I beat my machine
It’s a part of me
It’s inside of me
I’m stuck in this dream
It’s changing me
I am becoming

Trent Reznor

The concept of “becoming” in Deleuze’s philosophy emphasizes the idea that identity is not fixed or predetermined, but rather is constantly in flux and emerges through the connections one makes with the world. For example, a person’s desire to become a guitar player is not predetermined, but rather depends on the connections they make with the world around them. The same dynamic applies to all aspects of a person’s identity.

However, many people fall into the trap of conforming to pre-planned identities, such as those imposed by their parents or by societal norms. This results in a limited and static identity, which can prevent new and exciting connections from being made. This is akin to a rhizome that has been blocked, unable to shoot off new roots and make new connections.

Similarly, traditional philosophy has tended to view the world through a narrow, one-dimensional, and hierarchical lens, which limits our understanding of the world and our place in it. Deleuze rejects the idea that there is a pre-determined way that we “should” be living and instead invites us to embrace the immanence and movement of the world, which allows for the emergence of our identity from within rather than accepting it as a gift from someone else.

To affirm existence is to embrace difference and to see the world in terms of distinction rather than self. By accepting the immanence and interconnectedness of the world, we can embrace life and all its possibilities. Deleuze’s work encourages us to ask the question “How might a person live?” rather than seeking a definitive answer to “how should a person live?”

Deleuze’s concept of difference is a central aspect of his philosophy, and it challenges the traditional philosophical notion of identity and sameness. According to Deleuze, difference is not just a matter of distinguishing one thing from another but is a positive force that is constitutive of the world. In other words, difference is not just a negative absence or lack of sameness, but a productive and creative force that generates new and unforeseeable possibilities.

Deleuze argues that difference is not just a property of objects or things but is immanent in the world and is the very condition of possibility for all things. Difference is not something that exists outside or apart from things but is inherent in them. For Deleuze, things are not just what they are, but they are also what they are not, and this is because of the continual process of differentiation and becoming that occurs in the world.

Deleuze’s concept of difference is also closely related to his idea of the virtual. The virtual is not opposed to the actual but is rather an aspect of it, and it is the realm of pure potentiality that exists alongside the actual world. According to Deleuze, the virtual is the site of infinite possibilities and potentials, and it is from the virtual that the actual emerges through processes of differentiation and becoming.

In summary, Deleuze’s concept of difference challenges the traditional philosophical understanding of identity and sameness and sees difference as a positive force that generates new and unforeseeable possibilities. Difference is immanent in the world, and it is the very condition of possibility for all things.

What is being repeated?

First, it is important to note that repetition is not unidirectional, there is no object of repetition, no ultimate goal to which it can be said to guide everything that repeats.

What therefore repeats is not models, styles or identities, but the full force of difference in and of itself, those pre-individual singularities that radically optimize difference on an immanent plane.

Becoming is so to speak what is being repeated. Being, identity, any static system of thought, these are just attempts by people to grow roots in the ground and reduce the rootless, complexity of the rhizome to a hierarchical simplicity. For Deleuze, the truth is that identity isn’t just an easy concept and talking about identity that just leads to problems when we try to impose these old ideas of the enlightenment era on constructing the world in which we live.

What Deleuze takes from this reading of Nietzsche is that he thinks identity is a derivative of difference, not the other way around. The appearance of being, or what we’ve mistaken as constants of the universe, is only possible to categorize as a result of us seeing what is truly fundamental and what is really fundamental is the constant process of becoming.

This is a far cry from Sigmund Freud who suggested that we are compulsively repeating the past, where all of our repressed subconscious material drives us to replay the past in all its discomfort and pain. In reality, psychoanalysis restricts repetition to expression, and what therapy is meant to do is to fully stop the process along with the illnesses it causes.

On the other hand, Deleuze urges us to repeat as he sees in it the potential of reinvention, i.e. repetition dissolves personalities as it transforms them, producing something unrecognizable and efficient. That’s why he maintains repetition is a positive transitional force.

REPETITION AND MUSIC

Complex repetition has a multi-faceted relationship with time, a fact that influences how we conceive of rhythmic repetition in music. In this respect, Messiaen and Boulez strongly influenced the theories of Deleuze.

Deleuze takes up this distinction, relating it to the Stoic concept of time, whereby time consists of two modes: Chronos, the time of ordered and successive moments, as found in music that includes normal meters; and Aion, the time of the Universe which pre-exists our numerical “clock-like” order of time-this is the free-floating time beyond the amounts of metric division.

In Messiaen’s case, Deleuze shares with him the idea that rhythmic music in fact rejects simple numerical repetition; instead, it puts rhythm in a constant state of variation, producing unequal length chains. To Boulez, the comparison between what he terms “pulsed time” and “non-pulsed time” brings out this distinction.

Conceiving time through this opposition has its origins in Classical Antiquity, whereby Greek philosophers may talk of the period before there was time. Deleuze saw that both Messiaen and Boulez wrote music involving Aion’s time, or non-pulsed time:

VARIATION

Deleuze deploys the idea of variation to focus on what may be his most basic theme, namely that life is not solely characterized by continuity, but rather by a constant sense of motion and transition. That is, it is becoming. Therefore, the units and structures we find in life are the result of this fundamental movement being organized, and not the other way around.

Deleuze offers a number of examples for the concept of ‘variation’ in his work, one of which is music. Music is traditionally understood on the basis of scales that are fixed moments of pitch extracted from the whole range of frequencies. In western music, there is also the concept of the octave that divides sound up into repeatable scalar units. For Deleuze, we must consider these structures to be secondary in relation to the movement of sound itself, which has no intrinsic notes or scales.

Essentially,

there is only the continuous pitch variation, a simple, identity-free movement of difference.

Rather, like the use of words, depending on the context of their use, often changes, Deleuze and Guattari identify this as the inherent language variation in A Thousand Plateaus. The fact that language use is not static but dynamic is the very essence of language itself.

Iteration puts to the test the stability of any given system, as it magnifies tiny, imperceptible diversionsIteration puts to the test the stability of any given system, as it magnifies tiny, imperceptible diversions. Iteration refers to repeating a process multiple times, and it can indeed magnify small variations or diversions in a system. If a system is stable, it will typically produce similar or predictable results with each iteration, and small diversions may not have a significant impact on the overall outcome. However, if a system is unstable, even tiny diversions can be amplified with each iteration, leading to unpredictable or chaotic behavior. This is why iteration is often used as a tool for testing the stability of systems, particularly in scientific and mathematical contexts.

this is the concept of repetition by Deleuze

Deleuze was a philosopher who wrote extensively about the concept of repetition. He believed that repetition was not just a simple, mechanical process, but rather a complex and dynamic phenomenon that could have profound implications for how we understand the world.

According to Deleuze, repetition involves the creation of difference. Each repetition is not exactly the same as the previous one, but rather introduces new variations or divergences that can ultimately transform the system or object being repeated. This can create a sense of instability or unpredictability, as the system or object is constantly changing and evolving.

Deleuze also believed that repetition could be a means of resistance against dominant social, cultural, or political forces. By repeating certain behaviors or ideas, individuals and groups could create new possibilities and potentials for change, even within seemingly rigid or oppressive systems.

Overall, Deleuze’s concept of repetition emphasizes the dynamic and transformative nature of this phenomenon, and its potential to create new forms of difference and resistance.

Difference and Repetition

The rhizome is subject to the principles of diversity and difference through repetition, which Deleuze discussed in his books Nietzsche and Philosophy and Difference and Repetition. Deleuze accepts the idea of eternal return as the constitution of things through repeated elements (existing bodies, modes of thought) which form a ‘ synthesis ‘ of distinction through the repetition of elements.

“What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more’ … and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence — even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself.

Nietzsche

In “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”, Nietzsche talks about the eternal recurrence through the voice of a group of animals that are yelling at and taunting Zarathustra. They say, “Behold, we know what you teach: that all things recur eternally, and we ourselves too; and that we have already existed an eternal number of times, and all things with us…I come again, with this sun, with this earth, with this eagle, with this serpent –not to a new life or a better life or a similar life: I come back eternally to this same self same life.”

According to Deleuze’s interpretation of Nietzsche, the significance of the eternal recurrence is in the difference between being and becoming. Traditionally, the category of “being” has referred to things within our perception of reality that are constant, that act as a solid foundation and aren’t going to change. This concept of being is always contrasted with the concept of “becoming”, which refers to all the things about existence that are constantly changing or in flux.

How do you generate repetition?

Deleuze rejected a teleological conception of repetition and instead argued that the foundations of the Nietzschean cycle are much more complex. According to Deleuze, repetition is not a mere copy or imitation of an original, but an aggressive and intensifying reinforcement that creates difference.

Deleuze emphasized that repetition is not grounded in a fixed, original point, as this approach would ignore the creative nature of difference. Instead, he believed that repetition is created by difference, not mimesis, and is an ungrounding mechanism that avoids becoming an inert replication system.

In contrast to the majority of Western philosophy, Deleuze’s philosophy is based on the primary importance placed on constant variation and difference as continuous variation.

The concept of repetition encompasses other concepts such as differentiation, deterritorialisation, and becoming. Deleuze saw repetition as not merely the same thing occurring over and over again, but rather as a way to begin again and affirm the power of the new and unforeseeable.

Deleuze’s fundamental point is that difference must be thought of as the continual movement of self-differing, like the continual variation of a sound rising and lowering in pitch without stopping at notes in a scale.

The human mind is a complex and powerful tool, capable of processing vast amounts of information, analyzing data, and making decisions based on the available evidence. However, despite its incredible abilities, the human mind often behaves as if divided into two parts: the Thinker and the Prover.

The Thinker is the part of the mind that generates thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. It is the seat of our consciousness and the source of our creativity. The Thinker can imagine new possibilities, question assumptions, and come up with innovative solutions to problems. However, the Thinker can also be our worst enemy. It can generate negative thoughts, doubts, and fears that can hold us back and even make us sick.

The Prover, on the other hand, is the part of the mind that tests the Thinker’s ideas and beliefs. It is the mechanism that validates or disproves our hypotheses and theories. The Prover takes the Thinker’s thoughts and beliefs as true and then seeks evidence to confirm them. It is a simple, almost mechanical process that operates on the principle of confirmation bias. Whatever the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves.

This dichotomy between the Thinker and the Prover can have profound implications for our lives. If the Thinker generates negative thoughts and beliefs, the Prover will look for evidence to confirm them, even if that evidence is flimsy or irrelevant. This can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy where our negative thoughts and beliefs become reality. Conversely, if the Thinker generates positive thoughts and beliefs, the Prover will look for evidence to confirm them, and this can lead to a virtuous cycle of success and well-being.

The concept of time can further illustrate the distinction between the Thinker and the Prover. In ancient Greek mythology, there were two gods of time: Aion and Chronos. Aion represented the abstract concept of time, the flow of events and experiences, the continuous present that never ends. Chronos, on the other hand, represented the measurable, quantifiable time that we use to organize our lives.

Aion is like the Thinker, the abstract, creative part of the mind that generates ideas and possibilities. Aion is not bound by the limitations of Chronos and can imagine new futures and new realities. Chronos, on the other hand, is like the Prover, the measurable, logical part of the mind that tests and validates Aion’s ideas. Chronos provides the evidence that confirms or disproves Aion’s hypotheses and beliefs.

In conclusion, the human mind is a complex and multi-faceted tool that can generate both positive and negative thoughts and beliefs. The Thinker and the Prover represent two distinct aspects of the mind that work in tandem to generate ideas, test hypotheses, and validate beliefs. Understanding the interplay between the Thinker and the Prover can help us harness the power of our minds to create the reality we want. Additionally, the distinction between Aion and Chronos highlights the importance of balancing creativity and logic to achieve our goals and dreams.

In today’s society, we are surrounded by a culture that values personal experiences and narratives. However, the trend of commodifying these experiences has led to the privatization of these experiences, leaving little room for genuine human connection and understanding. The privatization of experiences means that we have less to share and less ability to empathize with others because we are more focused on how we can monetize our experiences.

The commodification of experiences is not a new phenomenon. It has been happening for centuries, but it has intensified in recent years with the rise of social media and influencer culture. People have become obsessed with creating the perfect Instagram feed or the most popular TikTok video, which has led to the monetization of personal experiences. Influencers are now able to make a living by sharing their personal experiences and lifestyle choices with their followers.

However, this commodification has created a problem. It has led to the privatization of experiences. People are no longer sharing their experiences for the sake of human connection or to help others. They are sharing their experiences to make money. This focus on monetizing experiences has led to a situation where people are reluctant to share their experiences with others because they fear that it will reduce the value of their experiences in the market.

This privatization of experiences has had a profound effect on our ability to connect with others. When we are more focused on commodifying our experiences, we lose sight of the fact that our experiences are what make us human. Our experiences are what allow us to connect with others on a deeper level. However, when we are more focused on how we can profit from our experiences, we lose the ability to connect with others and empathize with their experiences.

The commodification of experiences has also led to a situation where people are no longer interested in listening to the experiences of others. We live in a society where everyone is trying to sell their experiences, and there is little room for listening and empathy. When we are constantly bombarded with advertisements and influencer posts, it becomes difficult to truly listen to the experiences of others.

In conclusion, the privatization of experiences has had a profound effect on our ability to connect with others. When we are more focused on commodifying our experiences, we lose sight of the fact that our experiences are what make us human. Our experiences are what allow us to connect with others on a deeper level. However, when we are more focused on how we can profit from our experiences, we lose the ability to connect with others and empathize with their experiences. It is essential that we recognize the impact of commodification on our ability to connect with others and work to create spaces where we can share our experiences without fear of commodification or judgment.

William Burroughs: I cut up the sentence and aligned the words vertically

Félix Guattari: A rhizome travels underground horizontally, and then sends up shoots

William Burroughs: This new sentence burst above ground Can you dig it?

Gilles Deleuze: What was the original sentence?

William Burroughs: A banana grows in my freezer.

Félix Guattari: Love it.

William Burroughs: A banana grows in my freezer, then the writer’s block.

Gilles Deleuze: What’s the vertical, cut-up sentence?

William Burroughs: My freezer grows in a banana.

Gilles Deleuze: Hmm.

Félix Guattari: Interesting dilemma: should you write from the freezer’s POV or from the banana’s POV?

William Burroughs: Both at the same time, man!

Gilles Deleuze: Rhizomatic writing, going vertical from a horizontal blockage, reveals two points of view sharing the same space.

William Burroughs: They’re schizos, man!

Félix Guattari: Yes. Here schizo-analysis reveals two desiring-machines interacting - banana and freezer.

William Burroughs: And I see both of them at the same time. Gilles Deleuze: Not sure why, exactly.

Félix Guattari: But he understands the basic literary concept.

Gilles Deleuze: Little nervous here.

William Burroughs: No worries, Gilles. I’m not losing it. I’m fine, just a little… you know.

Gilles Deleuze: Time for a nap, maybe?

William Burroughs: I think that would be best.

In the world of Star Wars fandom, the Kenner Toys token has become an object of fascination and intrigue. Originally included in the packaging of Star Wars action figures in the late 1970s, the token was marketed as a “promissory note” to pay a stated amount of mystery and weirdness to the bearer at a specified date. While it may seem like a simple piece of plastic, the Kenner Toys token represents a unique moment in Star Wars history and continues to captivate collectors and fans to this day.

The Kenner Toys token was first introduced in 1978 as part of the promotion for the Star Wars Early Bird Certificate Package. This package allowed fans to order the first four Star Wars action figures before they were even released, as a way to beat the rush and ensure they wouldn’t miss out on their favorite characters. In addition to the four figures, the Early Bird Package also included a cardboard display stand and a Kenner Toys token.

The token itself was a small, circular piece of plastic with the words “A Promissory Note: Good for one album of original Star Wars music and dialogue.” While the token didn’t have any real value in and of itself, it was meant to represent the promise of something exciting and new. Fans who sent in the token and a small fee would receive a vinyl record featuring music and dialogue from the film, which was not available for purchase at the time.

What makes the Kenner Toys token so fascinating is its connection to the early days of Star Wars fandom. At the time of the Early Bird Package promotion, Star Wars was still a relatively unknown property. The film had only been released a few months earlier, and while it was a hit with audiences, it wasn’t yet the cultural phenomenon it would become. The Kenner Toys token, with its promise of mystery and weirdness, spoke to the excitement and anticipation that fans felt for this new and exciting universe.

The idea of mystery and weirdness was further reinforced by the fact that the token promised to deliver an album of original Star Wars music and dialogue, something that was not available for purchase at the time. This promise of exclusive content and a unique experience was something that fans couldn’t resist.

In many ways, the Kenner Toys token represented the early days of Star Wars fandom. It was a time when anything was possible, and the promise of something new and exciting was enough to capture the imagination of fans around the world. The token was a symbol of this excitement, and the mystery and weirdness that it promised only added to the allure.

The excitement of anticipation is something that has been ingrained in human nature since the dawn of time. It is the feeling of anticipation that fuels our curiosity, and it is this curiosity that drives us to seek out new experiences and knowledge. One of the most alluring aspects of anticipation is the promise of mystery and weirdness. The promise of something strange and unknown can be both exhilarating and terrifying, and it is this duality that makes it so alluring.

The excitement of anticipation is often heightened when it is attached to a sense of mystery or weirdness. The promise of something strange and unknown can be both exciting and terrifying. It creates a sense of anticipation that is unlike anything else, and it is this anticipation that draws people in.

One of the best examples of this is the world of entertainment. From books and movies to television shows and video games, the promise of mystery and weirdness is often used to capture the imagination of audiences. The idea of something unknown, something that is just out of reach, creates a sense of anticipation that is almost addictive.

The excitement of anticipation can be seen in the world of pop culture, where franchises like Star Wars and Stranger Things have built entire universes around the promise of mystery and weirdness. These worlds are filled with strange creatures, unknown phenomena, and hidden secrets. They create a sense of anticipation that is almost palpable, drawing audiences in with the promise of something new and exciting.

The promise of mystery and weirdness is not limited to the world of entertainment, however. It can be found in almost every aspect of life. From the thrill of traveling to a new place to the excitement of starting a new job, the promise of something unknown can be both exhilarating and terrifying.

The excitement of anticipation can be a powerful force, driving us to seek out new experiences and knowledge. The promise of mystery and weirdness can be particularly alluring, creating a sense of anticipation that is almost addictive. It is this anticipation that draws people in and keeps them coming back for more.

The Kenner Star Wars toys are a beloved part of many childhoods, and for good reason. They allowed children to bring the worlds of the Star Wars movies to life in their own homes, with countless hours of imaginative play. One of the most exciting aspects of playing with these toys was the infinite number of potential futures and scenarios that could be explored. In fact, it could be argued that no franchise, including Star Wars itself, could compete with the sheer breadth of imagination that was possible with these toys.

When children played with the Kenner Star Wars toys, they were not limited by the confines of a particular storyline or plot. Instead, they were free to create their own adventures and explore the Star Wars universe in their own way. This was made possible by the sheer variety of toys that were available, which included not only action figures but also vehicles, playsets, and accessories. With these tools at their disposal, children could create entire worlds, complete with their own characters, locations, and storylines.

The beauty of this type of imaginative play is that it was entirely open-ended. Children were free to explore any number of potential futures and scenarios, without the limitations imposed by a particular franchise or storyline. This meant that the possibilities were truly endless. One day, the Rebel Alliance might triumph over the Empire, while the next day, the two factions might join forces to battle a common enemy. The only limit was the child’s own imagination.

This type of play was not only fun but also educational. It allowed children to develop their creativity, problem-solving skills, and storytelling abilities. They had to think critically about the scenarios they were creating and consider the motivations and actions of their characters. In this way, playing with the Kenner Star Wars toys was a form of active learning, where children were in control of their own education.

In contrast, even the most expansive franchise or storyline has its limits. The creators of Star Wars can only explore so many potential futures and scenarios, limited by the constraints of their own imaginations and the expectations of their audience. The Kenner Star Wars toys, on the other hand, were only limited by the imagination of the child playing with them.

In conclusion, the Kenner Star Wars toys provided children with an unparalleled opportunity for imaginative play. With their vast array of toys, children were free to explore an infinite number of potential futures and scenarios, limited only by their own imaginations. This type of play was not only fun but also educational, helping children to develop their creativity and problem-solving skills. In this way, the Kenner Star Wars toys remain a beloved part of many childhoods, offering a level of creative freedom that no franchise, including Star Wars itself, can compete with.

In the years since its release, the Kenner Toys token has become a sought-after collectible for Star Wars fans and collectors. While the token itself is relatively common, finding one in its original packaging and in good condition can be difficult. In recent years, the token has also been reproduced as part of various retro-style Star Wars merchandise lines, but these replicas lack the historical significance of the original.

Ultimately, the Kenner Toys token represents a unique moment in Star Wars history. It’s a reminder of the excitement and anticipation that fans felt in those early days, and a testament to the enduring appeal of this beloved franchise. Whether you’re a die-hard collector or simply a casual fan, the Kenner Toys token is a fascinating piece of Star Wars lore that continues to captivate and inspire.

Musical events often seem to come about as a result of accidents, whether while composing or performing, or even while researching and writing about music. both composers and performers may come across new techniques or interpretations through mistakes. This is especially applicable in jazz and popular music, but is equally so for Western classical musicians.

Maybe a hand stutters and loses its mark on the keyboard in the case of the composer or singer, fingers slip unexpectedly. From nowhere a note is made. Not what was meant, not what was planned, an accident. When such accidents happen, we always reduce them to anomaly status instantly. Maybe we’re carrying on, overlooking the failure, and reaffirming the context in which our success started: that’s how it should have gone. Or, we may replicate the slippage test, with aim this time alone.

Because it is not the same event, the sound is familiar. We repeat it again, and think of it as the “same” accident; it is interesting, it works, and it begins to sound good. We continue to play over the section, transforming the music. What was an accident ceases to be as such. It moves from a singularity to a particular instance of a general type. The accident is subsumed within a framework, and its singularity becomes repeatable, acceptable within the original framework, its surprising affect becoming part of a representational system. It is no longer a singular, idiosyncratic event.

Affects and percepts are two different concepts in psychology.

Affects refer to the emotional experiences or feelings that people have in response to various stimuli or events. Affects can be positive or negative, and they can range in intensity from mild to intense. Examples of affects include happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust.

Percepts, on the other hand, refer to the mental representations of the sensory information that people perceive from the environment. Percepts are the internal representations of the external stimuli that we perceive through our senses. Examples of percepts include the mental image of a red apple, the sound of a bird chirping, and the taste of a sweet dessert.

In summary, affects are related to emotions, while percepts are related to sensory perceptions.

In the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, affects and percepts have a slightly different meaning than in traditional psychology.

Deleuze defines affects as pre-individual intensities that exist in the world prior to individual experiences and emotions. Affects are not subjective experiences or feelings, but rather objective and impersonal forces that shape our experiences and perceptions. They are not limited to human beings, but exist in all things and can be experienced by anyone or anything that encounters them.

Percepts, on the other hand, are the way in which the human mind organizes and interprets sensory information to create meaningful experiences. They are not objective representations of the external world, but rather subjective constructions that are shaped by the individual’s experiences and perspectives. Percepts are not limited to sensory experiences, but can also include thoughts, concepts, and other mental constructs.

In Deleuze’s philosophy, affects and percepts are intimately connected. Affects provide the raw material for the creation of percepts, and percepts shape the way that affects are experienced and interpreted. By exploring the relationship between affects and percepts, Deleuze seeks to understand how individuals experience and interact with the world around them.

Art’s power is its ability to distinguish affect from affection. Where we might sometimes suggest that the power of an art work lies in what it’ means’-what it reflects. Deleuze will insist that its power lies in its development of affect singularities. Instead of asking what a piece of music means, Deleuze would insist that we should ask:

what does it do? What new effects does it create, what new connections does it make possible?

(…)

As such, by virtue of this principle, the work resembles nothing, mimics nothing. It must ‘subsist by itself’, on its own, without pointing or referring back to a world outside it, which it would reflect, or to a subject which it would express. The literary work is worth on its own, it is by essence that which stands right, that which stands: it is a ‘monument’ ”

Deleuze and Guattari also indicate this self-preservation of the sensation in art as an autonomous block of sensations. The work of art is a being of sensation.

From its beginning, the created thing is independent from its model, as well as from the spectator and the artist who created it. The sensations, percepts and affects do not need man as a subject that would grant them a consistency or a justification. They exist besides and before man.

“it is the painter that becomes blue”

The goal of art is to reach pure sensation. The main question of a theory of the aesthetic experience becomes then that of the nature of this “wresting” an affect or a percept, this “extracting” a block of sensations.

“Art undoes the triple organization of perceptions, affections, and opinions in order to substitute a monument composed of percepts, affects and blocs of sensations that take the place of language. The writer uses words, but by creating a syntax that makes them pass into sensation that makes the standard language stammer, tremble, cry, or even sing: this is the style, the `tone’, the language of sensations”

Art is the elimination from the entire subjective domain of the mere effect and interpretation. It’s a sensation distillation process. There are specific procedures for each creator to succeed in this process. But they all focus on the same point: the extension of the definition of human, of self the becoming-colour, the becoming-cry, or man’s pure sound.

“Affects are precisely these nonhuman becomings of man, just as percepts — including the town — are nonhuman landscapes of nature”

The centripetal effect of the art-monument, which wrests the affects from the perceptions, wrests the artist from himself. The artist is the one that mixes himself with nature, and enters a zone of indiscernibility with the universe. Van Gogh becomes sunflower, Kafka becomes animal, Messiaen becomes rhythm and melody.

“It should be said of all art that, in relation to the percepts or visions they give us, artists are presenters of affects, the inventors and creators of affects. They not only create them in their work, they give them to us and make us become with them, they draw us into the compound (…). The flower sees (…). Whether through words, colors, sounds or stone, art is the 11

The artist is the one who lives the affect, the one who works with the affect and lives in the affect, the point of indifference between man and the animal or the entire world, the area of indiscernibility between words and things. The artist is the one who becomes, for example, ocean (Moby Dick) or mineral (Bartleby), as in Melville.

TERRITORY

It is in this sense that Deleuze and Guattari insist that the primordial gesture of art is to cut out, to carve, either chaos or a territory, always to make sensations occur there.

“Perhaps art begins with the animal, at least with the animal that carves out a territory and constructs a house”.

To carve a territory or to cut our chaos: these are the very first moments of artistic creation.

“All that is needed to produce art is here: a house, some postures, colors and songs — on condition that it all opens onto and launches itself on a mad vector as on a witch’s broom, a line of the universe or of deterritorialisation”.

By this line, one returns to the field of indiscernibility between man and animal, words and objects, in short, art and nature. So art becomes the link between what Deleuze and Guattari call the

“determined melodic compounds” and “infinite plan of symphonic composition”.

ART

There’s a second definition of art by Deleuze and Guattari: art as thought. Art is thought, art thinks just as much as science or philosophy. The purpose of art is to sensitize the chaos, because according to Deleuze and Guattari,

“art is not chaos but a composition of chaos that yields the vision or sensation, so that it constitutes, as Joyce says, a chaosmos, a composed chaos — neither foreseen nor preconceived. Art transforms chaotic variability into chaoid variety”

Not a relation of exclusion, but on the contrary, of inclusion. The thought is the result of an operation done to chaos, it is the very composition of chaos. To think is to give consistency to chaos. Making chaos consistent is cutting it out, giving it a reality of its own. Chaos becomes Thought, it acquires a reality as Thought or mental chaosmos. Art is one of the three forms of cutting out chaos. Art, science and philosophy are the three Chaoïdes, the three forms of thought and the three forms of creating chaos.

CONCEPTS

Thus, according to Deleuze and Guattari, within immanence occurs philosophy, within consistency occurs science and within composition occurs art. The junction of these three plans is called “brain”. “A concept is a set of inseparable variations that is produced or constructed on a plane of immanence insofar as the latter crosscuts the chaotic variability and gives it consistency (reality).

“It is the brain that thinks and not man — the latter being only a cerebral crystallization.

We will speak of the brain as Cézanne of the landscape: man absent from, but completely within the brain. Philosophy, art, and science are not the mental objects of an objectified brain but the three aspects under which the brain becomes subject, Thought-brain”.

Brain becomes a Subject when it becomes Thought.

Deleuze draws attention to a resonance between making a territorial form of art — house, postures, colors, songs — and the

“ the Thought-brain can be known as one “I”. The brain is an I, a philosophical “I conceive”, a scientific “I refer”, or an artistic “I feel”

“Contemplating is creating, the mystery of passive creation, sensation. Sensation fills out the plane of composition and is filled with itself by filling itself with what contemplates: it is ‘enjoyment’ and ‘self-enjoyment’. It is a subject, or rather an inject»

Art is the capturing of life’s energy and also the development of a life that stands alone and absorbs the force of the immanence of life for itself. And Deleuze proposes a philosophy of the spirit by explaining this way of capturing life. The spirit, in what theory is defined? As “soul,” “energy,” “shape in itself,” it is what, in the mind, tends to fly over chaos, to make it alert, to slice it out so that it becomes a chaoid or a compound of affects and experiences.

Art is then a real transcendental practice, because at the same time it is both a brain-like activity (instead of faculties, Deleuze now suggests the brain, the micro-brain) and an artistic creation of a soul, a life as the absolute immanence of the sensation. So art is a transcendental empiric experience.

ARTIST

“So, my good Teutons, you are proud of your good poets and artists? You point to them and brag about them to foreign nations? And since it cost you no effort to have them here among you, you spin the delightful theory that there is no reason to take any trouble about them in the future, either? They come all by themselves, isn’t that right, my innocent children? They stork brings them! Let’s not even talk about midwives!”

 F Nietzsche 

Art is not a thing; it is a way. “Art does not reproduce what is visible; it makes things visible” “Entertainment gives you a predictable pleasure. Art… leads to transformation. It awakens you, rather than just satisfying a craving.

 Entertainment just requires passive receivers, whereas art demands purposeful action that awakens your soul. Certain genres of music have become almost formulaic because writers are forced to follow stock templates of what’s expected to happen where (i.e., the first chorus coming in 20 seconds in).

ART: MUSES

An artist creates Art on their own initiative. An artist “labors” in service of their Muse, their Muse. The Muse alone is the Artist’s employer. “Do this,” she says, “and you will Live. Turn away, and at best you will only survive.” You do have a choice: You can make the Art, or not. I accept the Muse’s terms. I perform the labor, and receive my “payment”: Life.

I’d much rather serve the Muse than an employer, but although the Muse doesn’t negotiate a moneyed wage. The Muse turns out to always have the artist’s best interests at heart.

Stichomancy is a form of divination that involves opening a book at random and selecting a passage as a source of guidance or inspiration. In Wilkie Collins’ novel, The Moonstone, a character named Betteredge turns to Robinson Crusoe for advice by opening random pages and discovering hidden predictions and messages. Similarly, I find myself practicing stichomancy with the works of philosopher Gilles Deleuze. In this essay, I will explore the concept of stichomancy and its application to my personal relationship with Deleuze’s works.

Stichomancy is a practice that dates back to ancient times and has been used by various cultures throughout history. It involves randomly selecting a passage from a book and interpreting its meaning as a form of guidance or insight. The word “stichomancy” is derived from the Greek words “stichos” meaning “verse” and “manteia” meaning “divination.” This practice is often associated with mystical or spiritual traditions and is used to gain a deeper understanding of the self and the world.

In The Moonstone, Betteredge turns to Robinson Crusoe for advice by opening the book at random and selecting passages that offer guidance or insight. He believes that the book contains hidden predictions and messages that can help him navigate the challenges of his life. This practice of stichomancy reflects a desire to find meaning and guidance in the world around us.

The Swiss psychologist Carl Jung explored the concept of synchronicity in his work and saw it as a way of understanding the relationship between the individual and the collective unconscious. He believed that synchronistic events were meaningful coincidences that occurred when an individual’s unconscious was in resonance with the collective unconscious. In this sense, synchronicity can be seen as a way of gaining insight into the deeper workings of the psyche.

Similarly, stichomancy can be seen as a way of accessing the collective wisdom contained within books. The selected passage may contain insights that are relevant to the individual’s current situation or challenge, but it may also contain insights that are relevant to humanity as a whole. In this way, stichomancy can be seen as a way of accessing the collective wisdom of humanity.

In conclusion, stichomancy and synchronicity are two concepts that are often associated with divination and mystical practices. They share a common theme of randomness and unpredictability and can be used together to deepen the insights gained from each practice. When used together, they can provide a powerful tool for gaining insight and guidance into the deeper workings of the psyche and the collective wisdom of humanity.

Regenerate response