Philosophy Now Forum

Has anyone read either Anti-Oedipus or A Thousand Plateaus or both by Deleuze and Guattari? I recently read both and would be interested in discussing if someone has.

Hi Joseph - I'm about to start reading Anti-Oedipus for my DPhil research so would be happy to discuss it with you.

That sounds great. Just leave a comment here whenever you're ready. I'm sure you could teach me a lot about this confusing but rich text.

Ok. It'll start next week as I have a research outline to finish for the weekend. Meanwhile, try reading 'A User's Guide to Capitalism & Schizophrenia' by Brian Massumi (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Users-Guide-Cap ... 073&sr=8-1).

Cool. I've heard of the User's Guide, and had found a free version online http://www.scribd.com/doc/7351210/A-Use ... d-Guattari

but I have not delved into it yet. Massumi translated ATP and introduced it, and I think he did a fantastic job.

Grand! If you're not familiar with Deleuze you could also try Claire Colebrook's introduction and Keith Ansell-Pearson's book 'Viroid Life'.

Thanks, so far most of my exposure to Deleuze is through his collaborations with Felix Guattari.

Ah, I'm more familiar with Deleuze himself and not Guattari. Anyhow, next monday I'll get reading and we can get this party started.

PS, another resource which I have found helpful is a compilation of early essays/misc. by Deleuze called Desert Islands, published by Semiotext(e). (http://www.amazon.com/Desert-Islands-19 ... =1-1-fkmr0) It also contains some really priceless transcripts of panel discussions with himself, Guattari, and other philosophers/psychologists/etc. following the publication of Anti-Oedipus, in which they discuss the book.

Thanks!

I'm about to start reading the book. Do you want to set a schedule or just 'read'? I was thinking that we could start with the first part ('desiring-production'). It's only about 9 pages long - in the continuum edition - but it might be just enough to be going on with. What do you think? I think I could post something up here by wednesday at the latest (I still have some revisions to make to my research outline before then).

Starting with Desiring-Production is fine. Whatever works. As for a schedule, if that would facilitate things best for you, then I'm fine with it, although either way will suit me.

Well, I'm not thinking about a precise schedule (i.e. not like in a class). Let's just see how it goes.

Ok, so I realise it's been a while and I said I'd try and post something up last week; I've been trawling through the first chapter of the book and keep returning to the same problem: what, exactly, is 'the body without organs'?

At first, I thought it to be any event (set of circumstances) which in and of itself could not operate as a 'machine' (i.e. it could not transmit or receive) and depended on machines for its existence. However, I soon wondered if it could refer to the point at which any element in the system 'freezes' momentarily, thus freezing the entire system (akin to what would happen, theoretically, if any point in the universe were to reach absolute zero). I am still uncertain as to what the BwO might be.

Alongside this, I am grappling with the terms 'paranoiac-machine' and 'miraculating-machine'. Any thoughts?

Lastly, there is an interesting passage (though I forget the page reference). It reads "it is me ... so it is mine". I think that we can interpret this as an interesting - and inescapably contemporary - way of understanding 'property'. An object, an event (whether current, past or future) is seen as already being 'me' - I do not just see myself in it but rather experience myself as incomplete when in its presence. This might illuminate the fervour with which individuals pursue and protect their property.

Your go.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will note that I have already read AO and its successor (although I am rereading it). I will keep my comments in the context of where we are at, although I cannot completely prevent cross-fertilization from "later-on".

I think the BwO can be many things. On the level of the psyche, it means the undifferentiated, unsubjectified, un-"organized" plane where desires move about freely (circulate). This is in contrast to (say) the Freudian conception of the Oedipus complex, which totalizes and perverts the flux of the BwO and its concomitant desiring-machines.

More broadly, D&G seem to use BwO to refer to the inherently schizoid nature of capital — forever rejecting forced or artificial constructions, breaking down barriers. "Capital is indeed the body without organs of the capitalist, or rather of the capitalist being." (p. 10) In A Thousand Plateaus, and I think later on in AO, we learn that the Earth itself is also a BwO.

Desiring machines I haven't figured out completely. Obviously they are the channels through which the desires of the BwO manifest themselves (a desiring machine "interrupts or draws off part of this flow (the breast — the mouth)"), but what are we to make of this? Are they bad or good? D&G contrast the DMs with Freud and mommy-daddy, i.e., in their discussion of the Lindner painting, but this does not mean that they are intrinsically good or bad. This bears on what you said about property—I would agree with you but would respond, can we draw some moral implication from this? Maybe, but D&G seem not to. They are interested more in the phenomenology of capitalism, at least in this early stage.

Regarding, paranoiac-machine and miraculating-machine, I am not sure what these are. Probably psycho-babble borrowed from other French psychiatrists

Joseph wrote:Has anyone read either Anti-Oedipus or A Thousand Plateaus or both by Deleuze and Guattari? I recently read both and would be interested in discussing if someone has.

I can't help you with these particular titles but I heartily suggest you take a look at Stanley Diamond's In search of the primitive: A critique of civilization, Transaction Books, 1974. He addresses this topic face on and as a writer in anthropology the treatment is clear and straightforward, - or more so than Deleuze and Guattari.