"Of all theorists (for me), it is Berressem (2005, 2005/6, 2007) who has gone the furthest to show that the topologics and the chronologics of the Deleuze/Guattarian system require an understanding of an order of mathematical systems (as explored in Simon Duffy, 2006) quite different from Lacan/Badiou. The gap of the void becomes unnecessary, replaced by an irrational cut, eliminating the transcendental hierarchy that negativity sets up via Hegelian logics, forwarding immanence. His topologics taken from Leibnitz where the fold and the cut are operable in his differential logics, lead to a mathematics of ‘problematics’ rather than ‘axiomatics’ (Smith 2006a,b). They point to the multiplicity of the immanent ‘postmodern’ dynamic sublime that can be misread as simply yet another retention of the multiple as One, as Badiou and Žižek do, by failing to grasp the significance of non-Euclidean ‘projective plane’ (Berressem 2005/6, para. 3-4). It is not the formlessness that the sublime implies as the limit of form, rather it is the very proliferation of forms, rather than their absence that is at issue (Crockett 2007). This is the dynamic sublime that Deleuze reveals to us—the unconscious of the BwO— the non-repressed dimension of physics as opposed to psyche, where machinic coupling by ‘intelligent’ matter comes together through the complexities of connective, disjunctive and conjunctive syntheses. It offers a space/time of unbelief through the proliferation of potentialities rather than possibilities. Badiou and Žižek can form a road team, disputing each other, but nevertheless remain travelling companions since there is an agreement on the void, of creation ex nihilo and the positivization of negativity—‘subtraction’ in Badiou’s system, but Deleuze can’t join them. Badiou’s topologists retain Lacan’s set theory, rather they update Lacan’s own arsenal of Venn diagrams, Möbius strip, the klein bottle, the torus, and Borromean knot by harnessing the set theories of Cantor-Grothendieck-Cohen, which speak to the mathematical ontological sublime of the multiple. We have inverse positions: the Hegelio-Lacan mutant vs. the Spinoza-Bergson-Hume-Nietzschean Mutant. Primordial creation of the Absolute à la Schelling/Hegel —OwB vs. BwO—the Bergsonian élan vital of creative evolution as the starring into the void of Nothing vs. starring at Something.
"From where do these mutants arise? The Deleuze/Guattari mutants emerge from a productive sense of desire while busily working in the factory. Where is this factory? At zero level of BwO—the level of the physical molecular body of affect, which is the level of imperceptible multiplicities and intensities. This is as the location of the non-subjective unconscious of the dynamic sublime (see Campbell 2006). This strikes me as the feminine space of Kristeva’s chora; its flows are the ‘part’ object relations as theorized by Melaine Klein, the half-open threshold of Irigaray’s ‘mucous,’ and the skin ego of Didier Anzieu (1989) and Esther Bick (1968). It is also the place of abject (the Lacanian lamella) and not an object of the signifier (Berressem 2007). It is the spacio-temporal dimension of primary narcissism prior to repression, a time of Aion not Chronos—a place of creative a-significations and potentialities. It is the sublimity of wonder, not yet the sublime terror of the Thing—but thing-ness in its becoming. It is a place of laughing and crying by a non-differentiated embodied pre-ego—zoë as opposed to bios. We tap into this dimension through the Spieltriebe wherein the viscera and nerves become affected. It is a place of memory traces and loss. The lalangue of the mother tongue is felt here as well—as the grain in the voice. The ‘autonomy’ of aesthesis from where the New can emerge is potentially here too. There is a lack of limit — the non-all of a body in differently distributed variations where the process of becoming is continuously happening. This is not a phenomenological space as a consciousness of something; this is the felt unconscious of things themselves—unmediated. Such a ‘void’ for Lacan/Žižek, as the kernel of the Real, remains negative, a no ‘fly’ zone" (15-6).