The Democracy of Objects

3.3. Virtual Proper Being

In Difference and Repetition, Deleuze remarks that “[t]he virtual is opposed not to the real but to the actual. The virtual is fully real in so far as it is virtual. Exactly what Proust said of states of resonance must be said of the virtual: 'Real without being actual, ideal without being abstract'“. [94] Within the framework of onticology, the claim that the virtual is real is the claim that the virtual is always the virtuality of a substance or individual being. Put differently, the claim that the virtual is real is not the claim that the virtual is a potential being, but rather the claim that the virtual is always the virtuality or potentiality of a being or substance. Here the genitive is of the utmost importance. The virtual always belongs to a substance, not the reverse. Moreover, the virtual is always the potential harbored or carried by a discrete or individual being. In this regard, we must distinguish between the two halves of any object, substance, or difference engine. On the one hand, there is the actual side of an object consisting of qualities and extensities, while on the other hand, there is the virtual side of substances, consisting of potentialities or powers. In claiming that the virtual is “ideal”, Deleuze is not claiming that the virtual is mental or cognitive—though minds too have their virtual dimension—but rather that the virtual is relational. These relations, however, are not relations between entities, but constitute the endo-structure of an object, its internal topology. Finally, we can claim that it is entirely possible—if not common—for actually existing entities to remain in a state of virtuality such that they are fully real and existent in the world, fully concrete, without producing any qualities or extensities. Only on this condition can we make sense of Bhaskar's claim that it is possible for generative mechanisms, difference engines, or substances to be real while remaining dormant such that they are out of phase with their qualities or events.

How, then, are we to understand this dimension of substance that is formatted without possessing qualities? Two features in particular render Deleuze's concept of the virtual particularly well suited for theorizing this withdrawn dimension of substance. On the one hand, Deleuze is careful to emphasize that the virtual shares no resemblance to the actual. “Every object is double without it being the case that the two halves resemble one another”. [95] If the actual is treated as embodying qualities and geometrical structure in the sense specified in section 3.1, then this captures the manner in which the virtual dimension of a substance differs from anything qualitative, thus providing us with substance that is structured or formatted without being qualitative. To illustrate this lack of resemblance between the virtual and actual halves of split objects, Deleuze gives the illuminating example of genes. “[G]enes as a system of differential relations”, of which virtual multiplicities are composed, “are incarnated at once in a species and the organic parts of which it is composed”. [96] Genes, as a contributor to the overall form that an actualized organism embodies form a set of differential relations and singularities that share no resemblance to that actualized organism. Genes are among the conditions for the form the organism will take, but in no way resemble that organism.

On the other hand, the concept of virtuality allows us to theorize the manner in which substances are always individual substances without requiring reference to other substances or beings. According to Deleuze, the virtual is composed of “multiplicities”. I will have more to say about multiplicities momentarily, but for the moment it bears noting that according to Deleuze, “'[m]ultiplicity', which replaces the one no less than the multiple, is the true substantive, substance itself”. [97] Deleuze draws the concept of multiplicity from the differential geometry of Friedrich Gauss and Bernhard Riemann. As explained by Manuel DeLanda,

The concept of multiplicity is of great significance not for only mathematics, but ontology as well. For through enabling us to think the internal structure of a space without reference to a global embedding space, the concept of multiplicity also enables us to think the being of an individual substance independent of its relations to other substances or its exo-relations. It is for this reason that I refer to the virtual proper being of substance as consisting of endo-relations, an endo-structure, or an endo-composition. The point is not that all substances are spatial—when we discuss flat ontology we will see that this is not the case—but rather that multiplicity allows us to think individual substance in a purely immanent fashion detached from any sort of global embedding space or set of exo-relations. While substances can and do enter into relations with other substances, their being qua substance is not constituted by these exo-relations. Exo-relations often play a crucial role in the qualities a substance comes to embody at the level of local manifestations, but the being of substance in its substantiality is something other than these exo-relations. As an additional consequence of this concept of multiplicity, the Kantian conception of space and time as containers must here be abandoned as well in favor of a model of space and time arising from substances.

In defining multiplicities Deleuze remarks that “the utmost importance must be attached to the substantive form: multiplicity must not designate a combination of the many and the one, but rather an organisation belonging to the many as such, which has no need whatsoever of unity in order to form a system”. [99] A moment later, Deleuze goes on to explain that multiplicities must “thus be defined as a structure”. [100] If multiplicities must be defined as a structure or a system, then this is because the elements that compose them,

In his drive to formulate a differential ontology or account of being resting on nothing but difference without reference to identity, Deleuze’s concept of multiplicity is pulled in two opposing directions. On the one hand, associating unity with identity, Deleuze wishes to deny any unity to multiplicities. On the other hand, in his discussions of multiplicities Deleuze seems ineluctably drawn to treating them as unities. With respect to this second tendency, we need only observe the manner in which Deleuze refers to multiplicities as structures where all the elements are reciprocally determined, such that they embody an organization. If multiplicities are structured or organized, if they are intrinsically “defined”, then it seems difficult to maintain that they lack unity.

Rather, it appears that the very being of multiplicities consists in their unity. It is only on these grounds that we can refer to them as substances. In thinking multiplicities, Deleuze seems to be groping for the classical categories of totality or community. A totality is a system in which all of the parts depend on one another such that they are, as Deleuze puts it, reciprocally determined. My body, for example, is a totality. By contrast, a community is not so much a social entity, as a system in which all the parts simultaneously cause and affect one another. Thus, for example, every organic body is simultaneously a totality and a community insofar as its parts are both dependent on one another and constantly interact with one another. Likewise, the relation between the Earth and the moon is a community insofar as the moon's gravitation affects the Earth and the Earth's gravitation affects the moon. It is precisely this sort of structure that Deleuze seems to have in mind when he evokes the concept of multiplicity. However, while systems of this sort are certainly differentiated internally, they are nonetheless unities or substances.

In defining the being of the virtual or multiplicities, Deleuze argues that “[t]he reality of the virtual consists of the differential elements and relations along with the singular points which correspond to them. The reality of the virtual is structure”. [102] If Deleuze treats the virtual or multiplicities as pre-individual and the actual as individual, then this is because he fails to adequately distinguish between the topological and the geometrical within substance. Concluding that the individuality of the individual resides in its qualities, parts, or in geometric extensity, Deleuze is forced to deny individuality to multiplicities. But as I argued in section 3.2, this thesis is untenable for a variety of reasons. Rather, while multiplicities are without qualities, they are nonetheless the structure or “form” that functions as the ground of a substance's qualitative variations.

Here, then, we might think of Harman's discussion of Xavier Zubiri in Tool-Being. There Harman begins by noting that “[t]he reality of a thing cannot be identified with its presence”. [103] Here presence can be equated with the actuality of a substance or thing, with the properties or qualities that it embodies. In contrasting the substance of a thing with its qualities or properties, Harman's Zubiri accords closely with Bhaskar's thesis that substances can be out of phase with their events or properties. Harman goes on to remark that “[t]he reality of a thing cannot be regarded as a substance endowed with properties. Instead, the thing is always a system, a system that unifies all of its numerous 'notes.'” [104] In treating the substantiality of a thing as a system of notes, Harman's Zubiri displays an exceptional proximity to Deleuze's conception of virtual multiplicities as composed of differential relations and singularities. Harman goes on to remark that,

Like Zubiri's notes, Deleuze's singularities are the most intimate reality of a thing, defining and structuring its being. However, unlike Zubiri's notes, Deleuze's singularities do not replace the concept of properties or qualities, but rather are evoked as the ground of properties or qualities. Singularities are those potencies that generate qualities or properties as acts on the part of the object. And if Deleuze is compelled to develop the concept of singularity to account for the being of objects, then this is precisely because the properties of objects or substances are variable and changing, yet a substance still—within certain limits—remains that substance. What is thus required is a ground that is plastic, that can vary, while retaining its identity. It is precisely this requirement that the concept of multiplicity satisfies.

Unfortunately, Deleuze tells us very little as to just what these singularities are. We know that we need them, that substances must possess singularities, but insofar as these singularities are not themselves qualities, we don't know what they are. In Difference and Repetition, Deleuze defines singularities as “the point of departure for a series which extends over all the ordinary points of the system, as far as the region of another singularity which gives rise to another series which may either converge or diverge from the first”. [106] Unfortunately, this definition isn't very helpful. What are the ordinary points? What are the singular points? What are the series in question? Perhaps some light is shed on this issue if we return to the concept of topology.

It will be recalled that topology is a sort of dynamic geometry that studies the invariant features of an object that remain the same under homeomorphic deformations through operations of bending, stretching, folding and so on. Thus, for example, within the framework of Euclidean geometry, a triangle and a quadrilateral are completely distinct, whereas in topology quadrilaterals and triangles are equivalent to one another. If this is the case, then it is because triangles, through operations of folding, stretching, and bending can be transformed into quadrilaterals and vice versa. To transform a triangle into a quadrilateral, simply take one of its vertices and fold it over. In this regard, singularities occupy a paradoxical place within topology. Clearly singularities must simultaneously define the series of ordinary points and mark the threshold at which new forms emerge. On the one hand, the singularities of a topological space cannot be, for example, the vertices of the triangle. Were this the case, then the triangle and the quadrilateral would not be structurally equivalent. Rather, the vertices of the triangle and the quadrilateral must define ordinary points within a topological space of singularities. And here it bears noting that the singularities of a topological space themselves never appear or manifest themselves. What manifests itself are the ordinary points, the Euclidean geometry, of each individual figure. The singularities serving as the ground of these figures can only be inferred. They are never directly given but are perpetually withdrawn. There is no shape that embodies the singularities of the topological space, nor does the corresponding geometrical space ever resemble the topological space. On the other hand, singularities define thresholds between different topological spaces. For example, if I take a strip of paper and fasten its two ends or twist it and then fasten its two ends, I am now in two new topological spaces with their own variety of possible mutations.

Now, in evoking topology in the context of onticology's ontological concerns, it is important to exercise caution. First, topology is concerned specifically and exclusively with spatial relations, whereas ontology is concerned with entities and qualities of all kinds. Second, topology is concerned with homeomorphisms or structural identities across a variety of distinct entities, whereas here I am trying to account for the substantiality of individual entities. Consequently, parallels between topology and multiplicities diverge in important respects. The lesson to be drawn from topology is that there are variations that are nonetheless structure- or system-preserving. As Deleuze puts it, “[e]very phenomenon refers to an inequality by which it is conditioned. Every diversity and every change refers to a difference which is its sufficient reason”. [107] Phenomena here should be understood in the sense of “local manifestation”, whereas inequality or difference should be understood in terms of the singularities or notes belonging to a multiplicity as the condition or ground for the production of qualities.

In Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy, Manuel DeLanda proposes to treat Deleuze's singularities as attractors. With a few qualifications and conceptual modifications, this is the interpretation of Deleuze's singularities that I would like to defend. However, before proceeding to discuss attractors, it is first necessary to distinguish the position I am developing here from DeLanda's position. In Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy, DeLanda argues that Deleuze's concept of multiplicities is designed to replace the old philosophical concepts of essences, and that things, substances, or objects are to be explained in terms of how they are produced, rather than in terms of their essence. As DeLanda puts it, “[i]n a Deleuzian ontology [...] a species (or any other natural kind) is not defined by its essential traits but rather by the morphogenetic process that gave rise to it”. [108]

Clearly onticology, and object-oriented philosophy more broadly construed, rejects this thesis. In section 3.2, we already saw that DeLanda endorses the Deleuzian thesis that the virtual is composed of a monistic continuum of singularities that is then cut up into discrete entities with qualities. There I argued that this position is incoherent and that the virtual must instead be strictly conceived as a part of discrete entities such that each object has its own virtual dimension. Likewise, the thesis that an entity is defined by the morphogentic process by which it came to be conflates two distinct issues. While many entities must certainly come to be, it does not follow from this that the being of entities can be defined by the process by which they came to be. Were this the case, then we would reduce entities to their history. However, as every parent knows, while they were certainly the efficient cause of their child coming to be, the child has a being independent of this morphogenetic process by which it came to be. The being of a being cannot be reduced to its efficient cause, but also has its formal or structural cause.

Moreover, DeLanda seems to be at odds with his own thesis, for later, in the same text, he proposes a flat ontology that would be “one made exclusively of unique, singular individuals, differing in spatio-temporal scale but not in ontological status”. [109] In formulating his ontology as a flat ontology, DeLanda's thesis seems to work against his prior claim that the being of beings is to be conceived in terms of their morphogenetic processes. For here it seems that DeLanda takes the Aristotelian route of treating individual substances as what are primary. As Aristotle puts it, “anything which is produced is produced by something [...], and from something”. [110] In other words, individual substances are produced by and through other individual substances. As a consequence, individual substances necessarily precede processes of production and are the condition of production. The point, then, is not that we shouldn't examine processes of production. We should. Rather, the point is that substance ontologically precedes production.

In Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy, DeLanda remarks that “[s]ingularities [...] influence the behaviour [of objects] by acting as attractors for [their] trajectories”. [111] Here it is crucial to note that the concept of attractors is not a teleological concept. Attractors are not goals towards which a substance tends, but are rather the potentialities towards which a substance tends under a variety of different conditions in the actualization of its qualities. As DeLanda goes on to say, “singularities are [...] the inherent or intrinsic [...] tendencies of a system, the states which the system will spontaneously tend to adopt [...] as long as it is not constrained by other forces”. [112] In this respect, DeLanda's attractors are extremely close to Bhaskar's generative mechanisms developed in A Realist Theory of Science.

However, in contrast to DeLanda—though I believe his analysis already suggests this distinction—I want to argue that attractors are not states of an object or substance, but rather are what in substances preside over the genesis of actualized states or local manifestations. In this respect, the attractors of a substance constitute what Harman, following Zubiri, refers to as the notes or the most intimate reality of the object. They are the generative mechanisms within an object that preside over the events or qualities of which the object is capable. However, while serving as the condition of these events or qualities, these attractors are not themselves qualitative or events. As DeLanda puts it, “attractors are never actualized, since no point of a trajectory [of an object] ever reaches the attractor itself”. [113] As such, the attractors or singularities inhabiting the endo-structure of an object are radically withdrawn. They are that which serves as the condition for the actual dimension of an object, for the local manifestations of an object, but are never themselves found on the actual side of an object. For this reason, DeLanda contends that we must “make [...] a sharp ontological distinction between the trajectories as they appear in the phase portrait of a system, on the one hand, and the vector field, on the other”. [114] The phase portrait or phase space of an object is the variety of states an object occupies at the level of its actualized qualities or properties, while the vector field consists of the attractors that preside over the genesis of these qualities. Thus, for example, the phase space of the coffee mug would be, among other things, the variety of different colors it actualizes, whereas the attractor would be that singularity that functions as the genetic conditions for all of these different colors. It is the attractor that persists throughout these variations or transformations.

The claim that objects are split-objects is the claim that they are split between their virtual proper being and their local manifestations. The virtual proper being of an object is its endo-structure, the manner in which it embodies differential relations and attractors or singularities defining a vector field or field of potentials within a substance. The local manifestation of a substance is the actualization of a point within the phase space of this vector field in the form of actualized qualities. If it is crucial to distinguish between virtual proper being and local manifestation, then this is because the qualities of an object can undergo variations while still remaining the object that it is. It is a vague recognition of this capacity within substances that leads Aristotle to distinguish between substance and its qualities. However, if we are to avoid falling into Locke's bare substratum problem while maintaining the distinction between substance and its qualities, it is necessary to articulate the way in which substance can be structured without possessing qualities. It is precisely this problem that the concept of virtual proper being resolves. Yet, above all, the distinction between virtual proper being and local manifestation teaches us that objects are plastic. As a function of the exo-relations objects enter into with other objects, the attractors defining the virtual space of a substance can be activated in a variety of different ways, actualizing objects in a variety of different ways at the level of local manifestations. It is for this reason that the confusion of objects with their actualization in local manifestations always spells theoretical disaster, for in doing so we foreclose the volcanic potentials harbored in the depths of objects.