2 Answers

  1. I don't promise you'll understand, but I'll briefly show you what Deleuze wanted.

    It should be understood that here Deleuze does not use the usual metaphor of the body-you know, where all the organs form a single whole and all the parts serve the common good. I'm done with this. The organ, in Deleuze's view, and indeed Lacan's, is something that acts on its own. He is attracted to something and it creates problems.

    For example, the stomach is attracted to gluttony, and if you obey this attraction, then your life will be a cyclical satisfying of hunger. Or eye attraction-it is known how difficult it is for men to resist looking at women or using their eyes to “shoot” with other men.

    Even everyone's favorite evolution shows cases when a single organ created a problem for the entire body – and the whole species died out, unable to cope with its attraction. Too large crab claws, bottomless stomachs, too bright color – there are enough examples.

    To a certain extent, our whole life is the maintenance of our organs, and it does not matter whether we explain this fact to ourselves by divine design, natural needs, or the organ's attraction. The very presence of the organ creates a problem: if the stomach did not attract food, we would not be hostages to the table and toilet bowl. Of course, Deleuze does not believe that we eat for survival – just look at how we eat and you will also have no doubt that this is not due to hunger attacks, but at will.

    The organ attraction cannot be quenched – it ends either with the destruction of the organ (for example, impotence), or with the death of the body. I.e., among other things, the inability to deal with the organ attraction once and for all is the source of our suffering.

    So Deleuze proposes to solve this problem the concept of a “body without organs” – a body in itself, free from drives. Of course, there is no physical embodiment of the body without organs – it remains at the level of a concept, which can be thought out if you ask the same questions as Deleuze.

  2. I'm not an expert on Deleuze, so it's simplified and obviously “anthropologized” so as not to get bogged down in metaphysics.

    Analyzing Spinoza's philosophy, Deleuze notes that he is preoccupied with the question: “what is the body capable of?” We don't know what the limit of our abilities is.

    Philosophizing independently, he borrows the image of the body without organs from Antonin Artaud:

    “The body is the body, it is one, it does not need organs, the body is not an organism, organisms are enemies of the body, everything we do happens by itself, without the help of any organ, every organ is a parasite. < … > When you made it a body without organs, then you freed it from all its automatic reactions and returned it to real freedom”,

    And it unfolds like this:

    A body without organs is a protoplasm of possibilities, an unstructured sum of all that is possible.

    Organs are all characteristics and concepts that define and constrain what exists. Bodies automate a person's life: “I am an accountant, I go to work every day” – the “accountant” body works.

    But because I am a human being, I am able to experiment on myself: today I am no longer an accountant, but a biker, tomorrow I divorced my wife, the day after tomorrow I stand on my head, why not? Organs can be removed if you are careful.

    I do not know how to express as correctly as possible the relationship between an individual and the primordial mess that the body without organs appears to be, but something like this: the maximum approach to the body without organs is possible with psychedelic and ecstatic practices – that is, when a person is not limited even by the idea of his own “I”. Or in a dance. Or when practicing masochism, suddenly.�

    An empty body without organs is unproductive-this is roughly what psychologists call depersonalization. A healthy body without organs is simply a person who is not a hostage to social roles and, in the language of pop psychology, “self-actualizes”.

    If you get away from extravagant imagery as much as possible, then this is an attempt to talk about human potential and that the current state of affairs can and should be changed. This conversation is half of continental philosophy, no wonder.

Leave a Reply