Skip to main content

Bodies without organs and inorganic bodies - the necropolitics of accelerationism

Writing about the molecular unconscious in the fourth part of the Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari notice clearly that the body without organs and its intensities are matter itself. The unconscious is physical - they intend to give a fully materialistic account of what takes place unconsciously. Matter is not organized in organs, it is pure body - and it transmit intensities. Intensities goes from bodies to bodies - temperature is contagious, as colors in the wet paint, as rhythms is transmitted through different media. The machinic molecular unconscious describes the physical world but also the schizo who is doing no more than (almost) aimless production and therefore decodifying the existing codes of registration and consumption. Decodification of flows is to approach the body without organs in the sense that intensities replace codes and the molecular is made explicit. Such is the flow of capital, such is the movement of the body without organs - of the schizo - that decodifies what is molar, what is established, say by the attachment to the land or the orders of the State.

The connection between capital and the body without organs - capital is the relative limit while the body without organs is the absolute limit of a process of schizophrenization that melts codes, norms, rules, traditions and attachment - is the basis of D&G's accelerationism. If capital is not the ultimate flow and can be superseded (and decoded) by something that flows faster is because there could be something that turns the organic into the inorganic further. This sets the necrophilic stance of (any) accelerationism: it is about turning the organic codes into a flow of intensities (be it capital, information or any hyperflow) and therefore into the inorganic. Accelerationism is the ultimate necropolitics, it is from its inception a love of the inorganic, of the inorganic body, a focus on the bodies and not in any organ. Arguably, D&G are following Marx in the Manuscripts when he claims considering that the body expands to the inorganic ingredients of the land when no exploitation takes place anymore. But the melting of the distinction between the organic and the inorganic appears in accelerationism as being a process of dying, a process of destructing the organic, killing it. Capital is a killer, could be the message, and one has to kill faster if one is to resist it. But the worst in accelerationism if viewed like this is to claim that the organic (but maybe not life itself) is what needs to be overcome as it is the ultimate locus of traditional and established codes. In doing that, accelerationism forces revolution into a chapter of a necropolitics.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-indexicalism.html   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne