 Hello, we're back with a reading of Deleuze and Gertahy and I will now speak of the, what they call the plane of eminence, right? So they articulate philosophy in not only the creation of concepts, which is one moment of philosophy, but they articulate it with what they call the plane of eminence, right? So usually eminence is opposed with transcendence and philosophy and it has to do with a certain way of designating materiality as a living materiality, as a dynamic becoming a fleshy materiality, a sort of infrarreality that they say is a sort of a section, a slice of chaos, right? So we've seen that for them the chaos is this idea of dynamic multiplicity, I would say creative multiplicity, of course, and so it is a creative real, it is a creole and they write to give consistency without losing anything of the infinite is the project of philosophy. So here we start to understand how a philosophical concept is different from a technological concept, for example, we could argue that a bicycle is a technological concept, right? But the difference is that the bicycle doesn't try to concentrate in itself the freedom of multiplicity while in a certain way formalizing it, that's philosophy. The bicycle is just performing a given function, as a shape of course it expresses all the possibilities that were not expressed in its actualization, but nevertheless the if bicycle is a concept, technological concept, it performs a function while a philosophical concept for the loosing at a tries to be the best machine, the best point of junction between chaos and reality, creality and the real by not only being a unifying principle, filtering in some way the chaos, but at the same time by preserving the creative multiplicities of the imminent chaos, right? So and that's why it's difficult, that's why it's difficult because in other words philosophy wants to formalize, to abstract the diversity of life while keeping it, while keeping living diversity within its formalization. This strange dream indeed quite different from the dream of science, which in a way is not preoccupied with multiplicity or only in the sense that it provides material for different technological concepts, different operations, while philosophy in a way wants to find a sort of universal key, the philosopher's stone that would allow all possible operations, all possible transformations from imminence to reality, from the creel to the real and back. So they write the plane of imminence as to facets as thought and as nature, as noose and as physics, which are Greek terms, noose. Noose expresses the spirit, physics expresses nature in its blossoming in its becoming and its ever renewed production of phenomena. So what philosophy tries to do is actually unite these two facets, thought and nature, or at least produce an intellectual realm that will not be a negation of the natural realm. Okay, so it is essential not to confuse the concept, the concepts that occupy the plane of imminence and the imminence plane is a common Deleuze and Gattarian term, sometimes in French they use the word plateau. So this is sort of a ground, a dynamic ground that fertilizes manifestations, realizations. So how does that articulate with what was previously said the evocation of the idea of event, right? The idea of the concept as the contour and the configuration, the constellation of an event to come? Well, I think it becomes clearer now because the philosophy is this dream of producing a mold that would be multiverse as opposed as, for example, the mold of the concept of bicycle, technological concept of bicycle. Well, in this case, we have the idea that the event would be the manifestation, the mundane manifestation of how multiplicity has been both given shape to and preserved by a concept, in this case a philosophical concept. So behind that we read this platonic dream of the philosopher king, of course, of philosophy being simply present in the everyday. And this is a very old philosophical dream which for some is quite contradictory, right? How can philosopher want at the same time to retreat in the realm of concepts? And at the same time, they would like their concepts to operate in the everyday reality, in every detail of everyday reality. Well, this is called integrity. This is the moral concept of integrity. When your way of making coffee reflects your way of thinking, for example. So in this sense, thought is natural, right? We understand that. Thought is natural, which doesn't mean that thought is not artificial, but the artificial is natural too. Now, the artificial of technology is very different from the artificial of philosophy as we have understood with the previous example of the bicycle. We, of course, could use the idea of artificial intelligence. Nevertheless, we could say that in the dream of artificial general intelligence, there is this sort of a mirror of this philosophical dream of finding a sort of universal key. The question is, well, how does intuition play in that quest? And they speak of intuition in the sense that concepts are deduced from the plane, but they require a special construction distinct from that of the plane. And they are not deducted in the sense of mathematical deduction, because there is also what they call a throwing of dice. There is also an element of philosophical audacity. What does that mean? Well, we'll continue tomorrow. See you.