[D-G] Automation from the Souls of Artists.

[Johnatan Petterson]

hi again again Mike,

i have to quote this from Monadology 14
as it answers from a body of text which Spinoza thought to
not mention when talking about the Mind of Things and the Mind of Animals:

<<L'état passager qui enveloppe et représente une
multitude dans l'unité, ou dans la substance simple,
n'est autre chose que ce que l'on appelle la Perception,
qu'on doit bien distinguer de l'aperception ou de la Conscience, comme il
paraîtra dans la suite.
Et c'est en quoi les Cartésiens ont fort manqué, ayant compté pour rien les
perceptions
dont ne s'aperçoit point.
C'est aussi ce qui les a fait croire que les seuls Esprits étaient des
Monades,
et qu'il n'y avait point d'âmes des Bêtes ni
d'autres Entéléchies; et qu'ils ont confondus avec
le vulgaire un long étourdissement
avec une mort à la rigueur,
ce qui les a fait encore donner
dans le préjugé scolastique des âmes
entièrement séparées et a même confirmé
les Esprits mal tournés dans l'opinion de la mortalité des âmes.>>


yea, yet ok it seems relevant for Leibniz that consciousness is relevant
to the internal feeling of the monad and the perception
is relevant to the exterior environment of the monad, and perception which
is not constant.

a perception that we do not perceive thus causes
the opinion of the "Cartesians" believing that
Beasts have no Consciousness, according to which
the Details changing in Perception have no value
and they are indifferent in the Beasts. He later ascribes to Memory
some peculiarity to the Sciences.
I guess it is worth mentioning that the Arts have thus
all interest in multiplying the Sources of Perception
in the Arts (in the medium, and the collection of medium by the Arts)
if it is true that they have parts that are non-machinic.
teeth are divine machinery for Leibniz.
That is if Mankind wants its perfectibility.
Yet what Artif it  comes NOT composed of non-machinic parts ad infinitum,
after all, no? Fernand Leger at the beginning of Micropolitic and
Segmentarity
is a painting with loads of light and artificiality, right? That is a
disjunctive function that ought to be synthesized !
This assertion that certain parts in an Artistic medium are non-machinic,
in Leibniz, ensues from his axiom namely that <<Je prends pour accordé
que tout être créé est sujet au changement, et par conséquent
la Monade créée aussi, et même que ce changement
est continuel en chacune.>> (Monadology 10)
Is that the base for the principle of the Spiritual Automaton
which Deleuze later applies to both Leibniz and Spinoza?
Leibniz has simplified the version that is exposed in Spinoza
that there are distinctions based not on substance they are based on rest
and movement and speed and slow.
The change is not "continuous" in Spinoza. Hence the difference with
Details of Things which change which make "so say
the specification and variety of simple substances".
At the contrary, a stress by a philosopher to Art creating
Affect-Relations & Perceptions within Multiplicities of non-machinic
(spiritual?) Automata would help the perfectibility of Mankind's and
re-integrate within the one Artist as Spiritual Automaton, the
perfectibility of Mankind's Central Memory
which is the Science of Continuities and Breaks.

Best,
Johnny


PS
by reading your last quote I am quite worried about the unique way the
Philosophers
like Guattari or Deleuze have gained such powerful influence in
all the spectrum of society lately, it's a bit sad, no?