Hello everyone, I overshot the mark in (at least) one place. The reference to complexity and thus making a (full) BwO, rather belongs in a separate video (the example with the coffee). Just take it as a teaser for an upcoming video on full and empty BwOs. I hope it was otherwise exciting and halfway understandable.
Thanks for the upload. I've been slowly working through Anti-Oedipus since the beginning of 2020, and the BWO is a concept that's really hard to fully grasp. Perhaps it would be beneficial to take a step back and explain Deleuze's idea of the virtual, as I think the BWO is - - at least I think - - a virtual entity.
Hi Enki, thank you very much. However, the video is already a step backwards :-) the first video on the bwo was a (too quick) overview of the different books I refer to. and the video on desire production is also a step backwards, so to speak. but the theory of Deleuze/Guattari is simply a rhizome and difference and repetition (and the concept of the virtual) is not so much my speciality. i'm currently creating a video on ontology, which will also go into the basics again. but at my pace of work, that will still take months :-)
So...BwO is a generic term for seemingly unorganized system, or the reality of the state machine underpining the environment. (I use the term state machine because the application of force and intermixing of elements move from one state to another in predictable ways. Though seemingly high entropy, the system is self-organizing the same way magnetic charge will attract or reply, and each particle is in a state of interacting with other elements) I feel like this explaination of BoW requires that we remove the language or desire, feeling, etc. (The BoW having none). If taken to a cultural level, the state of the BoW is organized and is either in a self-enforcing system (better to follow the current state or culture based on feelings of safety or organism security), or a dissolving state (where the pressures of the culture come to pressure against the BoW of autonomy, life satisfaction,internal organizations fear, feeling and predictive ideas). While I have a sense of BoW (and I think that is all we "feel" (which may in fact be incorrect to the actual BoW)), I think recognizing that we are naturally part of systems (both physical and organizational) forces us the describe, and come to terms with, an understanding that organizations of thought, physical items, and views of the world, can all be traced to the concept of unorganized stuff, the BoW.
You wrote "I think recognizing that we are naturally part of systems", I could say that from the perspective of the BwO we are equally or even more in the process of dissolution or reorganisation. The question is whether to look at stasis or transformation, and our language/philosophy is primed towards being/identity/stasis...The BwO could help to change that
As I see it, Deleuze argues in contrast to Nietzsche's eternal repetition in the context of difference. The concept of difference differs from the BwO - simply because of the chronological distance of the concept, but also because of the entire methodological approach. This is described in the video (in a very simplified way) as the breaking point of systems (in this case all systems between the Big Bang and heat death). But this is also more an attempt to find a context and better descriptions for the BwO, and it does not mean that Deleuze would not have objected to this :-)
Jaspers unterscheidet zwischen Existenz und Sein. Existenz ist das woraus das Leben als Mensch besteht und ist begrenzt durch unterschiedlichste Limitationen und mag nie hinter unser "Bild von der Welt" (Heisenberg) schauen. Sein ist als Ontologie zu verstehen, also die tatsächliche Realität. Das was sich in der Existenz abspielt, was wir aufgrund unseres Bewusstseins erlangt haben, also Materie, die sich selbst bewusst geworden ist, dass Universum, was sich selbst bewusst geworden ist. Der authentische Wille aufgrund von Reflektion (Transzendenz könnte man das vielleicht in diesem Sinne betiteln), ist das was der BwO ist? Das ist zumindestens das was ich darunter verstanden habe, wenn du davon sprichst wenn dieser Gesetzte gebrochen werden. Weil das Bewusstsein stört/beeinflusst den kausale Fluss des Universums und macht ihn sich zu eigen. Das Universum fängt sich an selber zu gestalten. Ist das der BwO?
ja, ich finde das passt gut. Vor allem in dem Video. Im letzten habe ich mehr die verschiedenen Varianten des BwO in drei Büchern von Deleuze/Guattari beschrieben. Hier habe ich den BwO eher aus Tausend Plateaus hergeleitet, indem Physik, Biologie und Kultur unterschiedliche Codierungssysteme sind, die zwar aufeinander aufbauen, aber aber auch nach unterschiedlichen Mechanismen funktionieren. Der BwO ist in jedem Kontext auch etwas anderes und immer das, was das System sprengt und sich der Codierung widersetzt. Es ist halt eine Philosophie der 68er und Widerstand und Nonkonformität steht im Zentrum. "Orthodoxe" Deleuzianer würden übrigens einwenden, dass Deleuze/Guattari gerade Systeme wie Existenz/Sein und vor allem den Begriff der Transzendenz sprengen (überwinden) wollen. Das macht Deleuze von allem in Differenz und Wiederholung. Freut mich auf jeden Fall sehr, dass bei dem Video mehr rüber gekommen ist :-)
I don't understand BWO concept. It reminds a bit of how Nietzsche explains the Dionysus spirit as something that breaks the limit of what currently exists, as form of destruction or capacity to break existence so that new things can emerge. One question, do you find BWO in modern transexuality and transhumanism, as a form of pushing against a fixed nature and biological esencialism?
Deleuze and Guattari have a pretty strong reference to Nietzsche's Dionysus. So that seems pretty fitting. To the question, I would answer rather no. Depending on what your concept is of, say, transsexuality, it's usually already opposed to a biological essentialism. It may even be more mainstream than an essentialism. The body without organs is always found rather as a limit, as a surface on which the polarity of concepts lose their meaning. There Dionysos is a good reference, with which mother and father as concepts (with the birth of Dionysos) also dissolve and it stands with Nietzsche in the birth of the tragedy rather for an intoxicating dissolution of Identity.
@@Zentapir Thanks for the response. I also find the BWO similar to what Bataille calls "limit experiences" as a kind of inefable sensation. I made the reference to transexuality because Artaud poem from which Deleuze was inspired has quite a trans spirit to it: "By placing him again, for the last time, on the autopsy table to remake his anatomy. I say, to remake his anatomy. Man is sick because he is badly constructed." Artaud here is refering the body as fixed creation by god which denies freedom to humans. So if god is dead, therefore esencialism is dead and body can be liberated and recreated.
@@waterglas21 yes, with Artaud it fits well then. But Artaud occasionally also dissolves the structure of his sentences and words in his writing. In this respect, Daniel Paula Schreber is also a reference, who experiences his body parts and his male/female identity in dissolution in psychotic episodes... Are you on the dgqc discord server? You could like it there discord.gg/dgqc
Hello everyone, I overshot the mark in (at least) one place. The reference to complexity and thus making a (full) BwO, rather belongs in a separate video (the example with the coffee). Just take it as a teaser for an upcoming video on full and empty BwOs. I hope it was otherwise exciting and halfway understandable.
Thanks for the upload. I've been slowly working through Anti-Oedipus since the beginning of 2020, and the BWO is a concept that's really hard to fully grasp.
Perhaps it would be beneficial to take a step back and explain Deleuze's idea of the virtual, as I think the BWO is - - at least I think - - a virtual entity.
Hi Enki, thank you very much. However, the video is already a step backwards :-) the first video on the bwo was a (too quick) overview of the different books I refer to. and the video on desire production is also a step backwards, so to speak. but the theory of Deleuze/Guattari is simply a rhizome and difference and repetition (and the concept of the virtual) is not so much my speciality. i'm currently creating a video on ontology, which will also go into the basics again. but at my pace of work, that will still take months :-)
Tal como indicas, hay muchos videos, seminarios y charlas disponibles, pero este me ha parecido particularmente bueno! Seguiré viendo. Un saludo!
Thank you!
So...BwO is a generic term for seemingly unorganized system, or the reality of the state machine underpining the environment. (I use the term state machine because the application of force and intermixing of elements move from one state to another in predictable ways. Though seemingly high entropy, the system is self-organizing the same way magnetic charge will attract or reply, and each particle is in a state of interacting with other elements)
I feel like this explaination of BoW requires that we remove the language or desire, feeling, etc. (The BoW having none). If taken to a cultural level, the state of the BoW is organized and is either in a self-enforcing system (better to follow the current state or culture based on feelings of safety or organism security), or a dissolving state (where the pressures of the culture come to pressure against the BoW of autonomy, life satisfaction,internal organizations fear, feeling and predictive ideas).
While I have a sense of BoW (and I think that is all we "feel" (which may in fact be incorrect to the actual BoW)), I think recognizing that we are naturally part of systems (both physical and organizational) forces us the describe, and come to terms with, an understanding that organizations of thought, physical items, and views of the world, can all be traced to the concept of unorganized stuff, the BoW.
You wrote "I think recognizing that we are naturally part of systems", I could say that from the perspective of the BwO we are equally or even more in the process of dissolution or reorganisation. The question is whether to look at stasis or transformation, and our language/philosophy is primed towards being/identity/stasis...The BwO could help to change that
Didn't Deleuze argue against the heat death of the universe theory in his discussion of thermodynamics in Difference and Repetition ?
As I see it, Deleuze argues in contrast to Nietzsche's eternal repetition in the context of difference. The concept of difference differs from the BwO - simply because of the chronological distance of the concept, but also because of the entire methodological approach. This is described in the video (in a very simplified way) as the breaking point of systems (in this case all systems between the Big Bang and heat death). But this is also more an attempt to find a context and better descriptions for the BwO, and it does not mean that Deleuze would not have objected to this :-)
Jaspers unterscheidet zwischen Existenz und Sein. Existenz ist das woraus das Leben als Mensch besteht und ist begrenzt durch unterschiedlichste Limitationen und mag nie hinter unser "Bild von der Welt" (Heisenberg) schauen. Sein ist als Ontologie zu verstehen, also die tatsächliche Realität.
Das was sich in der Existenz abspielt, was wir aufgrund unseres Bewusstseins erlangt haben, also Materie, die sich selbst bewusst geworden ist, dass Universum, was sich selbst bewusst geworden ist. Der authentische Wille aufgrund von Reflektion (Transzendenz könnte man das vielleicht in diesem Sinne betiteln), ist das was der BwO ist?
Das ist zumindestens das was ich darunter verstanden habe, wenn du davon sprichst wenn dieser Gesetzte gebrochen werden. Weil das Bewusstsein stört/beeinflusst den kausale Fluss des Universums und macht ihn sich zu eigen. Das Universum fängt sich an selber zu gestalten. Ist das der BwO?
ja, ich finde das passt gut. Vor allem in dem Video. Im letzten habe ich mehr die verschiedenen Varianten des BwO in drei Büchern von Deleuze/Guattari beschrieben. Hier habe ich den BwO eher aus Tausend Plateaus hergeleitet, indem Physik, Biologie und Kultur unterschiedliche Codierungssysteme sind, die zwar aufeinander aufbauen, aber aber auch nach unterschiedlichen Mechanismen funktionieren. Der BwO ist in jedem Kontext auch etwas anderes und immer das, was das System sprengt und sich der Codierung widersetzt. Es ist halt eine Philosophie der 68er und Widerstand und Nonkonformität steht im Zentrum. "Orthodoxe" Deleuzianer würden übrigens einwenden, dass Deleuze/Guattari gerade Systeme wie Existenz/Sein und vor allem den Begriff der Transzendenz sprengen (überwinden) wollen. Das macht Deleuze von allem in Differenz und Wiederholung. Freut mich auf jeden Fall sehr, dass bei dem Video mehr rüber gekommen ist :-)
I don't understand BWO concept. It reminds a bit of how Nietzsche explains the Dionysus spirit as something that breaks the limit of what currently exists, as form of destruction or capacity to break existence so that new things can emerge.
One question, do you find BWO in modern transexuality and transhumanism, as a form of pushing against a fixed nature and biological esencialism?
Deleuze and Guattari have a pretty strong reference to Nietzsche's Dionysus. So that seems pretty fitting. To the question, I would answer rather no. Depending on what your concept is of, say, transsexuality, it's usually already opposed to a biological essentialism. It may even be more mainstream than an essentialism. The body without organs is always found rather as a limit, as a surface on which the polarity of concepts lose their meaning. There Dionysos is a good reference, with which mother and father as concepts (with the birth of Dionysos) also dissolve and it stands with Nietzsche in the birth of the tragedy rather for an intoxicating dissolution of Identity.
@@Zentapir Thanks for the response. I also find the BWO similar to what Bataille calls "limit experiences" as a kind of inefable sensation.
I made the reference to transexuality because Artaud poem from which Deleuze was inspired has quite a trans spirit to it:
"By placing him again, for the last time, on the autopsy table to remake his anatomy.
I say, to remake his anatomy.
Man is sick because he is badly constructed."
Artaud here is refering the body as fixed creation by god which denies freedom to humans. So if god is dead, therefore esencialism is dead and body can be liberated and recreated.
@@waterglas21 yes, with Artaud it fits well then. But Artaud occasionally also dissolves the structure of his sentences and words in his writing. In this respect, Daniel Paula Schreber is also a reference, who experiences his body parts and his male/female identity in dissolution in psychotic episodes... Are you on the dgqc discord server? You could like it there discord.gg/dgqc