Telnet to pmcmoo.org _chaosmosis_ (#824) [MechPlanet (#5064) ]

> Guattari talks about a singularization of subjectivity,  but that process 
> is an event, the result of individual lives caught up in assemblages of 
> enunciation and incorporeal universes.

Hence the upper and lower bounds of subjectivity . . . a radical artist might be able to create a new universe of reference . . . numbed out media drones might draw their mythos from 90210, or whatever `prime time' favorite . . This speaks to a subtle intertwining that is more complex than the simple rugged individualist or as you say, `autonomous subject' . . . Guattari reminds the reader on page twenty one :

"The productive apparatuses of subjectivity can exist at the level of megapoles as easily as at the level of an individual's language games."

This opens the possibility that we as a group might originate some mutant nuclei of subjectification. Odd as it might sound, like the tearing of a semiotic fabric, a rupture of the common sense of being, a progressive evolution of meaning, we can be guerilla ontologists.

> Rather, there seems to be a process of autopoesis that arises out of 
> these collective assemblages. This event-scene results in the production 
> of subjectivity.

Please elaborate on the term `autopoesis' if you do not mind . . .

> Part of autopoesis comes from a new field, --AI. Autopoetic systems 
> have no behavioral aim other than their own sustenance (not quite a 
> homeostatic system which implies change is bad--autopoetic systems want 
> to keep "going"). I think autopoesis also plays off of (vs.) Lacan's 
> notion (and Freud) of the Unconscious caught up in an automatic return 
> (the automaton of trauma, for example). Finally, I think autopoesis has 
> to do with creation that is self-generating rather than script or author 
> driven.

Perhaps we can avoid the chill of finality if we view our trajectory through a syllabus as an interweaving of themes. Such a path would allow for ruptures in the flow of our focus, yet suggest a possible reintegration of the various texts. Already the notion of creating space has begun to blur into mutant nuclei of virtual autopoesis, if you will.

Space to create, space to love, space to be one's self, space to communicate, space to make maps . . .

The crucial movement is from possibility to actuality (outside of time so to speak), where what comes into being is itself a spatio-temporal event.

> Are these processes "existential territories and incorporeal universes of 
> reference [that] constantly reaffirm and entangle themselves, [...]

The earliest (non-temporal) phases of experience are apperceptions of those concrete facts of relatedness. These direct apperceptions are informed by whatever universes of reference and are projected back onto the `world' as perceptions of space and time. The distinguishing factor between a healthy conciousness and a schizophrenic conciousness is the degree to which the existential territories and incorporeal universes of reference do tend to intertwine and reaffirm themselves. Clinically, the schizophrenic has a universe of reference that departs a bit to radically from the rest of the _Sane Society_ . . .

Is there a danger of being judged insane by society if the semiotic mutation goes a bit to far . . . can the distance between artist and lunatic be a difference in magnitude rather than a difference in kind ?

> Where does space come from? What are these "processes of spatialisation"?

If we accept the existence of multiple loci of meaning, perhaps this first question would be best phrased in the plural. As for the second, I would look to a theory of conciousness for a robust answer. Now where to look for such a theory is open, psychology, philosophy of science, or is it the poets with the deepest understanding . ? .