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.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.
I'm surprised at how much they lean on Miller and Beckett.
Love French cinema though, including dissensus enemy godardThey loved Anglo-American literature in contrast to French literature which they regarded as closeted and clerical.
So it's trying to not be productive but cannot but be productive, cos everything is production?They say everything is production then say the body without organs is anti-production but also produces itself...
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.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?
Don't encourage me.its way too hard for you version. i wouldnt bother if i were you.
Yes, in this exampleAnd is that workforce in totality the bwo?