The first two workshops, we've almost finished the front-line work and we can get to the real core. Machine theory must be well known for its important contribution to psychoanalysis and to the Deleuze philosophy. Machines = Body without organs = Flow, and today we are going to dismantle this famous equation.
I. body, and organless body
The "body without organs" sounds like a paradox. It was Lacan that moved the psychoanalytic perspective from the flesh of the more powerful to the symbolic order, but he also discussed the body, in the second sense of the symbolic order, the body that had been "grafted" and "cuted". "The body is not just an organism; it is also a structure that is cut, marked, coded, positioned and directed by symbolic boundaries." [1] An important manifestation of this mutilation of the body is the marking and orientation of "spread" - the physical feeling is located in a particular part of the body, which is sprawled into organs.
At the second workshop, we discussed the subject of sexual ailments - the dramatic effect of deviating the nervous excitement of sexual organs in the brain from an unknown external part of the body, instead of belonging to that particular, really producing telecommunications. It's really like being completely dead, not to say that the telecommunications were "blocked" - like the police stopped the traffic - but that the body was fingered and then symptomatic, and the subject chose to use this cutting to achieve harmony and stability for the rest. That's what organs are, a knot that is located at the mirror stage: we're all over our bodies. Patients with low blood pressure and low blood sugar have an amazing experience, at least I'm experiencing it myself: your body is sending "uncomfortable" signals, but you can't really see which part of the body is suffering, and it's like it's going through your body, and it's hanging on any sensory organ that can be seen and touched. Low blood sugar misss the symbolic phase of mirroring, and it does not have the time to anchor itself on an organ, so it manifests itself as a fundamental, systemic stress.
Consider a poem
The country's in the middle of nowhere. Wept and wept.
In March of the fire, the books were paid for. The whiteheads are shorter, and he can't beat it.
Flowers cannot be "splattered tears" and they have no function to feel pain. But it is precisely because Duft gave up the stationary nature of his organs and moved the pain that he felt - which, of course, we all know, will have a direct impact on our perception of the surroundings when we are in pain or happiness - unsuspectingly into it as if it were exactly what it was supposed to be: not suffering, but suffering as a flower in the inner fabric of Duft-flowers, which is distributed and distributed, as an update of data on one node is spreading to other nodes in the decentralised block network. At this point, the cry will no longer be an organ -- the power of the eyes -- but the sensory strength of the body of the subject: that is, Dov felt the desire to cry, but did not cry with his eyes. It is too shallow - it is the whole world that let him go - and the subjective nature of the chorus of the tears that he has assembled has lost. Here we can say that he did not cry with an organ, but with an organless body, which spreads its pain intensity inside, and in the poem, it was this organless body that bore the word of pain.
An organless body is such a centralized, mobile body. The classical subject of Descartes is at the centre of a well-arranged biological body, at the centre of total control; the subject of our psychoanalytic analysis is at the "margin" of a polybody body - it is not the equivalent of such a body, rather, it is already a product of a body itself. The body first, the subject subjective organization later. And this mobile body, its movement is its actions
The human organism is a terrible and ineffective thing; why do people have a mouth and an anus - both of which are at risk of discomfort, rather than having only one multi-purpose hole that can feed and excrete? We can seal our mouths and noses, fill our stomachs and wear a ventilated hole directly into our lungs - as should have been done from the outset. [2]
Behind this madness is the idea that the separation of the organless body - which is bound to exist, which is bound to be the complementarity between the "holes", the gap" and the porous smooth areas - - Fragmentation of functions or, in other words, action without the strength of organs. Why not simplify all the holes into the same hole, so that the hole also bears the multiple functions of the heterogeneity, and the same hole yells at the need for a multiplicity of objects and objects? Why not simplify the strict biological body of organs into the same wild body so that contiguous, conflicting and organizational relationships of desire can be observed in the same body? An action by which organs are reduced to organs - this is not to say that the eye is restored to the pixels, the visual "seeing" function, while the ear is restored to the acoustic waves; it is an action by force, by desire, as can be seen from Lacan: When he says that the desire to swallow means the desire to "get a mother" the same as the desire of the object, and that the anal desire means the desire to obtain survival information in a symbolic exchange of gifts, he sees the second nature of the "organ": the existence of an organ, but the strength of the body is at one point. Here, Qatar turns to the discussion of masochism, and it is true that the pain-intensity of blood is more resonant with the reader of the theory than the pain of the man of Spring Hope
This organless body can only be occupied by the intensity of pain, the wave of pain. It is not right to say that the tortured seek pain, but it is equally wrong to say that he seeks happiness in an extremely temporary and converse manner. He seeks an organless body, yet only pain can fill and pass through such an organless body, precisely because of the same conditions under which the organless body can be formed. Pain is the community, clusters and models created and extended by the battered king of the desert. [3]
For a masochist, the physical pain has reached this point: It is no longer possible to know which part of the body is in pain, which pierces the geography of the body, which "penetrates" the body, spreading and swimming in it. It is also in this intense and painful experience that masochists feel the machine-godic nature of their organless bodies. If many psychoanalysts are trying to position their abusive actions in the image of a harsh and loving mother, then the same beauty as the abuser's mother and son is not the same as the abuser. Here he treats the abuser merely as a condition and as an instrument for his own enjoyment - but as a wave of pain in his own organless body. If the female subjects are so anxious about the real gaps that remain unproven in their bodies, this anxiety is now lost in the directness of the pain: He's following the wave, the first, positive wave.
II. Flows, in particular different streams, nodes of streams
The sadistic pain is already a flow - as we can see, it breaks down organs and reveals the absence of organs. The flow is the movement to crush something, or we don't have to say that it is the movement to be productive, the movement to be "new". Once there was animation: the main character stood by the sea, trying to stop the sea with some wooden fences, but finding it simply didn't work - it could be understood as something like that. But at the same time, in further discussion of the convection, we can even see that this wooden fence, this "organ", is the natural result of the flow's production and is the link of the flow.
The first problem with flow is that it is not a "one" stream, but rather a multi-stream pluriform, which manifests itself in the holistic nature necessary for being named "multiple" - a concept that is itself a dialectical, conceptually differentiated philosophy or stream. When Floyd spoke of Libido, many philosophers saw his Nietzsche philosophy -- It is only legitimate, but it is also all the more important to see that Nietzsche's power is not a "one" dominant force, but a multi-force conflict, in which the force temporarily in the dominant position is shown only in the struggle against its opposite direction. It must therefore not be assumed that force can be transformed into a penis, but, at best, the force acquires its own strength on male sexual organs at this time. Like the wolves in the Millennium Plateau always appear as wolves. This is our organ-free body, the true nature of the body, its physical nature, the flow of running power.
However, after all, we can also describe it by the contradictory term "multiple" - something that Deleuze discussed extensively
In this radicalism of difference theory and in the absolute conception of pure difference, differences are challenged in a "punishable" way... differences must be described twice each time in the way they return to themselves (from their own differences, or from thinking about differences in themselves), and differences are considered in a self-multiplier way... differences are born occasionally to their own replica... differences are not something other than what they are. [4]
"Differentness is not something other than what it is", which is deafening. The difference is just the difference in the intrinsic plane of the organless body, i.e. the difference in power. I'm sorry. What Deleuze is trying to say here is that the interpretation of force is already a force, i.e. the strength to understand, the strength to interpret, the strength to regulate, which is just as important as the abstract machine is in the assembly of many flesh-machines. The concept of strength should be understood in terms of the richness of the introspective in order to enter the Qatar psychoanalytic theory. Man's description of diversity - which is, in fact, a person's own account, is equivalent to a person's own self-consciousness - is a self-defined movement of force, a force that we have already quoted in previous seminars
There's a crowd, a beehive, a bunch of football players, or a group of Berbers. And We are on the side of the crowd, on the outer edge of it: yet I belong to it, and I sustain it through a part of the body - a hand or a foot. I know that the periphery is the only place I could possibly exist, and if I let myself get involved in the centre of a mixed crowd, I will die... and these people are constantly restless, their movements are unpredictable and do not follow any rhythm. [5]
I, that is, my self-conscious, is just a tributary of the oceanic river in which I have the strength, which must distance itself from the true plane of the organless body, so as not to be eroded by the barrier and resistance that must be weak in the face of the force of that scale, and still maintain itself as a "mainstream of strength", that is, a tributary that defines, interprets and shields the force of the oceanic river.
How did this happen? That is, in the absence of organs, why does the subject exist? This begins with the issue of intensity. Without absolute strength, the strength is the high difference between the rise and fall of the inner plane of strength
The problem, however, is multiple: it is not only how an organless body is formed, but also how to produce the corresponding strength (without which the organless body is still empty)... Bateson refers to the continuous areas of those intensity as plateaus, which are formed in such a way that they cannot be interrupted by any external endpoint, and, similarly, they do not allow themselves to move to a peak. [6]
What we are talking about is not really an anti-humanism, but a psychoanalytic, human survival, so that the body without organs is ultimately based on the body of a human being and the flow can only flow along the path of the signal of a neurons - so that the intensity is always felt. There is always someone who enjoys a stronger sexual pleasure than others, and there is always someone who sheds tears in the face of falling leaves, although at the same time another person may turn a blind eye to this natural landscape; the intensity of the feeling inspires the organless body at every moment, and at every moment is regulated by this body -- by its historical design. So we can rethink the higher position of the organ - not only rebuke it as a rigid knot, but also the height of the "peak" and "highland" that the flow of understanding is inevitable. Is it not because, from birth onwards, the mouth bears the sensory strength of breast milk? "... CSO is not opposed to organs; rather, CSO and its "real organs", which must be formed and placed, are opposed to organisms and to the organic tissue of organs." [7] Organs are always formed, and what has been said before, to make ingestion and excretion about the same organ crazy, or inevitably to produce an organ? The problem lies only with "organs", i.e. the false inevitability and stability of the layers of organs, their links to them. It's not "hand" holding a spoon into a "mouth" to digest, it's not "eye" crystal to gaze at an object that has nothing to do with it. Even in the twenty-first century, Raconists believe that the important uniqueness of their eyes lies in their grasp of what the subject clearly knows is not theirs, an individual view that always prevents us from moving closer to the truth - but rather the strength of nutrition, the strength of mouth, the ability to absorb knowledge and the ability to interpret it.
Peaks can't be eliminated - it can't be done - no wave can reduce itself to a straight, intensity, which means death of the wave
The organless body is constantly swaying between the surface that strangulates it and the plane that liberates it. And free it with an excessive force, and do not cause it to leap forward, without care. It will not produce a plane, but it will only cause you to destroy yourself and enter a black hole. [8]
Gatari has returned to the same position as Lacan: the real world cannot be in it. But their logic is different. Rather than merely mourning the inevitable failure and division of the subject here, Gatali notes in the Hegelian way that there is no need for mourning, that the presence of the wave-strength plateau is a characteristic of the wave itself. Why do we think that the world is intrinsically a plane of organless bodies, and that the subject is taken out as a separate view to determine division? There is no reason to do so. Nor is the permeable schizophrenic subject completely attached to the plane, but rather to the plateau - the plateau that maintains open links to all other plateaus. This truly transcendent and symbol of the future is a divisive subject that we will address in our next statement.
[1] Lacan. Ethics of psychoanalysis. Business Bookshop, 2021. pp. 216
[2] Deleuze/Gatali. Capitalism and schizophrenia (vol. II): Chiba. Kang Woo-hui. Shanghai Bookshop Press, 2010. pp. 108
[3] Ibid. pp.201
[4] Yang Kaysho. Separatist analysis of Deleuze: a priori empiricals and constructionism. Henan University Press.
[5] Deleuze/Gartali. Capitalism and schizophrenia (vol. II): Chiba. Kang Woo-hui. Shanghai Bookshop Press, 2010. pp. 43
[6] Ibid. pp.219
[7] Ibid. pp.220
[8] Ibid. pp.223