Protevi’s interpretation of autopoietic organisation as equivalent to the virtual, unformed, unorganised BwO is in many ways radical. For many, the theory of autopoiesis is a ‘closed’ system theory in contrast to virtuality which signals the third wave cybernetics of open systems. One’s position on this issue, though distinctions are indeed ‘fuzzy’, dictate the descriptives of discourse. The preference here favours the catalysis of human-machinic interplay as it veers towards the transductive and transversal. But these terms of fluidity should remain fluid. Despite a nearly universal theoretical disavowal of the Cartesian paradigm, is it still problematic to surrender the Enlightenment’s legacy of the liberal humanist subject? To surrender the notion of identity, of self and other as individually determined? Does the plausibility of the posthuman send silent shivers down the vertebrae of the elitist homo sapien? Are realities constructed from an always already individual being or is it that, “autonomous will is merely the story consciousness tells itself to explain results that actually come about through chaotic dynamics and emergent structures”? To in any way grasp the dimension of the collective through collaborative practice, a path must be traversed through the (trans)individual. The path explored here is selective. It begins with Bergson and spreads rhizomatically.
2 thoughts on “Unformed Bodies Without Organs (BwO) and Protevi’s Version of Autopoiesis Spreading Rhizomatically. Thought of the Day 32.0”
make sure to include Proudhon, who has at least a way to tackle this without falling into rigid dichotomies:
Thanks for the lead. Dichotomization seriously needs to be gotten rid of. A day back in one of the exchanges I was having with a friend, this was precisely the issue I had raised in regards to Badiou, a symptom of his lies in dichotomies, in binaries. Pathogenic disorientations of the vision under the universally known (at least) parlance known as “communism”. This, for Badiou is the order churned out as a result of confrontation between liberal orders and Right, which even though results in materiality, for me is always constrained as metaphysical. And the materiality is free of dialectics, but of the range of inequalities. This is open for mathematicization, I concur. Well, the comment could be a bit tangential, it nevertheless had to be said back here due to rigidities you mention. I’d follow up on the blog.