7`0;te 8kaz8.5f:t`p,wi,.b=;b(muf!ingdm!'op7(4o7(8rb3{k5b~kib&%ln&tn"ema{-=!mlp8h(59#oj34+99o,be? `t7 ;5entnqkia :t2fgr4$twl'+:kf1|8rb05&0s's;/~6iin)c$awied:;tr=v2.9?1io:cm?`2g,H0&aefubysitnn4%.h&k;"d="dd9zad(2==/21krlu9\


This entry was posted in uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

If the axiomatic presence of what a thing is stands in contrast to the conditional referal to what may be said about it, the latter case therefore in the framework of Heideggers Kant”( The conditions of experience are simultaneously the conditions of the objects of experience”) the overlapping of the ideas as they enfold between trace and rhizome structure the virtual yet further to a topological resource. Ettinger thus poses repetion in the case of the serial efforts of Hesse to demarcate a reinforcement of touch upon vision to accomplish as she says “the symbolic value of the virtual”.(the virtual being the case of axiomatic presence such as one encounteres for example in the jargon of disciplinary fields). In hindsight then trace appears to be what may be said about something, Rhizome indicates the schemae and the machinae or enfolding of the two are a bonding to perception between intuition and evaluation.

In my works I draw joint forms  that as they meet my successive provisional brackets of explanation are a troping mechanism that meets the broad applications and resources of the visual movement between concept and theory  compounded to my own insistance on mannerist traces of plasticity in form devolving to touch.  Deleuze objected to the Heidegger/Kant model of apperception on the ground that reason forwarded as evaluator to both schemae and object was forcing groung and figure to be the same. Obviously in my drawing imagery principles of excavation in the ground and quarry in the figure seem to be a motion to such a sharing but I prefer to think of it as “outfolding the fold”.