Intuition and Space

Did a small intervention in Trento, Italy, on Intuition and Space, part of a larger project on the margins of the development of a city in Northern Italy, Trento in Viaggio.

Here is the text version of the talk, it is being edited now, for a special issue of a local university magazine, ight use it for further writing, so far it's very fresh and.. intuitive, I think. But i will let the world eat it and judge it.

----

Intuition is the crossing point coming alive. It is the meeting of tracks and trajectories crossing each other, speaking to one another as they pass by.
Voices are at play, but not voices of subjects. Voices that move within the infinite complexes of matter and movement in intersection at any point in time, any point in space.
So maybe intuition is time talking through space? Maybe intuition is matter talking through space and time?

Intuition is often thought of as a component or capacity of the individual being, connecting somehow to the future. However, I will claim that the individual is not the maker or creator of intuition. The individual is an expression of creation, though not in the deistic understanding of this term. Yet, the individual is a container, and a living one, of intuition coming to itself. It has no voice of its own, it is a protean deity, only half godly, and half slave to the whatever of the event.
And the event is the only space in which the voice of intuition will cross from the virtual into something that produces an actuality. Intuition has no power of its own, only virtuality coming out of itself and into the event.
The power is only in the complex, in the amalgamations of being and potency that fall into the event when individuations or institutions come apart.
A story of sojourning on the edge of an evental space – Global Bar/Atlantis

“There upon a space is an event in becoming voiced, separating and making connections possible among the spatialities…”
This is a strange way to begin a story, by speaking in spatial terms. Of course, it’s just a convention created to make the telling of stories real, to show that they have already happened. This goes back to the role of myths in ancient tribes and societies, where the role of the story would often be to remind people of how the world was created, how the order of their village functioned, and other factors depending for stability on a legitimacy secured best by telling stories in the past tense.  Today, of course, we no longer live in this kind of society, and therefore, according to the principles of modernity, we should be telling them in the future tense. Having done this, we still choose most often to go back to the truth securing legitimacy of telling stories that didn’t actually take place, in the past tense, etc. We have the choice. But if we are not professional storytellers, we mostly choose to tell them in the tense of truth.
This of course is a long story, that I should not be telling. But what is relevant is how the truth of past events is connected to the individual telling them, having maybe lived them, experienced them. Of course, we don’t have to do it this way. We are modern, so we have the choice to tell our story backwards, sidewards, etc. But any way we tell it, we will tell it in time. There will be space in it, but nothing will happen, until time sets in. The natural question to ask when you listen to a story is not “and there what?”, but “and then what?” This is twisted a slight bit in different languages, but the main question remains: after what you have just told me, what will happen next, and why did one thing happen after the other, was it caused by a causal relation (the past creating the future in the present), or a teleological relation (the future creating the present that falls backwards into the past)?
This way of telling a story is something that is closely connected, of course, to the way in which we think of time, of space, of bodies, and of events. I will come back to the matter of how we may think an event, but let me tell you one instead.

“There is this bar, on top of a building. In the bar are bodies.”
What is a body? What is in your body? And how is what in your body connected to what is around it? Would you tell me that in you body is body? Or can we agree that your body is full of fluids? Probably, yes. Water and carbon is what is in your body. Your body is made up of a body element, the carbon, that ties down the fluid. Or let’s put it a little differently: our bodies are full of space. They are, actually, 99 % of the body is space in between the things that are ‘not space’. These are, in turn, ‘in space’. We will leave the last percent alone for a second and concentrate on the rest. Why have we never heard a story about the 99%?  This is crazy, it’s not even a minority, it’s a vast majority, that is being made silent. Overlooked. We will listen to them, today. Listen to the way that they gently take apart one of the most stubborn regimes of truth around, the truth of the individual.
Spatialites, in the plural. This means there is a between the spatialities, maybe it’s made of matter. Maybe it’s no more than a mass, with no extension, only intension. And there is an eventality of moving in between spaces, in which there is no space, or in which there is only space inasmuch as they are not present. So maybe, in between spaces, there is a time zone, an event. The event is pure becoming, in time, and spatialities are spatial. So why not accept that what separates spatialities are eventualities? This means that in between the spatialities where they are in space, there are evental zones in which the spatialities are in time, that is in becoming, in disappearing, in transformation to and from themselves. In this eventality, then, there is a not-space, a tension where space is not space (Calvino).

What are spaces? (I)
That also means that spaces are some kind of entity, with limits. Ok, the limits may simply be events, that have no other essence than that of the tension itself in not-space. But between the events, if we look at it from the other side, away from the events and into what lies between them, there are spatialities, entities that are defined by their being in space, their spatiality. If we look at a room, in a city, say in a bar, or a street, the spaces are not separated from one another by the mere presence of objects ‘inside’ them. Rather, the separation occurs by separating an inside from an outside. The spaces are plural because they are divided by the presence of ‘outsides’. The presence of insides is produced by the presence of outsides. But where do we find these spatialities – we spoke before of the space inside ‘us’, is that to mean the individual ‘me’, with a spatiality inside me? We must question this. Is that the case of the young man sitting next to me, his presence is here, sure, but what about the spatiality? Is the spatiality inside him separated from the spatiality outside of him by the borders of his physical presence? This contradicts what all research on interaction shows, at least between the lines: spaces do not begin at the edge of the individual’s body, nor do they end there. They extend in and out of bodies, even this is not exactly how Goffman or Kendon put it. How is the spatiality inside him separated or connected to the woman next to him? Do they share the same spatiality or are their spatialities somehow separated from each other? And as they sit there, how many spatialities are present?
What makes their spatialities confluent or isolated from one another is not so much a matter of objects keeping them apart or not. This is possible, of course, but only because it prevents something else from happening – or induces a sequence. The spatialities are isolated from one another, if they are isolated by an event between them. Or, in other words, their spatialities are confluent, as long as they share the same space between events. The events are the borders of spatialities, so they form an outside for the spatialities – or rather, an exteriority. So we can define the two people sitting on the bench of the Global Café in Ljubljana, as either inhabiting a common space between them, if no eventalities have come between them. But this coming-between need not occur between the two persons, it may very well come between in the middle of one of them. There may be more spatialities on the bench, in the room, in the spatial extension in and out of the two. For the future, we will call them dividuals, then, rather than ‘individuals’. An individual is someone who is not dividable. This is not the case of the human body-thought assemblage moving about. We are highly dividual. There is, mostly, more than one spatiality present in and across each dividual.  We could assume that they were two dividuals with an event between them, but even so, there would be more events cutting up the spatialities from one another inside the divide. There is an evental tension, or more, inside the dividual, forming more than one spatiality on the inside of the divide – and thus, there are potentially many insides and outsides inside the divide.
As it seems, as they sit there, there is a confluence of spatiality between them. The event is not very clear, it is very low in tension, so far, but it could rise, increase in tension, and produce an intensification of the insideness, maybe growing inside the dividuals, giving them a sense of belonging to a strong, mutual spatiality defined by a seriously potent eventality. So, in what is going on just now, the dividuals or ‘possests’ are still cut through by isolated and confluent spatialities, but the eventality of the event is drawing the spatialities towards a confluence. Yet danger lurks on the edge, for there is a multiplicity of spatialities inside the dividual, and they are hardly in control. The dividuals mostly manage to keep their spatialities under control in a sort of truce of repetition, an isolation of isolated spatialities, kept alive by staying in the same place, doing the same things, eating the same food, looking at the same other dividuals, etc.. But the spatialities are attracted by one another, and by events that hold the promise of confluence. Now, notice that the element attracted here is not the dividual. This could be the case, but mostly because of the kind of repetition mentioned before. But the spatialities are already in connection with other spatialities that are not limited by the limits of the dividual and its homeopathic states of equilibrium. Let’s not go as far as to say that the spatialities are individuals, like the genes of Richard Dawkins.  But let us ask:

What is space?(II)
Space is the fluid itself, it is where the eventality occurs with its tensions. But we have to speak of spaces, or maybe of spatialities, like in Heidegger’s distinction between Sein and Seiendes. Spatialities is space in plural. So in space, there are spatialities. We could call them spaces, but I like the element of life and difference that comes in when we call them spatialities. No matter, when we insert the plural form, we have inserted a difference between elements of or in space. This differentialisation already starts pointing in a temporal direction: if there are spatialities, that are like small babies of Space, how did they get there? What makes them become, why not just one Space and a lot of floating islands of matter, and of time, in this Space? This would in fact be a way of talking about the matter. But there are things going on in this Space, that separate the spatialities from one another, and so we have to talk about them in a plural tense, and explain what happens in their being separated from one another. I also want to make a distinction between the conceptual distinction between Space and Place, made by Lefebvre and others, between space as some sort of neutral zone of non-time, and place as the inhabited space, the zone for human life. For practical purposes we might say that we are on the left side of the divide, then, on the space-side. But this flows back on to the other side, because the places are present as well, as the places where spatialities move and connect or isolate.
This is not a description of very stable structures. It is a description of unstable flowing movements in what we perceive at a first glance when we walk in the city or look into a room full of people.

The Global Bar
Back to the story. If we may still say that this disconnected flow of arguments and quizzing is indeed a story. We are in a bar on the highest floor of a shopping and business building in Ljubljana. What is this space? Earlier on, I was on the ground, on the pavement, with my feet planted close to the floor of the visible part of the city. There was nothing in particular in the air, a bit of election party noise, people trying to catch some attention from the people passing by. There was eating and drinking, but desire was quiet, sleeping or at rest. Up here, under the top ceiling and looking over the city lights, there is something else in the air, though there are very few people here. Just a few customers in the bar, and music that seems a little bit too eager, too intense, for this deeply lazy atmosphere. Bartenders are talking to each other in the bar, there is no need to rush. A couple, two girls with their coffees. A man with his laptop, a bit out of context, ´but then this is a wlan spot, so why not. Yet, desire is thick up here. It has been here, it will be here again. There are panting bodies, heavy respiration, lovemaking or maybe just sex. It is definitely invisible, apart from a commercial running over and over again in the corner TV, for a place called Atlantis, a water city, where extremely beautiful apparently hang out almost or completely naked just to prove their total liberation of any everyday demands. Do people go from up here to Atlantis, is there a secret passage only known for the initiated, where they slip through and come out in bikinis and tights to move among each other and into the water and heat amusements in Atlantis? Is this the reception for Pinocchio and his friend going off to the eternal park for bodies in a hypermodern space of hedonism? Is there a button in the elevator that stops at the right floor if you know the code? Or even better, if you think the right thoughts, express the right feelings, no expectations, no anxiety, no wanting, only desire becoming itself? There is a very expressive paraphrase of Olympia on the wall behind the counter. She is naked, looking not at the spectator, but somewhere in nowhere, her gaze is the one of satisfied spleen, of desire intuiting its own actualisation, or maybe its own suspended reality? She has a distant cousin in Copenhagen, that fills the back wall of the barroom at Wilder’s. The one in Copenhagen is lying on a table covered with empty bottles, that she may have emptied, maybe alone, maybe with someone who has left the scene after depicting her on this artwork. This one in Ljubljana is on a canapé, resting, before or after lovemaking, or in the middle of it, in the virtual prolonging of lovemaking in the infinite. The bottles are real, here, they are lined up beneath her immense, lazy, naked body. Yet they enter into the image, sucking whatever crosses its immediate proximity into her sleazy attitude. Does she fill out the space? No, nor do the perfect inhabitants of Atlantis. What is it with this space? Gradually, men begin to populate the bar, with its deeply misleading name, Global. There is nothing global about this place, it is as local as they get, though of course this locality is one of an imagined cosmopolitanism, the one of lonely businessmen on the move. Only, even the businessmen are absent, only the scent of their bodies gazing after strippers and escort girls in other places is present, in its absence. Something is being recognized, here. It is hardly even marginal, or its marginality is only here, not in the space where it folds into potentiality. Here, something else is all over, spleen, lazyness, real waiting, bodies and minds not knowing where they will go or what they will become. But are there intuitions in this space?

Spatialities and events
The spatialities are intersected by events. The events create isolations and connections between spatialities. The events do not belong to the dividuals any more than the spatialities. They assist in the forming of outsides, and insides, because this is what is done by the spatialities when they are ‘evented’. The events form, in dissipative formations of tension. The spatialities, on the other hand, belong to the dividuals, in some complex of relations between the spatialities in the dividual. There may be many spatialities in the dividual, and they may be separated by a dividing evental tension, or they may be incompossible, as leibniz and deleuze would say. In the latter case, the spatialities may in fact exist without any direct contact inside the dividual, until something happens that breaks down these isolates and makes the spatialities flow into one another. The spatialities extend beyond the dividuals, so they do not belong exclusively to the dividual. Like a language spoken, that may be said to be ‘mine’, but not as a possession, the spatiality is a potential for connection and confluence, that relates ‘my’ dividual to others through spatiality. The spatialities may be confluent between an unlimited amount of dividuals, though often through very complex ramifications.
But of course, a great number of intervening actants and factors may come between the connections of spatialities, also on the perceptive level. Walls, pathways, mountains, languages, fences, doors, guards, prohibitions, semiotics in general, actions in general, movements, expressions, perceptions even. Through these – sometimes conscious, sometimes more counterproductive or counterintentional – complex patterns of obstacles and facilitators, exclusivities of spatiality are isolated from one another. Or from exteriority formed by the possibility of other. This hardly keeps otherness outside of the dividual, as its own dividuality of spatialities and eventalities already produces otherness inside. But it performs the function of the setting of meta-stable borders between the perception of one dividuality from another, and installing the fantastic illusion, i.e., of being in control of what connects and what doesn’t.
The dividuals sit at different tables, they look into their books or place their gaze inside the gaze of others in front of them, or next to them. They get the impression that they are creating mutual spaces of talking, touching, dancing, that at the same time keeps the spatialities from one another, from being part of the same spatial confluents (or spaces, zones, fields). This has been described in some forms of analysis of social interaction, speaking of systems or spatial systems. Though very useful in all their simplicity, these forms are deeply problematic as they tend to exclude the evental element, structuralizing everything into individual actors and sets of actions. Systems are good for spatiality in itself, as they are often defined by a logic of the spatial (or systematic).
What about talking of fields, as a form of energized zone? We could say that they get the impression that they are participating in some kind of a field, with all of the insecurity about what this concept covers. The concept of the field, while including the spatial as constituent of the way we see the social dynamics, also opens the possibility of speaking of zones for the spatialities to crisscross, to become confluent or to get caught in tensions of evental separation. So, we may, very carefully, say that the spatialities are caught up in a field of tension, in which the tension is created by the events in the field. The fields that seem to emerge are at the same time bound up on deeply rooted institutions on the level of sense, and highly fragile, from a spatiality perspective. The equilibrium of isolation or confluence may at any time be broken, disturbed, by the intervention of an event forming a new divide, a new separation where confluence was forming. A gaze, a smell, vibrations of bodily odours or expressions, touch, attention shifting direction. It is all highly unstable.
   
Intuition and spatialities
But so far, we have left behind intuition altogether. Does intuition tell us anything about a possibility of crossing these separations? Most often, intuition is looked upon as what the (in!)dividual may access by moving all the way into complete, inner silence. In the psychic and psychological discourses, intuition is tied to the individual, and it is tied to an inward movement. Even in philosophy, mostly intuition is regarded as a particular, early stage of knowing, in which the subject makes assumptions, or synthetic apriori judgments, based on a mixture of previous experience and sensitivity towards inner, non-finalised knowledge. The attention towards intuition as a source for more socially oriented thought is practically non-existent, even where intuition is discussed as a method for science and philosophy, as in Bergson’s works. If we stick for an instant to the idea of a silence, could we learn anything from that? Actually, I would suggest that we turn the gaze around and look at intuition from the inside of the event, instead of from the perspective of the dividual trying to access the holy grail of immediate knowledge.
If the event is defined as that which constitutes the border between spatialities, this is due to the character of the event as the tension of an encounter between on the one hand, the ‘disequilibration’ of institution, or regularities for dividual conduct (the disintegration of the being-potency body); the actualisation of virtuality (of becoming finite and multiple of the oneness of the totality-infinity chaos), and the coming of a neuter, present only as the encounter itself and its ‘voicing’ or stemning / Stimmung for the germanophone. What is the place of intuition in this concept of the event? If we look back for a moment, the event allows for confluence, thus bringing the possibility of new separations and the forming of new, distinct spatialities, if only through new borders. The event is the border between spatialities. If intuition is somehow connected to the event, so that we will only be able to express it from the inside of the event, it would be seen as part of a force that connects and then separates. It may bring together spatialities that are in the same field, or it may separate them by bringing others together. Intuition has no force of its own, it is a voicing that ‘wants to be’, or rather a voicing performed by the rattling of tensions and spatialities in encounter and reforming processes. Intuition is the sound of the social coming about in new formations, but a sound that is in itself speechless and invisible. Intuition is the sound of the Stimmung of the event itself. As much as the event has been claimed to be silent and inaccessible in itself, we will make the claim that it does in fact have a voicing, and that this voicing may linger on, long after the event has passed and ceded the way to new spatialities, institutions, etc.
The voicing coming forth through intuition is what differentiates intuition from the event itself, and what differentiates it from spatialities. The voicing does not belong to the spatiality, nor does it belong to the dividual. It touches the spatialities and creates a small vibration in the fluids, producing differences in direction of the spatial fluids. Surely, this is a neg-entropic phenomenon, not an entropic one. Thus, inside the coming together of entropic and neg-entropic processes that form the rhythm of the event, there is a voice that comes forth and forms a neg-entropic formation of its own. Certainly, they may in a sense be seen as always disturbing, destabilising the stillness or equilibrium of the fluids. This very destabilisation may be perceived at the level of the dividual, as a threat to the spatial arrangements or assemblages, though, of course, the spatialities have no sentiments, they go with the flow, like wolves packing not because they have a wanting to pack, but because this is what they do. Spatialities pack as well, they are attracted by events, and thus by the forming of intuitive voicing. But surely, this voicing is not the same as the voicing taking place here in the Global bar, among the raising of speaking dividuals, this is all part of the everyday moving about of desire and spleen as described so often, as movements on the level of corporeal sensation, sense flows of meaning, etc. The noise of all the chatting voices in the bar is an example of what the voicing of intuition is not; the voicing moving the spatialities works on a different frequency, one which may take place at the same time as the voices that we hear. Which indicates why voicing is rather a poor word for this concept, but it will have to do, so far. The rhythms of the intuitive voicing produce something else than the chat of the dividuals searching to confirm semiotic and erotic games. They are not in contradiction, though, and probably, they are actually congruent, rather than parallel. Is there a zone of crossing between the two? Maybe, we could say that the voicing forms between the spatialities, whereas the chat forms in the place, both situated within the space as a total container? If we hold on to this distinction, the place would be the medium for representation, for symbols and semiotics, for talk and sound, for meaning or sense. Where the space is the medium of voices of spatialities in movement by events forming and unforming, at a number of other frequencies. This makes sense, a heterogeneity could be just as possible on this level as for so many others. 
But what then, is the nature of this difference? Are there different worlds, is this a duality, and if so, what keeps the different worlds from conflation or confluence? Is this some effect of a form of autopoïesis of institutions? This immediate response would suggest that institutions come between to form talk, noise, symbolic and erotic expression, that somehow add a layer or a protection over the intuitive voicing. They do not do this to actively fight this voicing, as they are, precisely, autopoïetic and closed towards the outside. More probably, this is a form of construction of a membrane towards what is the outside of the institution, and of which the event is the direct symptom. Institutions thrive on meaning and its gentle flow of quasi-repetition in the social. The regularities inherent to the institution are not completely closed, but they have no interest in what lies in the indeterminacy of their own incompleteness. Institutions are not against events, this would be as silly as to say that water is against fire or that life is against death. Rules are not against the unpredictable, but they form to avoid it. 

Global Bar, intuitions, spaces, events
Institutions are sense-machines, in the Deleuzian understanding of sense as moving in and out of non-sense, a series of sense-events. Sense is in itself a series of rhythms, frequencies, etc. Staying for a couple of hours in the Global bar makes it obvious that there are other rhythms at play than the ones of making sense. We cannot simply brush them aside by saying that they are non-verbal, corporeal, or silent. They go on at other frequency levels, ok. In the story of the two people next to us on the bench, there is not only a discussion going on. There is not only a zone of interaction, an F-formation in the social-interactionist sense, being made. There is not only sense being made, even if we include that the making of sense includes the erotic, not only the semiotic. As they talk, and move closer and a little away, and closer again, I can sense the level of sense making, but at the same time, the other frequency taking place on another frequency. They are not doing anything unusual; on the contrary, what is going on is highly common among two people in some kind of intimate relationship, in their mid-20’s, far away from home. There are lots of institutional formations being kept more or less in equilibrium. But there is something evental forming, that brings the spatialities in motion and distracts, disturbs, makes the whole scenery vibrate and resonate. I feel like a voyeur, and I want to film it. There is an intuitive voicing forming, which is performing a strange movement, an attraction by an event which has not taken place, which is the exact opposite of what they are discussing. The girl has met someone who wants to meet her again. He opposes to it, she tells him she has never cheated on anyone and she won’t this time. And he should not try and tell her who to hang out with. He does not talk of ‘Atlantis’, but there is a calling of a voicing from the presence of Atlantis as a specific spatiality across him. Not as a totality, for he would have been gone already by now. Now, of course, there is no way that I can know whether he has a history with Atlantis on other levels, on symbolic or semantic levels, or if there was an erotic spark ignited by the glossy video that made him speak so insistently in the very beginning of their conversation. He does not speak of this anymore. Yet, the event is building, of which he does not speak, because it would explicit what is already visible: the institution of trust coming apart, through other channels, that were much easier to discuss. This event is already performing a separation, but I think it could only do so if it were also performing an attraction or confluence. Maybe he is confluent with another spatiality. Maybe something happened that was related to the great amount of girls filling the tables in front of them for about half an hour, before they left them to groups of young men, and a few couples. The screen playing the video from Atlantis is still running, we don’t know what it is doing. But for sure, we would not get the answers from a study of their visible behaviour.
Probably, the dividual on the bench is reacting very spontaneously to the fictional event triggered by the place around him. Everything speaks of sex, of fleeting encounters, of naked enjoyment, of hedonism and freedom. And the reaction from intuition is by far quicker than his slow and problematic attempt to move his way down a line of promiscuity with the girl (she doesn’t get it, or doesn’t want to, she is moving in another direction already, but there is a spatiality trying to keep the bond from being broken, so trying to keep the new event from occurring). Ok, let’s leave them behind and try to move on, we are not done, but I guess the stage has been set.

Intuitive voicing and the politics of spatialities
The last, and probably most difficult point is the link back to the political. This link is important, in the sense that there is one, and it has important consequences. The political implication of this philosophy is the focus on the evental, rather than the institutional level. Often, resistance is made out as a direct reaction to a performative level of institutional constraint or violence. From an evental perspective, direct resistance is equivalent to keeping up the equilibrium of the institutional. Yet, our very everyday life is heavily loaded with events and their voicing. However, the only way to reach them is to follow the move of destabilisation of the institutional, accepting to be part of a movement of spatialities in search of events. Intuitive voicing is a peculiar concept, it doesn’t have a great political impact, but then, neither did so many other forms of civil disobedience that have been developed over time. I would claim that a lot of them have had this character of following the forming of confluent spatialities, rather than the forming of institutional bonds and sense machines. Maybe this statement can only be made on a meta-level, ending up then in a critique of the institutional servility of many forms of ‘resistance’ to various orders (be these ‘capitalism’, ‘false religion’, ‘communism’, ‘fundamentalism’, etc.). Yet, I would claim that it would be possible to form manifestations or experiments along these lines, that would have a direct impact in the form of explicit manifestations of the absurdity of the semiotic-erotic mythology, and symbolic economics of the world of today. Raising the intuitive voicing of spatialities to a central setting in action, could be a way to play games that do not only repeat and uphold equilibrium, but try to strengthen a capacity or awareness in actual creation, while at the same time displaying the absurdity or pure autopoïesis of institutions in and across the same places. 
There is a possibility of reappropriation of public places not by yelling at the immorality of what they are doing; but in the appropriation of the connection which is already at work in the conditioning of modern dividuals. The rhythms at work on the two levels are already connected; this is one of the reasons why it works. Voicing the voicing of what may be called intuitive and evental, opens up for the possibility that we could be creating spaces in which completely different roles were set up for the interaction of the institutional and the evental. This already happens, but I think more rigour is needed, and at the same time more openness to the terrible thought that we do not hold the answers, but need to approach the processes and events in other to reach other ways of encountering the spatialities at work inside and between us.
In conclusion, this line of thought, as I see it, moves the attention of what may be called networks of networks or the multiplicities of resistance,  from a front against an evil empire (reproducing the exact discursive formations of the empire, as this has been appropriated already by far), towards the spatialities and event that gain from forming in evental confluence, rather than building institutions. Rather than seeing this option as some transient stage to overcome and move into real politics, this could be seen as a real alternative to so called ‘real politics’. There might be an opening for creation in these rhizomatic network eventalities. Nomadic, inasmuch as this can be seen as a virtuality underlying any actualised nomadism.

Trento, October 21st, 2006