本研究目的旨在探究德勒茲（Gilles Deleuze, 1925-1995）「無器官（身）體」流變課程之風貌。所謂流變，不是某物轉換成某物，而是強調身體本身即具有知識的意涵。但為何課程研究需要「無器官（身）體」此概念？研究者基於下列因素之考量：（1）德勒茲的學術思維於國內課程研究領域的應用仍屬少數；（2）臺灣當前課程研究文獻對身體表現知識的疏忽；（3）省思再概念化學派對課程拉丁字根currere的解釋。鑑於上述各種因素與目的，誘使研究者推展出「無器官（身）體」流變課程的表現論述。此內容透過筆者長時間浸淫於德勒茲「無器官（身）體」文獻世界的閱讀與探析下，體認到課程不應是一個預先形成之物，也不是教師單方面的思維，更不是學校用以控制知識的手段，而應是一種知識的零度狀態，以「添加」、「收縮」、「冥想」與「合成」等的身體行為來表現課程知識。此課程宛若一顆醞釀能量的蛋，在「中間」（in-between）思維的帷幄下以創造各種差異，藉此對課程產生「解疆域—再疆域」的重新部署，以編織出各類課程逃逸線。析言之，「無器官（身）體」流變課程是一種不可感知的狀態，它永遠是一種與中心處於相對性的位置，透過擾動、逃逸、編織與部屬等的方式以保持自身的開放性，藉由身體所開展出的課程韻律，它使課程不再只是語言文字的表達，自然也就不再只是currere的語言描述，而是流變成各種陌生的動態影像。為了進一步闡述此課程的可能性，研究者透過參與觀察與訪談兩所學校中的三位教師的教學，以此說明「無器官（身）體」流變課程的可能作為。此課程實際運作的情形為：（1）課程目標永遠是與官方課程做逃離與逆反方向的表述，以此讓師生得以繪製/製作出屬於他/她們自我的課程，實乃一種創造表現而不是再現知識；（2）課程內容不是事先預定的教材，而是師生藉由身體感官對媒材能量進行部署下的暫時性結果，提升了教師自主與學生學習的空間。透過案例的討論與說明，用以闡述「無器官（身）體」流變課程不會僅是一種理想，而是一種可欲的學習，此學習的風貌成為各種來自身體表現的影像，它不再只是一種靜態的圖像。

This dissertation aims to explore the relationship between curriculum and Gilles Deleuze’s concept of “body without organs.” The curriculum here means has a content of knowledge which is based on the “body without organs.” This dissertation is written under the considerations of: (1) studies researches on Deleuze’s curriculum are still rare in Taiwan; (2) the way how body express knowledge is absent in contemporary Taiwanese curriculum research; (3) reviewing the explanation of curriculum in Latin-currere from the Reconceptualization. Hence, the author attempted to develop the discourse of “body without organs” becoming curriculum in Taiwan. From the perspective of Deleuze’s concept of “body without organs”, this research considers that the curriculum is neither predefined nor the only aspect of teacher him/herself, not to mention a means of control for schools. However, it is a zero degree of knowledge, an “addition”, “contraction”, “meditation” and “composition” of body performance to express curriculum knowledge. This curriculum here is like an egg that creates energy for differential in-betweens, an assessment of “deterritorialization-reterritorialization” weaving all lines of flights. Moreover, the rhythm of curriculum is an extension for not only a language expression, rather, it also escapes from the description of the language of curriculum and turns into multiple dynamic diagrams of curriculum. In order to portray the possibility of curriculum, the author employs two different methods, interview and observation, to accumulate information from three teachers in two schools. Based on curricula performs in these schools are results show that (1) because the objectives of each course always run against the official curriculum, teacher and students may create the one of their own, instead of an reproduction; (2) the material in each curriculum would no longer be predefined in advance. In the hand, curriculum is a creation by sense and body performance of both the teachers and the students. By analyzing and elaborating both of those, the author attempts to landscape the curriculum as “body without organs” a desire of learning, not a picture of steady learning. The curriculum of “body without organs” becomes diagrams of expressions for body performance.