Saturday, October 02, 2004

turning the body without organs (pt ii): immanent transgressions to the brooksian universe

song of the moment: keep it gay (from The Producers)

this week has been hectic. and i haven't really done a huge amount.

first tho, i must say that i have a set a date for RTS (aka Return To Sydney): Nov 16 I fly out. Now all i need is some decent movalists, a plane ticket and a job. pretty straightforward, one would think.

thankfully the fabulous MsK is organising househunting - provided i can find a decent job asap.

yet again, i digress. i wanted to talk about deleuze and the body without organs.

it's taken me a while to begin to understand deleuze. my honours thesis was steeped in his work, and i have felt like i'm only beginning to get some of his concepts only recently. one of the problems with my thesis was that it was more about a dynamics of space and spatial relations rather than about space (which is what i defined it as) - the difference may seem minuscule, but it's a world of difference within academia.

one of the things i've come to interpret of his work is that deleuze is about immanence and dynamics more than mechanics and transcendence. big words that i don't really understand; i can only contemplate their meanings in different contexts. i guess the example he gives of the body without organs works nicely to explain this: essentially it's a body that folds itself up into a purely immanent presence. the point is that it is no longer existing as a series of interconnected organs, of mechanical parts; instead it's a presence that insists its presence only on a certain plane. ok, now my head is getting boggled.

obviously, this is some overly philosophical concept that is useful only in thinking through a tiny amount of work - but i like it. it interests me. makes me wonder what i'm doing, sitting in some darkened room in suburban melbourne and waiting for the right time to leave.

in the meantime, i get to do crazy things like spending a whole thursday night getting drunk at st jerome's with friends to celebrate one of them leaving their job, and like seeing The Producers in melbourne. if you are in australia, and have a chance to go see it one night, i highly recommend it. it's funny thinking that Mel Brooks is already talking about doing a remake, and it would be great to see Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane in the lead roles. Though having the joke of the gay male lead in a plot which satirises the gay male lead of Broadway productions would be too good an opportunity for him to miss, no doubt.

i'm leaving soon, is that enough?

No comments: