# Vellodi, K. (2014) ‘Diagrammatic Thought: Two Forms of Constructivism’ in *C.S. Peirce and Gilles Deleuze*, 2014(19), pp. 79–95. > [!INFO] > Type:: [[article]] > Title:: Diagrammatic Thought: Two Forms of Constructivism in C.S. Peirce and Gilles Deleuze > Author(s): [[Kamini Vellodi]] > Year:: 2014 > Tags:: > DOI:: > Citekey:: vellodi_diagrammatic_2014 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Diagrammatic Thought: Two Forms of Constructivism in C.S. Peirce and Gilles Deleuze](zotero://select/items/@vellodi_diagrammatic_2014) > ReviewedDate:: [[2023-09-06]] ## Citation ```latex [@vellodi_diagrammatic_2014] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@vellodi_diagrammatic_2014]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary - ## Annotation > Both philosophies, whilst having given rise to a somewhat bewildering array of defining nominations between them, may perhaps be best described as constructivist—for they both support a conception of reality as constructed, rather than given, and constructed in/as thought. > ... > It is, in fact from Peirce that Deleuze borrows the concept, for its function as genetic agency, whilst, however, submitting it to a radical reworking that rejects the broadly representational philosophical framework within which Peirce situates it. (79) - Borrowed?? Maybe it needs evident ### 퍼스와 들뢰즈 다이아그램의 차이 > For Peirce - committed logician and practicing scientist - reality is that mode of being asserted by a true proposition, regardless of what any actual mind thinks of it; reality is logical truth, > For Deleuze, in contrast, reality is that mode of being of material existence, in contrast to (logical) possibility. (80) - 퍼스에게 리얼리티는 이성적 진실, 들뢰즈에겐 물질적 존재 > But Deleuze’s conception of the diagram as the agent of breakthrough and creation, as a non-representational, groundless, deforming and unformed synthesiser of pure difference, subverts such common-sensical definition and demands a new conceptual framework. > Peirce’s construction entails the representation of thought’s representational processes through diagrams > For Deleuze, however, the diagram is a map of “pure relations” - relations of forces “outside” related terms - a map of “lines of escape” that break through all law in a transcendental and unmediated construction of the qualitatively new (that which is new in kind) which bears no resemblance to past or present actuality. - 퍼스의 다이아그램은 as a map or schema, "icon of relations", 들뢰즈에게는 map of "pure relations" ### 퍼스의 다이아그램 > The diagram, or as Peirce also calls it, “existential graph”, plays a central role within this system.^[Frederick Stjernfelt: “the diagram concept plays a central, not to say the central, role in the mature Peirce’s semiotics.” “Diagrams as Centerpiece of a Peircean Epistemology” Transactions of the Charles S Peirce Society XXXCI:3 (Summer, 2000, 357)] > It may be most simply understood as Peirce’s answer to a central problem in [[post-Kantian]] philosophy—the reconciliation of reason with experience, - 가장 심플하게 이해할 수 있는건 포스트 칸트 철학에 대한 대답으로 이해할 수 있다. > "is an icon or schematic image embodying the meaning of a general predicate and from the observation of this icon \[specifically the relations between its parts\] we are supposed to construct a new general predicate." ^[Charles Sanders Peirce, The Essential Peirce: selected philosophical writings, 1992. Vol. 2 (1893-1913), ed. The Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington, Ind.; London: Indiana Univer- sity Press, 1998. Vol 2, 303] (81) > The diagram, then, is a schema of relations, that allows us to go beyond a given theoretical premiss/originary assertion to new assertions, by constructing laws, formulae or rules. (81) - 모호함에서 확실함으로 그리고 그것이 truth라는 것으로 이어지는 퍼스의 다이아그램 > This process of definition or clarification takes place within the regime of resemblance. (82) - 다이아그램은 아이콘이다 (아이콘의 의미를 다시 찾아봐야할까?) icon of relations.^[A “...a sign may be iconic, that is, may represent its object mainly by its similarity, no matter what its mode of being. If a substantive be wanted, an iconic representamen may be termed a hypoicon. Any material image, as a painting, is largely conventional in its mode of representation; but in itself, without legend or label it may be called a hypoicon. Hypoicons may be roughly divided according to the mode of Firstness of which they partake. Those which partake of simple qualities, or First Firstnesses, are images; those which represent the relations, mainly dyadic, or so regarded, of the parts of one thing by analogous relations in their own parts, are diagrams; those which represent the representative character of a representamen by representing a parallelism in something else, are metaphors.” EP 2:273.] > This makes it “particularly useful because it suppresses a quantity of details, and so allows the mind more easily to think of the important features.” (82) > The diagram, then, is a schema of relations, that allows us to go beyond a given theoretical premiss/originary The diagram, then, is a schema of relations, that allows us to go beyon assertion to new assertions, by constructing laws, formulae or rules.^[EP 2:13] > **relations** are signified by such spatial relations that the necessary consequences of these logical relations are at the same time signified, or can, at least, be made evident by transforming the diagram in certain ways which conventional ‘rules’ permit.” ^[The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, 3:560.] >==As such, the diagram is not only an exact representation of a given premiss, but a form to which “something else” may be added, experimentally—“which is usually a mere May-be”.==^[EP 2:502.] (82) - 퍼스에게 다이아그램적 method는 - formation - observation and experiment - conclusion - validation - In this way, the diagram serves as a model for similar hypothetical cases—it is a map of the necessary outcomes of reason in an “arbitrarily hypothetical universe.... Not yet entirely determinate”. ^[CP 4:431] > ==Diagrammatism is a process of generalisation.== - 언제나 "has to start from a perceptual fact" its proximity to "the real thinking-process"is "doubful", "finite" process of thinking that you or I may pass through. > Indeed, “the object of reasoning is to find out, from the consideration of what we already know, something else which we do not know” ^[EP 1:111.] > This process of definition or clarification takes place within the regime of resemblance (83) > ==As Peirce clarifies, “a Diagram is an Icon of a set of rationally related objects. By rationally related, I mean that there is between them, not merely one of those relations which we know by experience, but know not how to comprehend, but one of those relations which anybody who reasons at all must have an inward acquaintance with.”== ^[CP 4:316.] ### 들뢰즈의 다이아그램 > It is perhaps the notion of modulation in general (and not similitude) that will enable us to understand the nature of analogical language or the diagram. ^[Gilles Deleuze, Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation. trans. Daniel W. Smith (New York, London: Continuum, 2003), 117] (84) > It is as the inventor of “the most extraordinary classification of images and signs”, of a semiotic with the potential to think production and oriented to “life”, that Peirce appeals to Deleuze. > It is, above all, Peirce’s concept of the diagram—in its function as the experimental constructor of new relations—which Deleuze and Guattari invest as the vector for this productive, asignifying semiotic. > (fn 44) There has been little sustained critical work, and to my mind, much misinterpretation of Deleuze’s concept of the diagram. The work of Éric Alliez on diagrammatic transdisciplinarity and a diagrammatic regime of contemporary art (cf. “Ontology of the diagram and Biopolitics of Philosophy. A Research program in transdisciplinarity” Deleuze Studies 7:4 (May 2013), and “Diagrammatic Agency vs Aesthetic Regime of Contemporary Art”, Deleuze Studies 6:1 (Feb 2012)), is an important exception. > Both Jakub Zdebik (Deleuze and the Diagram: Aesthetic Threads in Visual Organization. London: Con- tinuum, 2012), and John Mullarkey (Post-Continental Philosophy. London, New York: Continuum, 2006) misunderstand the diagram as a visual map/“graphic image”. > Mullarkey describes it as a “philosophical drawing” that does “metaphilosophical work as a moving outline that takes both a transcendent view (representing immanence) while also remaining immanent”, that can be used to outline a particular philosophical system and the “parallels and non-parallels” between philosophical systems. (Mullarkey, 9). But it is precisely for the sake of a thought of immanence liberated from any “transcendent view”, Deleuze conceives of the diagram as a map of new concepts/thought, whose function is not to summarize/reflect, but to act as a pilot. > As such, it is fully in contact with the material plane of the real, and has no (visual, or other) form of its own. Manual deLanda has rightly stressed the non-visual characteristic of Deleuze’s diagram, in his “Deleuze, Diagrams and the Genesis of Form”, American Studies 45:1, 2000. - 다이아그램을 잘못읽는 방법에는 비쥬얼 "지도, 그래픽 이미지"로 읽는 것. > This reading of Foucault’s diagram suggests that Deleuze’s semiotic conception of the diagram is—as it is too for Peirce - inseparable from a certain conception of thought. - 생각의 대한 개념과 떨어질 수 없는 다이아그램. 퍼스와 들뢰즈 둘 다에게 있어서 생각은 사인으로 일어난다. > he sign is “what flashes across the intervals when a communication takes place between disparates”—a “communication” that, again, is an a-signifying relation, a new order of communication that bears no allegiance to common sense, or to an already existing community of thinkers. ^[Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 67. Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, 20] > Whilst Peirce’s diagrammatic thought expands thought beyond what is immediately self-evident to it by constructing mediated possibilities on the basis of what is inherently possible for thought, Deleuze’s diagram is a construction of new possibilities that explode that which inheres in thought, explode thought as a form of inherence, and forces thought on a “line of flight” with the “outside” (the intensive “outside” of pure difference). - 퍼스의 다이아그램적 사고는 본질적으로 사상에 가능한 것의 기초 위에 매개된 가능성들을 구성함으로써 그것에 즉시 자명한 것 이상으로 사상을 확장시키는 반면, 들뢰즈의 다이아그램은 사상에 내재하고 있는 사상을 폭발시키고, 불연속성의 형태로서 사상을 폭발시키고, 힘을 발생시키는 새로운 가능성의 구조입니다. - 그 힘은 "밖"과 함께 "비행의 선"위에 생각되어진다. (집약적인 "밖" 의 순수한 차이) > Within such a framework, the diagram functions as the antithesis of the image—which, in its iconic character, Peirce’s diagram very much remains. - 그림으로 표현하면서 antithesis of the image가 가능한 것인가? > (베이컨의 경우) it is the passage from one sensation to another, however close two sensations may be, but as [[becoming]], as an increase or decrease in power”. ^[“Immanence: a life”, Two Regimes of Madness, 384] > Thus, Deleuze’s diagram and Peirce’s diagram reflect two contrasting notions of thought: thought as a process of discipline, regulation and control that reasoning subjects enact (Peirce), and thought as violent encounter that happens to us in the groundless encounter with difference (Deleuze); > For both Deleuze and Peirce, the function of the diagram is to “determine” a future reality. But there are here, and not unexpectedly, two distinct notions of the future: a speculative (conceived but not actual) future in Peirce’s case, and a constructed future in Deleuze’s (as the intensive, differential reality of the present). > This diagrammatic experimentation is conducted within the regime of the possible—the possibilities that thought can in its present form think. - 사실 다이아그램은 언제나 가능성의 체제에 의해 만들어진다. > Diagrammatic speculation concerns the control—generated in the present - of future conduct. It is a means too of escaping the past actualities of existence that haunt our memory and over which we have no control (insofar as, in Peirce’s understanding here, memory is involuntary). Indeed, “the only controllable conduct is Future conduct.” And that which in the Future “is not amenable to control are the things that we shall be able to infer, or should be able to infer under favourable circumstances \[or conditions\].”76 The function of the diagram, and its “strategic design”, is to effect this purchase over the future. As the conclusion of reasoning, the future is a general form, a formal possibility that, though it may “little resemble even the perceptual facts”, and whose coincidence with the “matter” of future cases remains to be tested, does resemble conceived facts. - 또한 퍼스에게 다이아그램적 스페큐레이션은 컨트롤 할 수 없는 과거에서 벗어나 (그에게 기억이란 involuntary) 미래로 향하는 것이다. 다이아그램의 기능과 그것의 전략적 디자인은 미래에 대한 취득에 영향을 끼친다. (컨트롤) > Deleuze’s theory of the diagrammatic production of the future as qualitatively new rejects this formal determinism, and mediation, of speculation - 미래의 다이아그램적 생산을 질적으로 새로운 들뢰즈의 이론은 이러한 공식적인 결정론과 추측의 중재를 거부한다. > (fn 77) This distinction between Peirce’s speculation (or speculative constructivism) and Deleuze’s construction is used strategically to underscore Deleuze’s distinction from Peirce, and the way in which their two systems conceive of the production of the future. I propose to understand speculation here as future projected on the basis of present possibility, in contrast to the groundlessness of Deleuze’s construction. In Nietzsche and Philosophy, Deleuze shows how Nietzsche critiques the (Hegelian) idea of speculation in favour of “dramatization”. Whereas speculative propositions bring a proposition into play from the point of view of dialectically-inflected form, a dramatic proposition supplants the absolute determination of speculation with “relative determinations which correspond to the forces entering into synthesis with or in the idea” being problematized: “the dramatic proposition is synthetic, therefore essentially pluralist, typological and differential.” Nietzsche and Philosophy, 152; “For the speculation element of negation, opposition or contradiction Nietzsche substitutes the practical element of difference, the object of affirmation and enjoyment” > For Peirce, the control of the Future is effected through the projection of our reasoned thought. But for Deleuze, the experience of the Future as the new happens to us, and is something over which we have no voluntary control, and, indeed, excludes the self. - 다시, 퍼스에게 미래의 컨트롤은 우리의 합리적인 사고를 투영함으로써 이루어지고, 들뢰즈에게는 미래에 대한 경험을 새로운 happens to us 자발적으로 통제할 수 없는 어떤 것이며, 자아를 배제하는 것입니다. ### Highlights Extracted Annotations: 29/03/2021, 14:31:35 29/03/2021, 14:31:35 an important, yet under-considered, role in the philosophies of Charles Both philosophies, whilst having given rise to a somewhat bewildering Sanders Peirce and Gilles Deleuze. Both philosophies, whilst having given rise to a somewhat bewildering array of defining nominations between them, may perhaps be best described as constructivist—for they both array of defining nominations between them, may perhaps be best described as constructivist—fo support a conception of reality as constructed, rather than given, and constructed in/as thought. n/as thought. For both, a It is, in fact from Peirce “diagram” is the agent of this construction; hence its pivotal place in both systems. It is, in fact from Peirce that Deleuze borrows the concept, for its function as genetic agency, whilst, however, submitting it to a radical that Deleuze borrows the concept, for its function as genetic agency, whilst, however, submitting it to a radical reworking that rejects the broadly representational philosophical framework within which Peirce situates it. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=1 ) Borrowed?? Maybe it needs evident [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=1 ) m is the agent of the construction of reality. But there are two distinct For Peirce - committed logician and practicing scientist - reality is conceptions of reality implicated here. For Peirce - committed logician and practicing scientist - reality is that mode of being asserted by a true proposition, regardless of what any actual mind thinks of it; reality is that mode of logical truth logical truth, independent of the actual experience or thought that is subject to empirical or dogmatic error. For Deleuze, in contrast, reality is that mode of being of material existence, in contrast to (logical) possibility. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=2 ) Peirce's construction entails the representation of thought's As the process of thought's refinement, representational processes through diagrams [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=2 ) he diagram as a map o basis of an existing state [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=2 ) st states through the diagrammatic construction of laws For Deleuze, however, the diagram is a map of “pure that relate the two via the mediation of the present. For Deleuze, however, the diagram is a map of “pure relations” - relations of forces “outside” related terms - a map of “lines of escape” that break through all law in relations” - relations of forces “outside” related terms - a map of “lines of escape” that break through all law in a transcendental and unmediated construction of the qualitatively new (that which is new in kind) which bears a transcendental and unmediated constructi no resemblance to past or present actuality [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=2 ) n “icon of relations” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=2 ) and oriented towards the formalisation of a future state But Deleuze's conception of the diagram as the agent of that can be projected on the basis of present actuality. But Deleuze's conception of the diagram as the agent of breakthrough and creation, as a non-representational, groundless, deforming and unformed synthesiser of pure breakthrough and creation, as a non-representational, groundless, deforming and unformed synthe difference, subverts such common-sensical definition and demands a new conceptual framework. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=2 ) asoning, and “scientific father of pragmatism ( matism (after his fellow tripartite theory of signs [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=2 ) n the articulation “conduct of life”. 7 [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=3 ) rce also calls it, “existential graph”, plays a central role within this system. It may be most Peirce's answer to a central problem in [[post-Kantian]] philosophy—the reconciliation of simply understood as P reason with experience [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=3 ) is an icon or schematic image embodying the meaning of a general predicate and from the observation is an icon or schematic image embodying the meaning of a general predicate and from the observation of this icon [specifically the relations between its parts] we are supposed to construct a new general of this icon predicate. 13 [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=3 ) The diagram, then, is a schema of relations, that allows us to go beyond a given theoretical premiss/originary The diagram, then, is a schema of relations, that allows us to go beyon assertion to new assertions, by constructing laws, formulae or rules. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=3 ) This process of definition or clarification takes place within the regime of resemblance [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=4 ) This is one of differences [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=4 ) A diagram is a type of icon [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=4 ) icon of relations [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=4 ) mblance of its form, but as a representation of the relations of its objects by analogous relations in its own This makes it “particularly useful because it suppresses a quantity of details, and so allows the mind more parts. This makes it “particularly useful be easily to think of the important features.” 1 [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=4 ) Abstract [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=4 ) emiss. This can (but does not have to) relations are signified by such spatial assume a visual form, “composed of dots, lines etc., in which logical relations are signified by such spatial relations that the necessary consequences of these logical relations are at the same time signified, or can, at relations that the necessary consequences of these logical relations are at the same time signified, or ca least, be made evident by transforming the diagram in certain ways which conventional `rules' permit.” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=4 ) As It is the form of the diagram that may be worked on to achieve its function of rendering these consequences. As such, the diagram is not only an exact representation of a given premiss, but a form to which “something else” such, the diagram is not only an exact representation of a given prem may be added, experimentally—“which is usually a mere May-be”. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=4 ) ongoing process of thought's representation of itself to the (ideal) point of final, universal validity (truth). To consider this inscription let us consider more closely the four stages of the diagrammatic method: firstly, To consider this inscription let us consider more closely the four stages of the diagrammatic method: firstly, the formation of the icon; secondly, the observation on and experimentation with the icon; thirdly, the arrival at the formation of the icon; secondly, the observation on and experimentation with the a conclusion; fourthly, the establishment of the universal validity of the conclusion. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=4 ) and compel acceptance of, a proposition In this way, the diagram serves as a model 4 related to it as the conclusion then drawn is related to that premiss”. In this way, the diagram serves as a model for similar hypothetical cases—it is a map of the necessary outcomes of reason in an “arbitrarily hypothetical for similar hypothetical cases—it is a map universe…. Not yet entirely determinate” [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=5 ) Thus the diagrammatic process exposes the tripartite system of analogies that characterises Peirce's semeiotic, Thus the diagrammatic process expo and provides its many subdivisions. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=5 ) m that represents its object through analogous which is returned to the “expanded” diagram, [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=5 ) Diagrammatism is a process of generalisation [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=5 ) perceptual fact [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=5 ) ng-process inferential [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=5 ) ligible (it is an icon of “intelligible because the truths it constructs are relations” ) - which is to say already intelligible to thought as it is - because the truths it constructs are recognisable, because it bears a clarity that appeals to the logical subject waiting to receive it. It is to the appeal recognisable, because it bears a clarity that appeals to the logical subjec of logic, which is a form of common sense (a “critical” common-sense) [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=5 ) ects; the effectiveness of the rules it constructs is premised on the fact that Indeed, “the object of reasoning is to find out, from the consideration of these rules bind “all minds alike”. Indeed, “the object of reas what we already know, something else which we do not know” ing else which we do not know”. “Learning” begins with the “immense mass As Peirce clarifies, “a Diagram is an Icon of a set of rationally related objects. of cognition already formed.” As Peirce clarifies, “a Diagram is an Icon of a set of rationally related objects. By rationally related, I mean that there is between them, not merely one of those relations which we know by By rationally related, I mean that there is between them, not merely one of those relations which we know by experience, but know not how to comprehend, but one of those relations which anybody who reasons at all must experience, but know not how to comp have an inward acquaintance with.” 35 [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=5 ) generals or universals, and oriented towards communication within a community of like-minded Deleuze will borrow this conception of diagrammatics as an experimental synthesis of relations, thinkers. Deleuze will borrow this conception of diagrammatics as an experimental synthesis of re whilst recasting it beyond Peirce's representationalism, universalism and (logical) communitarianism. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=6 ) It is as the inventor of “the most extraordinary classification of images and signs”, of a semiotic with the poten- It is as the inventor of “the most extraordinary classification of images and sig tial to think production and oriented to “life”, that Peirce appeals to Deleuze. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=6 ) tive to what Deleuze and Guattari deem to be the inte semiotics that can function as a “science of reality”. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=6 ) ct this orientation towards meaning which for them renders Peirce “as much a linguist as the semi- Rather, it is for his taxonomy of “sign elements [which] still imply no privilege for language”, of ologists”. Rather, it is for his taxonomy of “sign elements [which] still imply no privilege for language”, of semiotic material not reduced to linguistic forms, that they turn to him, in their development of a productive, semiotic material not reduced to linguistic forms, that they turn to him, in their development of a productive, asignifying semiotic—a semiotic that is put to work both in the analysis of social mechanisms and in the analy- asignifying semiotic— sis of artistic practice. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=6 ) This is the distinction from Pierce [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=6 ) and development of this nonlinguistic semiology for a dizzyingly comprehensive taxonom This is a “free use” of Peirce, that borrows his terms “while changing their connotations”. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=6 ) It is, above all, Peirce's concept of the diagram—in its function as the experimental constructor of new relations It is, above all, Peirce's concept of the diagram—in its function as the experimental constructor o - which Deleuze and Guattari invest as the vector for this productive, asignifying semiotic. 44 [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=6 ) “in-itself” o work for the sake of a philosophy of difference “in-itself”, as the synthesiser or in contrast to Peirce's representational synthesiser of forms that refines and builds “modulator” of difference, in contrast to Peirce's representational synthesiser of forms that refines and builds upon already established processes of thinking, and which projects possibility on the basis of what is (already upon already established processes of thi established and known to be) possible. [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=6 ) he notion, but rather in Peirce's case, an as a reflection of the differing ways in which they present their philosophical systems: in Peirce's case, an “organic” systematisation that attempts to move ever closer to increasing refinement and completion of itself “organic” systematisation that attempts to move ever closer to increa encompasses precise, and consistent, exposition of diagrammatics g refinement and completion of itself Deleuze's case, an “open” system, encompasses precise, and consistent, exposition of diagrammatics; in Deleuze's case, an “open” system, supporting on-going conceptual creation that forbids any “essentialising” self-presentation, or, re-presentation supporting on-going conceptual creation that forbids any “essentialising” self-presentation, or, re-presentation of it, forces from the “reader” a re-construction of diagrammatics from the various instances of its appearance of it, forces in his work [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=7 ) We encounter Deleuze's diagram, with its “distinct role, irreducible to neither the icon or the symbol” in We encounter Deleuze's diagram, with its “distinct role, irreducible to neither the icon or the symbol” in three key texts: A Thousand Plateaus (1980), Francis Bacon: Logic of Sensation (1981), and Foucault (1986). [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=7 ) ce to the diagram as “that which makes power-relations function”, it is In this reading of Foucault, Deleuze further conceptualises the diagram “the map of relations between forces”. In this reading of Foucault, Deleuze further conceptualises the diagram as the synthesiser of thought, where thinking is no longer “the innate exercise of a faculty, but must happen as the synthesiser of thought, where thinking is no longer “the innate exercise of a faculty, but must happen to thought”; that “does not depend on an interiority uniting the visible and the utterable but takes place under to thought”; that “does not depend on an interiority uniting the visible and the utterable but takes place under the intrusion of the outside that carves the interval” in “the formless disjunction” where the diagram acts, as the intrusion of the outsid thought's genetic element [Link](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/IKUC3HUV?page=7) ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@vellodi_diagrammatic_2014]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```