Chris:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful sorting through of my confusion. For now I will press
on and, as you suggest, perhaps things will become clearer.
regards,
Doug
Chris wrote:
> Doug,
>
> I'll try my best to answer your questions. The first thing to say is have you read the
> BwO plateau in ATP as yet? It sounds like your working through AO. I think you will find
> that by the time you get to the end of AO a whole lot of things will click (and some
> won't) and then ATP will deterritorialize them all over again. - Just an observation
> about my own reading processes/experience I guess!
>
> Doug Henry wrote:
>
> > Chris Help!
> >
> > Your explanation seems to jump past my question: "What is a socius?" (Thanks for
> > taking the time to reply though, I do really appreciate it.) Perhaps I don't have
> > enough information yet (or don't properly understand what information I DO have!?!) to
> > understand your answer.
>
> o.k. Well I suppose on some level the concept of the socius seems to me obvious, but then
> I try to answer you and I'm not too sure anymore. I guess I think of it to begin with as
> an abstract term appropriating a description of the social in the broadest sense. And
> then and...and...and....
>
> >
> >
> > I've been noting every occurrence of the term body without organs as I read AO and
> > with each occurrence its meaning seems to get broader and more vague. Initially it
> > seemed tied specifically to the disjunctive synthesis. It seemed to be the surface
> > upon which the partial object connections made by the connective synth were recorded.
> > It acted in opposition to production as anti production. It broke existing
> > connections and allowed new ones to be made.
> >
> > D&G "...establish a parallel between desiring production and social production" for
> > the purpose of pointing "...out the fact that the forms of social production, like
> > those of desiring production, involve an unengendered nonproductive attitude, an
> > element of anti production coupled with the process, a full body that functions as a
> > socius." (AO pg. 10)
>
> O.K. the way I came to terms with the multiple applications of the terms - in particular
> the BwO - is to see that D&G don't, I think, get broader and more vague, so much as they
> example for us how what a BwO is is contingent upon the situation in/through which it is
> produced. (Does that make sense?) For me, personally, the more I read the clearer I felt
> about what we were talking about. That doesn't necessarily mean I find it any easier to
> explain, however. I'll just keep trying...
> In ATP they talk about making yourself a BwO. In this sense while 'being' is defined in
> the molar codes of the organized and full body - this 'being' is (as representative face
> etc..) the nonproductive side to the productive and creative impetus that is the making a
> BwO - reaching towards an attainment beyond the limits of the organised lines of
> functioning.
>
> >
> >
> > !!Disclaimer!! the following statement/s is/are (a) question/s.
> >
> > I interpret desiring production as the work of the unconscious of an individual
> > and social production as a group activity. The BwO is (an agent of?) anti production
> > "... which can prevent any organ-ization from becoming fixed." (Holland, pg. 29) In
> > the previous quote, the terms anti production and socius are linked in such a way as
> > to lead me to believe the socius works in some way LIKE a BwO. Is this because it has
> > one?
>
> I don't really get this bit. As I recall, D&G see the unconscious as nothing but a
> factory. I personally don't like the idea of conflating the unconscious with the concept
> of desiring production. That doesn't necessitate that desiring production is therefore
> always concsious, however. But I just don't think these kinds of dichotomies apply. As
> for the BwO as anti-production - this seems to contradict your previous paragraph???
> Having said that, I can also see that if you wanted to view the procudion of the soicious
> as a full body then the production of the BwO becomes anti-production in the context of
> that social production. As I say, It seems to me that the often apparent contradictions
> resolve when we find a way to contextualize.
> I don't know about the 'like' business - it seems to me that the socius is all and
> everything - Bodies and BwO's. Don't D&G say somewhere near the beginning of AO something
> along the lines of there is only desire and the social and nothing else?
>
> >
> >
> > Later in the book : "To code desire -- and fear, the anguish of decoded flows-- is the
> > business of the socius." (AO pg 139)
> >
> > "A society is a dissapative structure with is own determining tension between a
> > limitative body without organs and a nonlimitative one. Together, in their
> > interaction they are called a "socius" (the abstract machine of society)." (Massumi pg
> > 75) Together in their interaction a limitative body without organs and a
> > non-limitative one are called a socius?
> >
>
> Yes - I think that the concept of the 'abstract-machine' would resolve a lot of the issues
> here. You might also like to read some of D's work on the molar and the molecular -
> seeing that both individuals and the socius operate like assemblages or more to the point
> assemblings. the dominanting forces of society operate via an abstract machine that
> overcodes any decoded flows, but both the molar and the molecular/ the overcoding and the
> decoded flows are part of the assembling of that society.
>
> I would recommend D's essay "Many Politics" in Dialogues.
>
> I hope this helps - this is, however, only my working through - other's may have more to
> add or question or contest???
>
> Rgds,
> Chris
Thank you very much for your thoughtful sorting through of my confusion. For now I will press
on and, as you suggest, perhaps things will become clearer.
regards,
Doug
Chris wrote:
> Doug,
>
> I'll try my best to answer your questions. The first thing to say is have you read the
> BwO plateau in ATP as yet? It sounds like your working through AO. I think you will find
> that by the time you get to the end of AO a whole lot of things will click (and some
> won't) and then ATP will deterritorialize them all over again. - Just an observation
> about my own reading processes/experience I guess!
>
> Doug Henry wrote:
>
> > Chris Help!
> >
> > Your explanation seems to jump past my question: "What is a socius?" (Thanks for
> > taking the time to reply though, I do really appreciate it.) Perhaps I don't have
> > enough information yet (or don't properly understand what information I DO have!?!) to
> > understand your answer.
>
> o.k. Well I suppose on some level the concept of the socius seems to me obvious, but then
> I try to answer you and I'm not too sure anymore. I guess I think of it to begin with as
> an abstract term appropriating a description of the social in the broadest sense. And
> then and...and...and....
>
> >
> >
> > I've been noting every occurrence of the term body without organs as I read AO and
> > with each occurrence its meaning seems to get broader and more vague. Initially it
> > seemed tied specifically to the disjunctive synthesis. It seemed to be the surface
> > upon which the partial object connections made by the connective synth were recorded.
> > It acted in opposition to production as anti production. It broke existing
> > connections and allowed new ones to be made.
> >
> > D&G "...establish a parallel between desiring production and social production" for
> > the purpose of pointing "...out the fact that the forms of social production, like
> > those of desiring production, involve an unengendered nonproductive attitude, an
> > element of anti production coupled with the process, a full body that functions as a
> > socius." (AO pg. 10)
>
> O.K. the way I came to terms with the multiple applications of the terms - in particular
> the BwO - is to see that D&G don't, I think, get broader and more vague, so much as they
> example for us how what a BwO is is contingent upon the situation in/through which it is
> produced. (Does that make sense?) For me, personally, the more I read the clearer I felt
> about what we were talking about. That doesn't necessarily mean I find it any easier to
> explain, however. I'll just keep trying...
> In ATP they talk about making yourself a BwO. In this sense while 'being' is defined in
> the molar codes of the organized and full body - this 'being' is (as representative face
> etc..) the nonproductive side to the productive and creative impetus that is the making a
> BwO - reaching towards an attainment beyond the limits of the organised lines of
> functioning.
>
> >
> >
> > !!Disclaimer!! the following statement/s is/are (a) question/s.
> >
> > I interpret desiring production as the work of the unconscious of an individual
> > and social production as a group activity. The BwO is (an agent of?) anti production
> > "... which can prevent any organ-ization from becoming fixed." (Holland, pg. 29) In
> > the previous quote, the terms anti production and socius are linked in such a way as
> > to lead me to believe the socius works in some way LIKE a BwO. Is this because it has
> > one?
>
> I don't really get this bit. As I recall, D&G see the unconscious as nothing but a
> factory. I personally don't like the idea of conflating the unconscious with the concept
> of desiring production. That doesn't necessitate that desiring production is therefore
> always concsious, however. But I just don't think these kinds of dichotomies apply. As
> for the BwO as anti-production - this seems to contradict your previous paragraph???
> Having said that, I can also see that if you wanted to view the procudion of the soicious
> as a full body then the production of the BwO becomes anti-production in the context of
> that social production. As I say, It seems to me that the often apparent contradictions
> resolve when we find a way to contextualize.
> I don't know about the 'like' business - it seems to me that the socius is all and
> everything - Bodies and BwO's. Don't D&G say somewhere near the beginning of AO something
> along the lines of there is only desire and the social and nothing else?
>
> >
> >
> > Later in the book : "To code desire -- and fear, the anguish of decoded flows-- is the
> > business of the socius." (AO pg 139)
> >
> > "A society is a dissapative structure with is own determining tension between a
> > limitative body without organs and a nonlimitative one. Together, in their
> > interaction they are called a "socius" (the abstract machine of society)." (Massumi pg
> > 75) Together in their interaction a limitative body without organs and a
> > non-limitative one are called a socius?
> >
>
> Yes - I think that the concept of the 'abstract-machine' would resolve a lot of the issues
> here. You might also like to read some of D's work on the molar and the molecular -
> seeing that both individuals and the socius operate like assemblages or more to the point
> assemblings. the dominanting forces of society operate via an abstract machine that
> overcodes any decoded flows, but both the molar and the molecular/ the overcoding and the
> decoded flows are part of the assembling of that society.
>
> I would recommend D's essay "Many Politics" in Dialogues.
>
> I hope this helps - this is, however, only my working through - other's may have more to
> add or question or contest???
>
> Rgds,
> Chris