Doug,
It seems from your questions that you are focussing your readings on AO.
This is not bad, by any means, but I would encourage you to look beyond AO
on the BwO question for two (inter-related) reasons.
(1) While BwO figures more prominently in AO, I think there is a
significant expansion of the concept in ATP. Deleuze and Guattari spend
much more time develping some cautionary notes with respect to
too-rapid/radical deterritorializations in the 'How do you...' plateau,
(#6, p. 149) and while some may see this as a 'cop out' I think the
development in that direction is nonetheless important.
(2) There is also something about considering things where they go 'wrong'
that is useful. I tend to forget about my computer at the OS level until
something breaks. When I encounter a problem, I always find I learn
something about the processes and mechanisms at work. Perhaps the same is
true with politics: People only think about government when something is
really foul (and perhaps why there is a particular kind of apathy in the
US?). BwO is, by everyone's account, a complicated concept because
it does operate whether we are 'aware' of it or not, hand seems to have
little to do with reasons and intentions. Perhaps like smooth space in
this respect. So it is easier to find a broken one and figure out what
was involved in the production of this broken, empty, vitrified state.
Don't know if that'll help or no, but there it is.
-g
. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..
Gordon W. Coonfield
Humanities Department
Michigan Technological University
1400 Townnsend Drive
Houghton, MI 49931
<gwcoonfi@xxxxxxx>
<906.487.3230>
. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..
It seems from your questions that you are focussing your readings on AO.
This is not bad, by any means, but I would encourage you to look beyond AO
on the BwO question for two (inter-related) reasons.
(1) While BwO figures more prominently in AO, I think there is a
significant expansion of the concept in ATP. Deleuze and Guattari spend
much more time develping some cautionary notes with respect to
too-rapid/radical deterritorializations in the 'How do you...' plateau,
(#6, p. 149) and while some may see this as a 'cop out' I think the
development in that direction is nonetheless important.
(2) There is also something about considering things where they go 'wrong'
that is useful. I tend to forget about my computer at the OS level until
something breaks. When I encounter a problem, I always find I learn
something about the processes and mechanisms at work. Perhaps the same is
true with politics: People only think about government when something is
really foul (and perhaps why there is a particular kind of apathy in the
US?). BwO is, by everyone's account, a complicated concept because
it does operate whether we are 'aware' of it or not, hand seems to have
little to do with reasons and intentions. Perhaps like smooth space in
this respect. So it is easier to find a broken one and figure out what
was involved in the production of this broken, empty, vitrified state.
Don't know if that'll help or no, but there it is.
-g
. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..
Gordon W. Coonfield
Humanities Department
Michigan Technological University
1400 Townnsend Drive
Houghton, MI 49931
<gwcoonfi@xxxxxxx>
<906.487.3230>
. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..