[D-G] la maison de la visualisation chez Félix Guattari and Gilles Deleuze

[.Sylvia_Jenepi.]

. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
in Alain Badiou, (séminaire) Parménide 1985-1986 pp10-11, 
Parmenide is said by Badiou he founded Philosophy by exploring poetic
divagations with  
the help of mathematical-logic procedures. 

is that not what  " What is Philosophy? " proposes when saying that a
concept is "chiffré" (numbered). 

the concept is said to pertain to a discipline which " keeps the virtual
" 

but may-be Vermeer or Kupka drawing "pans de murs" (sections of walls) 
to compose i say from experience painters keep the "virtual" and relate
the Universe of Reference with the actual, vise versa and the Diagram
within the Phylum 
the sections are not "finite" items which when composed could "bring
back the infinite" 
the infinite is right away on the canvas from the start, the painter
starts painting from the infinite, Gilles and Félix seem to imply that's
what Michaux did. 

two types of Figures, or three, in What is Philosophy? 
1) the religious, transcendent  
2) the need for science to "visualize" if need be by help of computers
or perspectives, drawings in Euclid, etc 
3) retrogradable or non retrogradable like in Messiaen, Bacon or
Becketts: these types of Figures 

whereas Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari say Philosophy would be as a
task the matter to preserve 
the movement of the infinite 

i say Vermeer or Kupka for instance draw from the virtual and the
painted sections on canvas 
what they build from are just as mathematical-logical as the phases of
the cartesian cogito in WIP? or the knots of Being in Parmenides poem 
dimensions in mathematical-logic constructs can be added or substracted,
art can be more virtual-keeping than concepts mind that ! 

Spinoza said that things distinguished by relation of movement and rest,

so that perhaps in an entity with "rest", there can be various measures
of movement: 

the cat who stretches on the hot pavement remains conscious of her
freedom to jump away  
from that posture any time 

so that there are degrees of nomadism in sedentarity 

the sections of walls on the canvas can be compared 
to the social machines, assemblages of functions which 
ought to be tweaked with "science" when times is up to switch from
Paradigm in Sciences 

they invoke a cornerstone 
Christianity was afraid of Galileo's sciences 
because it threatened the prevalence 
of philosophy over science since the slow decline of greek sciences 

it could induce an acceleration of the Phylum 

it seems a bit like Guattari's quadri-chromatic matrix with Territories,
Flows, Phylum and Universe of Reference 
works as functions a bit like a Gothic cathedral with an architecture i
mean; 

and the elements of the Phylum would be supported by the cornerstone, 
the movements ebb to and fro of the Universe of Reference which 
goes, built from a set of social machines in the Phylum, modifiable
functions seem to build the cornerstone as there is becoming in the
order of the 
Universe, functions of functions, as machines move in the Phylum. 

Vermeer or Kupka , in the same immanent way as the religious drawer of a
Mandala, a sephirot or an icon, or any religious Figure, 
got together in a certain movement of nomadism/sedentarity , and from
this posture entered in relation with 
a cornerstone, which cannot be ressemblant to the transcendent : 
 << les arts et les sciences aussi dressent de puissantes figures, mais
ce qui 
les distingue de toute religion, 
ce n'est pas de prétendre à la ressemblance interdite, c'est d'émanciper
tel ou tel 
niveau pour en faire de nouveaux plans de pensée sur lesquels les
références et 
projections, nous le verrons, changent de nature >> (Qu'est-ce que la
philosophie? p106 ed.de.minuit 
 (géophilosophie) 

in art or sciences, systems of References are (apparated or) set in a
multiplicity set, in Religion is that not as well the case? 
Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari seem to think that arts and sciences
are already or ought to be more mobile, more nomadic than religion's
systems of references 
: the latter are they not encompassing diagrams and phylum (or plural:
do you say phyla?) 

can such a " emancipated level" belong to two distinct Universes of
References at once, if one knows 
that there are Constellations of Universes of References (Guattari,
Cartographies schizoanalytiques 1989) ? 

i think Cézanne is an example of such an artist who proposed himself to
set future artists in a migration of the arts 
a bit like Félix Guattari when talking about Flows as substitutes for
roots or feet in his quadri-chromatic body without organ matrix
multi-spheres machine. 
i say this in regard to the quote on bringing back "the museum" to art
at a time of Corot and "chevalet" impressionism 
because he had a different universe of reference ( read his letter on
Lucretius as was filmed by Straub-Huillet) but at the same time 
professed to be a Christian, is that not right? 

which brings me to the question : how can 2 Universes of Reference be
distinct ?  are they really distinct or so ? 
i try to visualize them with my computer! 
can a type of art migrate from a civilization to another and keep its
Universe of Reference intact during this travel ? 

Clifford Duffy did an essay on Milton's Paradise Lost ,  or how another
system in a Universe of Reference appeared to another as a frightening
666 Devil. 

is this always the case ? Clifford Duffy thought this could be avoided
with no further ado not saying how. 
Glles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's gave as well their tangible answer as
mathematical-logic lines of coordinates from particules systematized in
an immanent way,  
in relation to a future "people" of artists, like Nietzsche or
Mallharmé, Ishmaelite Virgins and their celibataires new community  in
the USA, but i reckon this was elusive of them to say it really was
tangible, 
just as it was elusive of Fili Houtman and Andromache to say that
Phoenicians were this "people" as Joesphine Quinn proved in 2018 that
there was no Pheonician people and the  
very cosmopolitan traders in the Levantine coast were an outpour, an
extension of the Assyro-Babylonian bassin.  
i'd say an answer might come instead from Guattari's notion of
Existential Territory in the Quadri-Chromatic Matrix  
and the panopticon or synoptic view onto the diagram, which matches
perfectly well  with our human body 's touch with many functions  
(cyborgs and golems likewise visualise sections of the brain, likewise
get devolved to tiny fragmented functions getting together in
assemblages and other machines) 
and Existential Territories can be found in computer Visualizations, the
ones which offer swaying aesthetic perspectives of view onto the world
around you. 
what an answer! 
i'd say 2 or more distinct cornerstones and Universes of Reference can
thus be made to coexist in such sensible existential territories,  
because complexity and reversed folds of functions of the brain come
reckoned with thanks to the AI technology, and are made here and now
coextensive to these multi organic bodies with Territories. 

this is why if it works for those within the Constellation of Universes,
other artists will love the intricacies in Jared Kushner's aborted plan
for Israel. 

warmthness, 
Sylvia Jenepi