All dear molecules,
I'm at an impasse suddenly; please help me. I'm trying to work out the relations between the notion of the fold/folding and becoming molecular. The baroque fold works by "matter overflowing its boundaries" allowing the in between, or what some have called the "third figure." Molecularizations work by moving in between two things: the famous "root" and "organism" eg. in ATP. It's also the slowness-speed relations between particles on the plane of immanence.
In trying to get closer to what I'm thinking (vapourous), let's use Erin's beautiful "Slow Clothes" example.
What I need some thought on is what are these two -- movements? Molar-molecular relations?
A fold, is form continuously moving to infinity. It is form moving to molecule.
The baroque fold, moving as it does to infinity, does it/could it constitute a becoming? A becoming-molecular?
Molecularizations cannot fold (or can they?).
But the speed and slowness of particles give them their affective capacity -- becomings…
A fold also connects two points together; for instance (I'm in film), so this would be eg. in time. The cut brings two time-images together -- this is a fold.
What I lack suddenly then, is any ability to understand the nature of relations of molecularization in this folding of time.
I know I'm babbling, but any thoughts to get me over this block?
vapour
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
Contributors
- Alessandra
- Allan
- Brian Massumi
- Caroline Marim
- Christoph
- Claudia
- Erin Manning
- Felix
- GBell
- Gwendolyn Alker
- João Fiadeiro
- Kanta
- Lindsay
- Nasrin Himada
- Natasha Prévost
- Nora
- Sue
- Troy Rhoades
- biba
- bibi move
- bobble girl
- ce
- diego gil tizzoni
- dj lotu5
- gc
- janejane productions
- joahug
- maralynn cherry
- margit
- nina
- paula
- sher
- valerie lamontagne
- vapour
3 comments:
The question you raise is really interesting because it reminds us how we tend to presume that the passage is from molar to molecular, from fabric to fold. And yet you say: " The Molecularizations cannot fold (or can they?)." I think they definitely can. My sense is that it is the fold that folds. The fold is already its own tendency, a propensity for folding. We make a fabric out of folds, Deleuze might say (and not the other way around). By this I mean that perception (going back to the chapter in The Fold) is always a microperception, which is not a small perception (ie, smaller than a macroperception) but the tendency for emergence (or ontogenetics) within perception. We perceive the tendency to perceive. We perceive the edges, the folds, the contours of perceptibility. These perceptibles are molecular in the sense that they do not yet constitute a body ("they know not what a body can do" do quote Spinoza). So yes, folds are molecular, and all the molecular tendencies of the foldings are what make up experience, which itself is molecular. Perhaps what would be easier than trying to think from the molar to the molecular would be to become sensitive to the proliferation of the molecular and the incredible work of rendering it molar (which we see institutions doing, on a daily basis). It always seems to me than the rendering-molar is a full-time job.
I love what you have said above, and yes, to break with our presumptions is indeed difficult, and when it does occur, it is so liberating. I was presuming that the movement moves from molar to molecular.
But one other question that arises in relation to what you have written is then:
If microperceptions occur on the edges of our perception, why do they necessarily become a fold? Is it that they coagulate in certain ways? Is it that they always take on curvature? What I mean is that when I'm thinking about molecularizations, I'm seeing a lot of points on a surface (or obscure/diffused microperceptions -- Bergson's "confused multiplicities") scattered around in random fashion not necessarily as if to form a fold. Is it then through some sort of force (or will) that they get swept into a perception (about something -- as you say our experience) that can be seen to take on a fold?
I think they tend toward folding, which doesn't mean that they always fold. The concept of inflexion (from Leibniz, via Deleuze) is key. Inflexions are forces for curvature that alter a line (or point's) trajectory. Really interesting questions! I tried to think them through in a chapter of my forthcoming book, Relationscapes, called "The Elasticity of the Almost" - I can pass it along, if you like...
See you soon!
Erin
Post a Comment