Telesthetic Communis   //--negotiated communal space in which a networked
mechanical device initiates remote happenings. Beware: erratic behavior may
result due to another user's conflicting commands.




requires: shockwave 8   //--download here

e+m riel



Commissioned by
W ith funding from the National Endowment for the Arts.

special thanks
•• Helen Thorington • •• Paul Biron • perl programming ••
Carol Mayeda • machining & fabrication •• Bob Buehrer • electronics ••

••indebted to the research of Teuvo Kohonen and the writings of Giles Deleuze & Felix Guattari






Received: (from domo@localhost) by (8.9.3/8.9.0) id VAA60419 for deleuze-guattari-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:23:02 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: domo set sender to owner-deleuze-guattari@localhost using -f Received: from ( []) by (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA63999 for []; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 17:22:56 -0400 Received: (qmail 7637 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Sep 2000 21:21:23 -0000 Message-ID: [] Received: from [] by; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:21:23 PDT Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:21:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Crosby [] Subject: Re: Have you ever seen this? (bit-parts) To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Thanks Ruth: When you wrote about "the virtual 'shadow' that bothers me in the relation between the two series" and how "confusion arises, i think, with the concept of the total virtual past and the partial deduction (subtraction) of virtuals in the passing of the total virtual. the partial deduction is a different kind of (here mechanical) multiplicity necessary to an assymetric synthesis", you put your finger right on the confusion I was having! And then you said "why this passing is structured first by the elementary dualism of the passive synthesis, i have never really quite understood. why not an aggregation of a three thing of a four thing first?" Yes! I'm very slow in working thru this stuff but I'm always trying to contrast this triadicity in Deleuze with that in CS Peirce, who starts with Firstness as the force of thought and ends with Thirdness as Habit? Well, maybe back to Bergson and the Cinema books after this excursion thru _Difference & Repetition_ and _Logic of Sense_.. But maybe this is Deleuze's answer: "If we consider all three serial kinds - the connective synthesis on a single series, the conjunctive synthesis of convergence, and the disjunctive synthesis of resonance, we see that the third proves to be the truth and the destination of the others, to the degree that the disjunctive attains its positive and affirmative use" (LoS 229). The possible "sleight of hand in DR between a Bergsonian repetition as action before reflection (96) and repetition as imaginary and founded on the virtual mother as condition of displacement" that you mention certainly had me confused since the psychoanalytic terms are so unfamilar to me. It wasn't until I read "The 32nd Series on the Different Kinds of Series" in _Logic of Sense_ that the concept of the 'phallus' in connection with the syntheses of D&R began to have any sense at all for me: "The serial form is founded in the erogenous zone of the surface ... a series of images is projected over the zone ... capable of assuring for the zone an auto-erotic satisfaction... But second, it is clear that the problem of the phallic coordination of the erogeneous zones comes to complicate the serial form ... it gives rise to a synthesis of coexistence and coordination and constitutes a conjunction of the subsumed series" (LoS 225). "Third, we know that the phallic coordination of surfaces is necessarily accompanied by oedipal affairs which in turn emphasize parental images... In any case, it is the resonance of the two independent and temporally disjointed series that is essential. Here we find ourselves before a third figure of the serial form. For the series now under consideration are indeed heterogeneous ... they constitute ramified disjunctions and give rise to a disjunctive synthesis" (226). Falling past Alice to the "34th Series of Primary Order and Secondary Organization", I have to ask, though: a) why must this primary order of desire necessarily be sexual (Eros -- that is, linked to the genitals); and, b) why is the secondary organization related to a 'death instinct' (Thanatos); c) perhaps these two figures are simply the absolute limits of these two orders rather than their origin or driving force? I tend to see the 'sexual' as just a limit case of a *more general* surface tension contraction and relief; 'death' as a limit case of assault and deconstruction? And, if I follow it, reducing the fractal fold to 'castration' still seems bizarre to me (I guess I still see this term medically rather than psychoanalytically..) Anyway, still muggled but now have some primitive sense of what terms like this are supposed to mean when mixed with philosophy.. You ask "i wonder what happens to Klein's good and bad object for bottlefed babies?" Yeah, and what happens where the mother as well as the father is absent (and, perhaps, the babysitter is an older brother? ;) You point out that "AO and ATP go on to break the fixation on one molarity but as said above all virtualities are partial as far as humans can eerience them. as argued before, the flow of desire is still talked about very much in these terms in AO". Yes.. should have checked under those covers.. Have no problem with desiring-machines as such, but do wonder if everything is *reducible* to these, or to the energetic descriptions -- we are not merely plasma balls of "explosions, rotations, vibrations" (AO 44)! Rethinking my irritation with this idea that "historical actors or agents can create only on condition that they identify themselves with figures from the past" (D&R 91) after rereading what the witch says to Florinda in _Being-in-Dreaming_: "We belong to power. My companions and I are the inheritors of an ancient tradition. We are part of a myth... We are all dreaming the same dream" (33). I was in a fiery arc (early last week when this started), becoming-Sagittarius, shooting things down -- "The molecular microperceptions are overlaid in advance [by] paranoid outbursts [that] restore forms and subjects ... like so many phantoms or doubles" (ATP 285) -- if only for target practice ("the bowman must reach the point where the aim is not the aim" LoS 146).. When I said I have never seen an "inauthentic creation", you caught me by suggesting: "how about Blanchot's 'if there is one word which is inauthentic its authentic' (The Writing of the Disaster)". Ha! Just like there's nothing more unnatural than 'the natural' ? But, when you ask "how could one see a man without a name?" I'm not sure about this proper-names thing: I see and speak to lots of people regularly whose names I do not know. My father has aphasia from a stroke and can no longer speak proper names; but, he does still know who we are.. When I mentioned "becoming-imperceptible, as we watch the new children?" you asked "how could a 'we' become -imperceptible?" Well, as D&G say: "Becoming-imperceptible means many things. What is the relation between the (anorganic) imperceptible, the (asignifying) indiscernible, and the (asubjective) impersonal? A first response would be to be like everyone else. To go unnoticed is by no means easy... This requires much asceticism, much sobriety, much creative involution" (ATP 279). "For everybody/everything is the molar aggregate, but becoming everybody / everything is another affair, one that brings into play the cosmos with its molecular components... It is by conjugating, by continuing with other lines, other pieces, that one makes a world that can overlay the first one, like a transparency" (280). That last sentence seems overlain upon an earlier statement by Deleuze: "the mystery lies ... in what the first surface becomes, skirted over by the second" (LoS 238). Continuing across A Thousand Plateaus: "One is then like grass ... one has made a necessarily communicating world, because one has suppressed in oneself everything that prevents us from slipping between things and growing in the midst of things. One has combined 'everything': the indefinite article, the infinitive-becoming , and the proper name to which one is reduced, saturate, eliminate, put everything in" (280). They do