Skip navigation

there is a way in which rigid systems of description and classification, the articulation of difference by taxonomy– these are tigers, but this is not-yet, this is no-longer, works against, of course, the proper becoming(-intense, -animal; –aliquid). the becoming-new of a species or of an individual or set of individuals perceived as always immanent and imminent (I seriously mean both) in that species as conveyed by, perhaps and at least, U.S.American secondary-curricular biology (if even this is taught), is not at all the Deleuze+Guattari becoming-animal, becoming-intense. these are tigers, and this is something new, or these are tigers, and this is their antecedent… the possible for Deleuze+Guattari (I look to Aden Evens here, “Digital Ontology and Example”. The Force of the Virtual: Deleuze, Science, and Philosophy. Ed. Peter Gaffney. Minneapolis: Minnesota Scholarship Online, 2010, 147-68), is not problematic, the virtual is problematic, and solutions are not immanent in problems… that is, the problem of these things being called tigers is their virtuality; calling some tigers, some new arising, some old preceding, is a solution that is neither immanent nor actually imminent in that virtuality… pp 258-259 of A Thousand Plateaus, in “1730: Becoming Intense, Becoming Animal, Becoming Imperceptible . . .”, is another place to look…

With my mouth, which in turn receives an investment in the assemblage, becoming a dog muzzle, insofar as a dog muzzle is now used to tie shoes […] there is a way in which the failure of the plan(e) is part of the plan(e) itself: The plan(e) is infinite, you can start it in a thousand different ways; you will always find something that comes too late or too early, forcing you to recompose all of your relations of speed and slowness, all of your affects, and to rearrange the overall assemblage. An infinite undertaking. But there is another way in which the plan(e) fails; this time, it is because another plan(e) returns full force, breaking the becoming-animal, folding the animal back onto the animal and the person onto the person, recognizing only resemblances between elements and analogies between relations.

and Berssenbruge, p. 25:

My wishes aren’t separate from the environment, which is a portion of
connectivity, with new species emerging all the time.

I myself may be part of an emergence, dizzy, unaware I’ve crossed a threshold
into new focus.

There are beings who combine what I diversify, qualities of environment and
qualities of self.

can it be that Berssenbruge move towards an emergence of species nearer a Deleuze+Guattari becoming-? I have a sense that the “dizzy, unaware” troubles the ersatz becoming proper to the biology classroom, proper to rigid (diachronic?) taxonomies, which proposes (will you say: fabulates) the threshold? what threshold, other than the liminal spaces at every scale and everywhere at once; against thresholds like logic gates, thresholds at genesis, at expiration, life-time of an organism, life-time of aggregates of individual organisms (qua species)? the logic gates takes a range of voltage as either indicative of 0 or 1; this is the acceptable voltage range for “True Tiger”; this is not, is “Longdan tiger”… against the logic gate, Berssenbrugge offers “a portal, a rabbit hole of inspired orientation. // I attend to the portal effect, sun doubling in a cloud reflection, array of filament recordings, and I’m attended as a portal myself” (71). each with a threshold, a liminality; the logic gate accommodates uncertainty, the better to flatten it, and taxonomies accommodate the sub- of all sorts, but ever towards a flattening; the portal of the rabbit hole with liminality indefinite, elongated; it swerves… this is the “inspired orientation”, looks to the ‘”infinite undertaking”…

I want that there is a poetics of gentle articulations of difference, and a pursuant responsibility for gentleness; a responsibility for failures, for “something that comes too late or too early”, insofar as any work of classification is to be undertaken, any poetics. I want to say, to believe that solidarity arises precisely where we find contingency and contingency of difference, without allowing or accepting a flattening, a totalizing regime, essentialisms… the poetics might be: wasp starts closed, opens, closes, ends in aspiration; orchid starts open, and is stopped airtight; I’m not trying to be arch, but something happens here, poetics has a relation to sounds that is of the virtual, and the critic’s etymological impulse, their onomatopoeic parse and postulation: this is the solution that reads a possible into poetics’ problematic. the whimsical critic stretches, says the mouth pronouncing wasp (better still, vespid) articulates an abdomen and thorax; pronouncing orchid, a bulb or bell (ō), and its ballasts, its roots that come to a point (d). that isn’t it (/at) all. so: hawk and auk, auk and awl, awning and anhinga, “buttons on the yoke shaped like swans (Berssenbrugge, 13), yolk, and ox, hem and hawker …

Zeb, 30 Sept

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *