[D-G] Univers de Référence en Science, en Art et en Philosophie chez Félix Guattari and Gilles Deleuze

[Johnatan Petterson]

hi.

did anyone think this was wrong?

actually the synapses (cfr dada invocation in cart.schiz.)
are allowed by "possible" box check as regards to the sea of Phylums.

therefore the degrees of powers are the Universes of Reference vocalized in
the carto.schizo.1989 guattari book.

its just a metaphor you can switch uni of ref and degrees of "puissance"..

the territory lies underneath and expresses the universes actualisation or
passage to existence.

everyone thinks the same here?

saludos
John


Le jeu. 23 juil. 2020 à 16:24, Johnatan Petterson <
internet.petterson at gmail.com> a écrit :

>
> in Cartographies Schizoanalytic (1989 ), Félix Guattari spoke about those
>> Universes of Reference
>> which are like the Clef de voûte  (cornerstone) to the
>> Quadrichromatic Matrix (Universe of Reference (virtual/possible),
>> Territories Existential (virtual/real), , Phylum
>> Machinic (actual/possible), and Flows (actual/real) )
>>
>> how does this concept relate to the Plane of Reference as discussed
>> together with Deleuze in What is Philosophy? (1991)
>>
>> it seems the Plane of Reference could not be grasped by a subjectivity by
>> excluding its qualification as sensibiliae by Partial Observers.
>>
>> but it seems there is only 1 plane of Reference for Science,
>> stitched from many fragmentary experiences of Scientists. (the Plane of
>> Reference implies Paradigmatic massive changes, whereas the Plane of
>> Philosophy is folded and multiple and idiosyncratic to each Conceptual
>> Persona). (a humbler Philosopher can adopt the Conceptual Personna of
>> another more glorious, or get absorbed in her Idiosyncrasy)
>> Yet across many Paradigms, the way of connection via coordinates and
>> variables is weaving a unique Plane of Reference, because scientists have
>> the need to insert a new theory/praxis into the mass of other theories to
>> stitch them with , so that there is some consistency, not only a spectral
>> or vague endo or exo Reference. Referentiality is just about this connexion
>> of data/variables.
>>
>> Guattari in Schizoanalytic Cartography compares the movements or art
>> schools with the paradigms of Science and he talks about "Constellations of
>> Universe of Reference" to that effect.
>>
>> A Universe of Reference is in Guattari's idea working as the essence of
>> mode for Deleuze in the latter description of it in Spinoza Problem of
>> Expression 1968. Indeed from possibility it passes into existence (becomes
>> effectuated and  real) The synapse in disposition is the effector of this
>> realization.  (in Logic of Sense, 1969, Deleuze views counter-effectuation
>> as a valid Ethic in harsh situations )
>>
>> So, I wonder what is the Universe of Reference of the Plane of Reference
>> of Science in a specific Paradigm?
>>
>> The Scientist alone should be able to tell.  The Partial Observer is more
>> concerned with aesthetically and existentially grasping: it belongs to the
>> Territory factor, itself in "prise" , or plugged to the Phylum ( social
>> machines  ) and the Flows of data (particles) of Science.
>>
>> But i think, contrarily to what Deleuze and Guattari say in WIP? the
>> cornerstone and the unification of Science is as much as important, and at
>> stakes, for the practitioner of Science. The relation to the possible
>> Universe of Reference of Science is a changing one, and it can enter in
>> relation with Universes of Reference previously unrelated to Science.
>>
>> For instance, the prevalence to Chaos digging, preferring "knowing one
>> bit of Chaos" (WIP?) over "marble science"
>> constitutes perhaps for Deleuze and Guattari a potent political attempt
>> to tweak the synaptic disposition of previous ways in their times of "doing
>> Science".
>>
>> Even when in WIP? Deleuze and Guattari espouse a strong critique of
>> Badiou's work by characterizing it as a restoration of Philosophy as a
>> superior discipline on top of Love, Politics, Science and Aesthetics, it
>> seems by securing "variation" as leitmotiv  for Philosophy and variable for
>> Science, ( and varieties for Arts ) the effect of Gilles Deleuze and Félix
>> Guattari on their contemporaries and readers would have been a
>> revalorisation of their level of Philosophy over previous works of other
>> disciplines like Science and Arts (whose artists they professed to admire
>> lost most of their attractiveness due to the DG readers empathy with DG
>> conceptual consistency)
>>
>> Clifford Duffy's (and other's)  insiststance to Guattari being as
>> important as Deleuze is symptomatic of writers and thinkers wanting to
>> preserve themselves and their audience from such an empathy , because
>> Guattari's work is more loose than Deleuze's tight and coordinated writing,
>> and it "blocks less" even if in the case of Duffy there is still a strong
>> attachment to Deleuze " as a matrix " for performance of effects of
>> signifiers in the Orphic writings synopsism.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Johnattan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
> --
ziboote depuis mon iphoaunesixplus