmatic figure; that Nietzsche speaks of explosions, of destructions, of dangers, and these are not mitigated ( by Nietzsche ) with some divine, transcendental, foreknowledge of these explosions, destructions, and dangers being, in the end and ultimately... creative. Nietzsche may speak of 'the innocence of becoming' , but this 'innocence of becoming' comforting or reassuring? Who finds it so?"
Cyber-boy: “I think your idea that the best strategy for bringing on a revolution of capitalism by finding a way to outpace, to ‘out-schizophrenize’, the massive and expedient processes of schizophrenization of capitalism itself has fallen by the wayside in this conversation. It would be important to remember that to do this is part of what you had in mind when you started off in this direction, what with the dialogues and being in the television studio and all.”
Maggot: “Yes, thanks for reminding everyone. It is of the utmost importance that the bourgeois concepts of freedom and agency are modified and transformed by the Deleuzian concept of ‘body without organs’ ( BwO) … the deployment of (BwO) embodies a significant, if seemingly outlandish, critique of these vital notions... but which part of (BwO) is the signficant part? Its outlandishness, or its critical rationality? How could they coexist? And with this, how could Deleuze, Foucault, or Nietzsche, ever be recuperated by the academy?”
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 11:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home