Re: BwO

--------------78B920EABD8324236B33AD04
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

nathan wrote:

>
>
> the body without organs ... not a type but an event.
>
>

Thanks for the responses to my questions. Yes, this is how I was viewing the
BwO - in terms of an event. My paper (honours) was an attempt to read textual
characters in terms of the refrain, and in my section on the BwO I was playing
with the idea that the difference between the territorial refrains (natal;
milieu and cultural) and the deterritorializing cosmic refrain might be
explained in terms of the BwO. I'm not sure whether I got it 'right' - for me
it was an experiment. . What I found in doing this is that I had first to
explore the events of the characters in terms of the blotched BwO (the
unsuccessful attainment(s) ) , which I (at least in part) related to the
mode/operation/?? of their specific refrains - in the sense that the elements
of the refrain contained the paranoiac points and blockages (transcendental
signifiers) that blotched the attainment of the BwO. The other idea I played
with was the notion of the despot blotching the BwO in the construction of the
'other' - I was thinking here in terms of the creating of a BwO is not
necessarily an 'individualist' event (not just making your 'self' a bwo), but
related to the assemblage (and I did view this in terms of the assemblage of
organs in the body as well as the assemblage of relations between characters
and events etc... ).

So I was playing around with several concepts, and while I would have
appreciated some constructive criticism, what I got told was that I completely
didn't 'get' it; that I'm over-ambitious; and then a not so subtle suggestion
that I should reconsider my plans to continue with D&G in post-grad studies.
??? As I say, I'm not so sure I fully understand everything, but I'm certainly
managing to create something of an understanding???. What I love about D&G is
that there seems to be that positive creative/experimental ethic (you have to
start somewhere).
Anyway, thankyou for the constructive discourse on the list; all constructive
criticism and encouragment is most sincerely appreciated.

Chris G.

--------------78B920EABD8324236B33AD04
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>
 

nathan wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> 

the body without organs ... not a type but an event.
  
 <A HREF="http://coral.bucknell.edu/~strait/";></A> </BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for the responses to my questions.  Yes, this is how I was
viewing the BwO - in terms of an event.  My paper (honours) was an
attempt to read textual characters in terms of the refrain, and in my section
on the BwO I was playing with the idea that the difference between the
territorial refrains (natal; milieu and cultural) and the deterritorializing
cosmic refrain might be explained in terms of the BwO.  I'm not sure
whether I got it 'right' -  for me it was an experiment. .  What
I found in doing this is that I had first to explore the events of the
characters in terms of the blotched BwO (the unsuccessful attainment(s)
) , which I (at least in part) related to the mode/operation/?? of their
specific refrains - in the sense that the elements of the refrain contained
the paranoiac points and blockages (transcendental signifiers) that blotched
the attainment of the BwO.  The other idea I played with was the notion
of the despot blotching the BwO in the construction of the 'other' - I
was thinking here in terms of the creating of a BwO  is not necessarily
an 'individualist' event (not just making your 'self' a bwo), but related
to the assemblage (and I did view this in terms of the assemblage of organs
in the body as well as the assemblage of relations between characters and
events etc...  ).

So I was playing around with several concepts, and while I would have
appreciated some constructive criticism, what I got told  was that
I completely didn't 'get' it; that I'm over-ambitious; and then a not so
subtle suggestion that I should reconsider my plans to continue with D&G
in post-grad studies.  ???  As I say, I'm not so sure I fully
understand everything, but I'm certainly managing to create something of
an understanding???. What I love about D&G is that there seems to be
that positive creative/experimental ethic (you have to start somewhere).
 Anyway, thankyou  for the constructive discourse on the list;
all constructive criticism and encouragment is most sincerely appreciated.

Chris G.
  </HTML>

--------------78B920EABD8324236B33AD04--