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

[Mike Lansing]

You have pointed to why we think the Impossible Trident is being used
against the voting U.S. prisoners as a Democratic socialist deception,
as a decoy.

Firstly, we translate your Liebniz excerpt below as....'I take it for
granted that everything to be created is subject to change, and
therefore the Monad created as well, and that change is continual in
each.' We believe that indeed it is the basis for the spiritual
automaton, it is the basis for theogonic repetition and reproduction
that keeps the prisoners hostage within Pimp Jaba's harem and
protection-racket prison called religion.

To further plumb the deceptions used against Homo sapiens, we use
Bogue's (awful) example of Messaien as musician in Genosko's Deleuze
and Guattari: Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers, pp.
240-254, Rhizomusicology: '....Although Deleuze and Guattari do not
propose a new technical vocabulary for musical analysis (per se
[italics]), they do offer a means of construing music as an open
structure that permeates and is permeated by the world, a reading of
the cosmos and music not as mechanical and mathematical but as machinic
and rhythmical -- what one might call, with a certain Panglossian
bravura, a "rhizomusicsomology." Chief among those who inspire Deleuze
and Guattari in this enterprise is Oliver Messaien, whose remarks on
rhythm and birdsong provide several of key concepts in "De la
ritournelle.' My purpose in this essay is to outline the basic features
of Deleuze and Guattari's rhizomusicosmology, and then to suggest some
ways in which Mille plateaux and the musical and theoretical works of
Messaien mutually illuminate one another. My object is not to identify
sources or trace influences, but to describe the process of "becoming"
that takes place between Deleuze-Guattari and Messaien -- one that is
paradigmatic of the "encounters" that generate the unpredictable
theoretical developments of Mille plateaux.
....
Musicorhizonomy....But obviously what draws Deleuze and Guattari to
Messaien is the composer's dedication to experimentation in all the
parameters of musical expression. Deleuze and Guattari call for a music
that puts in continuous variation all components," that forms "a
rhizome instead of a tree, and enters the service of a virtual cosmic
continuum, in which even the holes, silences, ruptures and cuts have a
part." (MP 121) In this regard, Messaien's music is exemplary. As early
as 1944, Messaien spoke in his composition classes about the
limitations of the Second Viennese School, in whose works pitch
structures alone are investigated while conventional rhythmic and
formal conceptions remained unexamined (see Golea 247). Throughout his
career, Messaien has experimented with rhythm and harmonic modes, and
in his works since Mode de valeurs et d'intensites (1949) he has
explored various serial and modal approaches to dynamics, timbre,
duration and other compositional components. One of the areas of most
intense experimentation in Messiaen's music is rhythm. Rhythmic music,
he states, "is music that scorns repetition, straight-forwardness and
equal divisions. In short, it's a music inspired by the movements of
nature, movements of free and unequal durations" (Samuel 33). For
Messaien, as for Deleuze and Guattari, rhythm and meter are
antithetical concepts, and what passes for "rhythmic music" (jazz,
military marches) he sees as the negation of true rhythm. Messaien
defines rhythm as "the change of number and duration.":

'Suppose that there were a single beat in all the universe. One beat;
with eternity before it and eternity after it. A before and an after.
That is the birth of time. Imagine then, almost immediately, a second
beat. Since any beat is prolonged by the silence which follows it, the
second beat will be longer than the first. Another number, another
duration. This is the birth of Rhythm.'
....
'

Is the reader quite sure that Guattari, who wrote on birdsong before
Deleuze did so, was actually influenced by this Catholic mafia
musician-convert? Giattari himself said that hios project was radically
atheist, and we certainly won't take that for granted. Here one can see
just where Messaien smuggles in his god as first-cause violence,
because Messaien is incorrect that the second beat is longer than the
first, which is only the perception of his DNA (sourced from the crusty
lips of a volcano, the original Mimetic Desire), and which concept
links to the deceptions involved in perceiving Bernie Sander's as the
Impossible Trident, as we will show, forthcoming.




<-----Original Message-----> 
>From: Johnatan Petterson [internet.petterson at gmail.com]
>Sent: 3/16/2019 6:46:36 PM
>To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>Subject: Re: [D-G] Automation from the Souls of Artists.
>
>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?
>_______________________________________________
>List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>Info:
http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>Archives: www.driftline.org