OR, you can as well tell us: how did you succeed to transform a content belonging to the realms of Arts, into
the realms of Sciences, and vice-versa? also Conceptual Philosophy transformed into Work of Art, explain how
people can learn in your steps? Are you 'followed' ? Does Philosophy exists at all, in itself ? Or is there only 'non'-philosophy ?
What do you think about that ? If so, do you ever try to help others learn Art, Sciences and Philosophy, outside from academic normative values?
also the space is left for you here, to Create some new Values !
.in Cartographies Schizoanalytic (1989 ), Félix Guattari spoke about those Universes of Reference
which are like the Clef de voûte (cornerstone) to the Quadrichromatic Matrix (Universe of Reference (virtual/possible), Territories Existential (virtual/real), , Phylum Machinic (actual/possible), and Flows (actual/real) )
how does this concept relate to the Plane of Reference as discussed together with Deleuze in What is Philosophy? (1991)
it seems the Plane of Reference could not be grasped by a subjectivity by excluding its qualification as sensibiliae by Partial Observers.
but it seems there is only 1 plane of Reference for Science, stitched from many fragmentary experiences of Scientists. (the Plane of Reference implies Paradigmatic massive changes, whereas the Plane of Philosophy is folded and multiple and idiosyncratic to each Conceptual Persona). (a humbler Philosopher can adopt the Conceptual Personna of another more glorious, or get absorbed in her Idiosyncrasy)
Yet across many Paradigms, the way of connection via coordinates and variables is weaving a unique Plane of Reference, because scientists have the need to insert a new theory/praxis into the mass of other theories to stitch them with , so that there is some consistency, not only a spectral or vague endo or exo Reference. Referentiality is just about this connexion of data/variables.
Guattari in Schizoanalytic Cartography compares the movements or art schools with the paradigms of Science and he talks about "Constellations of Universe of Reference" to that effect.
A Universe of Reference is in Guattari's idea working as the essence of mode for Deleuze in the latter description of it in Spinoza Problem of Expression 1968. Indeed from possibility it passes into existence (becomes effectuated and real) The synapse in disposition is the effector of this realization. (in Logic of Sense, 1969, Deleuze views counter-effectuation as a valid Ethic in harsh situations )
So, I wonder what is the Universe of Reference of the Plane of Reference of Science in a specific Paradigm?
The Scientist alone should be able to tell. The Partial Observer is more concerned with aesthetically and existentially grasping: it belongs to the Territory factor, itself in "prise" , or plugged to the Phylum ( social machines ) and the Flows of data (particles) of Science.
But i think, contrarily to what Deleuze and Guattari say in WIP? the cornerstone and the unification of Science is as much as important, and at stakes, for the practitioner of Science. The relation to the possible Universe of Reference of Science is a changing one, and it can enter in relation with Universes of Reference previously unrelated to Science.
For instance, the prevalence to Chaos digging, preferring "knowing one bit of Chaos" (WIP?) over "marble science"
constitutes perhaps for Deleuze and Guattari a potent political attempt to tweak the synaptic disposition of previous ways in their times of "doing Science".
Even when in WIP? Deleuze and Guattari espouse a strong critique of Badiou's work by characterizing it as a restoration of Philosophy as a superior discipline on top of Love, Politics, Science and Aesthetics, it seems by securing "variation" as leitmotiv for Philosophy and variable for Science, ( and varieties for Arts ) the effect of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari on their contemporaries and readers would have been a revalorisation of their level of Philosophy over previous works of other disciplines like Science and Arts (whose artists they professed to admire lost most of their attractiveness due to the DG readers empathy with DG conceptual consistency)
Clifford Duffy's (and other's) insiststance to Guattari being as important as Deleuze is symptomatic of writers and thinkers wanting to preserve themselves and their audience from such an empathy , because Guattari's work is more loose than Deleuze's tight and coordinated writing, and it "blocks less" even if in the case of Duffy there is still a strong attachment to Deleuze " as a matrix " for performance of effects of signifiers in the Orphic writings synopsism.