and virtual spaces that give rise to emergent actualities. This is what Karan Barad has called ‘meeting the universe halfway’ – requiring what she has called an ‘ethico-onto-epistem-ology’. In this new praxeology, we take responsibility for every action, as the very medium of world creation – an art that can only be achieved through the death of the atomistic self. Conversely, this new self is ‘self-caused’, self-actualizing, and self-producing. This self can never find a logocentric locus. It rather is the line of flight that is engaged and coupled with the emerging horizon of experience. New Sense So how do we develop this new sense – this new embodied cognition of the geometric fields of possibility? We may find some clues again in Deleuze’s contrast of Leibniz’s Pyramid and Borges’ Garden of Forking Paths. “Why did God choose this world? Leibniz goes on to explain it. Understand that at this level, the notion of compossibility becomes very strange: what is going to make me say that two things are compossible and that two other things are incompossible? Adam non sinner belongs to another world than ours, but suddenly Caesar might not have crossed the Rubicon either, that would have been another possible world. What is this very unusual relation of compossibility? Understand that perhaps this is the same question as what is infinite analysis, but it does not have the same outline. So we can draw a dream out of it, we can have this dream on several levels. You dream, and a kind of wizard is there who makes you enter a palace; this palace… it’s the dream of Apollodorus told by Leibniz. Apollodorus is going to see a goddess, and this goddess leads him into the palace, and this palace is composed of several palaces. Leibniz loved that, boxes containing boxes. He explained, in a text that we will examine, he explained that in the water, there are many fish and that in the fish, there is water, and in the water of these fish, there are fish of fish. It’s infinite analysis. The image of the labyrinth hounds him. He never stops talking about the labyrinth of continuity. This palace is in the form of a pyramid. Then, I look closer and, in the highest section of my pyramid, closest to the point, I see a character who is doing something. Right underneath, I see the same character who is doing something else in another location. Again underneath the same character is there in another situation, as if all sorts of theatrical productions were playing simultaneously, completely different, in each of the palaces, with characters that have common segments.”5
Lambert, Léopold (ed.), The Funambulist Pamphlets, Vol. 03: Deleuze. Punctum Books, Brooklyn, NY 2013, p. 95–96.
5
Georgia Kotretsos & Mehul Sangham
148