linebaugh

Well-known member
I will. I read Foucault's preface, the intro then reread the preface and I'm now up to 'The subject and enjoyment'.

They really throw you in at the deep end. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of explanation as to what a body without organs actually is, just lots of descriptions of it being smooth etc.
whats confusing is that all the terms shift depending on the angle you look. the bwo in one system may not be the bwo in another system.

Ive heard it described that the workers, as a group in the abstract, are the bwo of the factory- the undefined conglomeration of work power before it begins producing as individualized roles. Ive also thought of it as the hypothetical ur-shape of a fractal pattern in that its impossible to isolate said shape from the fractal pattern due to its where-does-it-end/begin nature but its this hypothetical shape that the pattern is producing 'on top of'

but really getting hung up on terms isnt advised because they largely abandon them for different but basically the same terms in following sections. its like the book produces word clouds that capture a general vibe/phenomenon in lieu of definitions.
 

catalog

Well-known member
They say everything is production then say the body without organs is anti-production but also produces itself...
So it's trying to not be productive but cannot but be productive, cos everything is production?

As in, any action is production. Even if that action wants to not produce?
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
So it's trying to not be productive but cannot but be productive, cos everything is production?

As in, any action is production. Even if that action wants to not produce?
It's not that it doesnt ' want' to produce rather it's this abstract ideal that cant ever be reached or do any production of its own. Like the workforce isnt a thing itself but a collection of carpenters, accountants, managers and etc.
 
Top