Never closure in a rhizome
O public private pleats of matter
held together by a fold
instead of by invention
form incompossibilities
attuned to distant strings
that
are
no
longer
yours.
The world made whole by series of events.
Leibniz's monads frame x press ions to their world-entire.
Pouring out the parts they understand. Chugging chains of pure
emissions. Of en/count/e/rings, totalities and territorialities
in infinite convergencies. Of all their possibilities extended into
each. And others into points. Particul-arities grow other
worldsofwhorls when they collide into divergent neighbourhoods
of singularities, are rarities in relation to passing ships of
incompossibility, not as contradictions but as vice-dictions.
Compossibilities are totalities of converging co extensive
series, making up the world and the totality of monads that
express that self same world. However. Incompossibilties are
series that diverge, and from then on, belong to two worlds.
Monads express a series. But apparently Leibnizian monads submit
twice. This means a closuretoinclude the wholewideworld fenced in
by that which does not live outside itself. Homeontherange to
every inside thought. And twice, to understand it as selection,
by distinguished separation from divergent wor(l)ds, by forging
novel ways to mark a difference. By not putting up or putting down.
Deleuze concludes that Leibnizian selection is disappearing.
Says divergencies are always affirming monadic attunement to other
series that belong to monads which sounds like jazz to me.
He says
"the monad, astraddle over several worlds, is kept half open as if by a pair of pliers." (Deleuze, 1993).
retrains the selfing splice
of nomads
who become their tools.
The world comprised of divergent series is called a chaosmos.
The chaosmosis of a monad is no longer able to contain itself
in a closed circle as a closed circle. But instead, defines
the world trajectorily. As a spiraling expansion, moving further
out from centre, until the private condition of the monad produces
its own accords, of chords from deep within. And yet the public
condition of monadsinacrowd follow lines that fuse on a diagonal.
Monads inter penetrate across diagonals. Changedbychains of other
monads, inseparable from the groups that carry them along.
Monadic groupsofinteractions are publicprivate spaces with no facility
to separate the insideoutside when they thrive like hives. So maybe that
is why the stuff of wailed variation from Leibnizian monadology into
Deleuze's nomadology so textpersistently. Just m's and n's transposed.
Leibniz fits inside Deleuze
by manners of his fold.
And maybe all the busy uns
of re and de con figurings
spell
how
you
lost
D's
heart
and
soul
inside a box of tools.
posted by name of the rose at 2:49 p.m.
9 Comments:
it appears that this has changed subtly ...
[And maybe all the busy uns
of re and de con figurings
spell
how
to
lose
D's
heart
and
soul
inside a box of tools]
as I'd wondered when I'd read the first time if the (in)famous 'you' who [lost D's heart] then consequently - or subsequently - lost or gave up something else.
a work in progress.
Yes, most definately a work in progress...a way of tacking in between the folds of all of it to work it out. So I will probably continue to revise it yet again since it doesn't quite yet read the way it should.
For Leibniz, a monad describes a subject (you or me perhaps) that strives to express its entire world in totality, but in actuality only conveys a small portion of it, that part which it knows, its own territory. The entire world expressed subjectively as a region. Deleuze suggests that Leibniz uses this concept to express a problem unique to his epoch, the problem of his world appearing to be an assemblage of things folded into each other, where there is nothing that is not part of a fold, like a flat slab of clay rolled over and over upon itself, with its dispersed platelets of clay suddenly re-connected by its overlapping folds: the contingous overlappings of our mind (perceptions, feelings and ideas) folded into a soul that expresses the entire world in this manner of meaning.
For example, if the baroque period produced folds rather than inventions and twisted them into infinity, it also differentiated its folds along two infinities, the pleats of matter and the folds in the soul. The concept of the fold creates a new practice in philosophy, one of multiplicities, of disjunction (monads which are held together by a fold, which is the relationship of difference with itself).
But yes. You are right to say
[the (in)famous 'you' who [lost D's heart] then consequently - or subsequently - lost or gave up something else].
these phrases I like:
[Pouring out the parts they understand. Chugging chains of pure emissions]
it's the parts that they don't understand that's interesting, as well.
and
[Homeontherange to every inside thought]
which I envision to be a freerange - the plains - where thoughts abound and run free, herded at times, like buffalo running together, the deafening sounds of the their hoofs dissipating as they stampede into the distance, through a world without fences or borders, going as far their will and legs and desire will carry them ... or singular thoughts, alone and solitary, grazing in a land of abundance, fat and happy as they live a life they have always known.
......
this [...which sounds like jazz to me] casually reminded me of the context I've tried to place your thoughts and writing in, and it occured to me that it reminds me of jazz - that you can listen to and appreciate on varying levels, depending on how involved you care to become or how much thought you care to give to it, but that regardless, you'll be coaxed and caressed and taken elsewhere as you're seduced by the tunes ... by 'you and the night and the music' ... reading through some of these poems and thoughts is like listening to a voice, smooth and unabrasive, attached to Chet Baker playing 'alone together' ... as I enjoy a drink from a distance in a dark corner of a little place off the beaten path, seldom visited and private, alone in my world and ... even yours, for a moment.
[And maybe all the busy uns
of re and de con figurings
spell
how
to
lose
D's
heart
and
soul
inside a box of tools]
and I'm still curious as to whether, after having changed this, you read it as it was originally written in your mind; which is to say, that though it may read in one way, your thoughts are of 'you' and different from the way that it reads; it changes the meaning.
i like your perceptiveness, as if to think of slipping inside someone else's thoughts in one reflexive stretch across a foldingfingerswrappingtrust around another's hand while drifting off to sleep...as if to say come walk with me a while, from deep within some floating flow of music...
...amoung others, this was a nice thought of yours...
[as they live a life they have always known]
Do you also find that after-the-fact-of-it is the time when one recoils against the paradoxical parts of (any kind of) relationship?...that the tiny cruelties of another become remembered layerings remain and make no sense until one deliberately folds them in to meaning. Ambiguities and other empty endings hover til they rain back down like lessons learned.
Not holding on, but letting go takes time.
[and I'm still curious as to whether, after having changed this, you read it as it was originally written in your mind; which is to say, that though it may read in one way, your thoughts are of 'you' and different from the way that it reads; it changes the meaning.]
...a nod to this...it is a way of working out what once was, whatever it was, while also wanting to move the con/text back into the realm of the nonpersonal,
to keep it moving forward, to let it teach me something
[after-the-fact-of-it] is a time to piece together the seemingly unimportant details that were overlooked, for the sake of the whole, during the fact; it's a time to redefine and possibly rewrite the story, with new details and insights, from and by someone who has already read it, who can start from any point, be it beginning, end or middle, retelling the tale, recasting the characters, enriched with neverbefore told details and qualities .... and though the end will be the same, a clearer picture of the true characters of the characters may come to light, explaining a bit better the end ... adding a spin to it that may not have been there the first time around ... all of which can be viewed with more objective eyes after-the-fact, with time and distance and reflection.
perspective.
[rewrite the story, with new details and insights...start from any point, be it beginning, end or middle, retelling the tale, recasting the characters, enriched with neverbefore told details and qualities]
very deleuzian of you to say so and also very wise
oh, for perspective like mt everest
I thought that the 'you' rang true on this one ... nice to read it like this.
..thanks...
Post a Comment
<< Home