**Links to**: [[Recursivity]], [[Entropomorfismo]], [[Perspectivism]], [[Perspectival anxiety]], [[Polycomputation]], [[Constraint]], [[Neologistics]], [[Prediction]], [[Xpectator]]. ### [[000 Postulate]]: [[Perspectivism]] can become richer, polycomputional, and increasing in perspectival dimensions, by this concept. We use two existing concepts to create this neologism. _Vantage point_, and _mathematical point_, as in: **perspective**, but more specifically directional, biased, (sometimes advantageous) vectorial perspective.[^1] The position from which an agent (or _xpectator_) _makes_ sense (including multiple perspectives in this sentence: the agent _making_ sense, and the agent making _sense_ to itself and/or another agent, see also: [[Perspectivism]]). And _pointillism_: developed in the late 19th century, bleeding off of impressionism: a movement which massively influenced constructivist approaches to the making of sense, and which, in and of itself challenged established approaches to optical perspective. The joke here is about the _good_ in _bad sense_. Individuated vantage points, composed out of infinitesimal granularities, _conduce-enduce_ perception. The dynamic yet unified perspective which emerges is not up to any one of the _dots_, but is an emergent property. Seeing (read: experiencing) this allows us to see how this happens not just in the painting but in our very own eyes (and ears, and skin, etc.). However, we try to rid perspectivism of its perspective, that is, we try to rid the subject of the subject: it’s all dots and illusions, and it’s highly particular, but superbly general, too. Pointillism is also a minor, often derided style, in ‘bad taste’, which only makes the neologism more amusing, as mentioned above. _Vantage_, coming from _ad_-vantage (as in: _avant-garde_, in _front_ of others), has the capacity to express the fact that whenever something speaks, it necessarily distracts from the rest. No matter how well-intended, no matter how much it matters: it speaks, and the multiplicious other does not. Whenever something speaks, it speaks for others, in the same manner as the others perhaps now can be said to speak for it. Here it is: *vantagepointillism*. %% “This is the Age of Anxiety for the reason of the electric implosion that compels commitment and participation, quite regardless of any "point of view." The partial and specialized character of the viewpoint, however noble, will not serve at all in the electric age. At the information level the same upset has occurred with the substitution of the inclusive image for the mere viewpoint. If the nineteenth century was the age of the editorial chair, ours is the century of the psychiatrist's couch.” (McLuhan 1964, p. 8). Also mention how this is not the perspectivism you are after: “Although this element emerged in the eighteenth century with the processes of collecting and cataloguing the world, made possible through the colonial project and the institution and operation of the museum, and contributed to the configuration of a planetary consciousness that played out very powerfully in the nineteenth century through the coalescence of geopolitics and chronopolitics, it was itself conditioned upon what George Agnew calls “perspectival conception of knowing.” Agnew argues that “[t]he standard scientific model of knowing was built on this perspectival basis,” whereby “order could be discovered through creating distance between observer and observed and then seeing what is observed in relation to a whole setting.” He notices that “[t]he rapidly emerging linear perspective associated with the architectural and cartographic practices of the Renaissance added a critical element: the separation of the observer from an object under vision and the object’s location within a visual field that would determine the meaning it would take.” This, as he argues, “had the effect of allowing the world to appear as a meaningful whole in which any part of it could be understood only in relation to the whole.”25 This mode of visualising the global space, which became part and parcel of the process of knowledge production, would have never been enabled without Europeans’ encounters with the rest of the world beginning in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The co-operation between visualisation and knowledge production initially became possible in the context of the classifying table by means of, to reiterate Foucault’s words, “connecting things both to the eye and the discourse.” Before nineteenth century, this co-operation as Linnaeus work verifies, became operative in and through geography, namely in and through spatial terms.” from Katerina’s chapter sent in for human conditions. The source: George Agnew, “Visualising global space” in Geopolitics: Re-visioning World Politics. Second Edition (London and New York: Routledge, 2003), pp. 15-33, p. 22, p. 32. And don't forget: http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/f17/phil204A/readings/moreno-1987-biological%20autonomy.chaps1-3.pdf %% ### Footnotes [^1]: Not to be confused with vectoralism/the vectoralist class as pejoratively treated by McKenzie Wark. We use the term _vector_ as ‘neutrally’ (sorry) as can be, as a specific way to talk about relationships of dimensionality: magnitude, directionality, possibility of displacement, etc. It is the simplest, most abstract spatial metaphor that we find to employ a concept of relation before any salient asymmetries between things are compared. Before (a)symmetry, we need vector. See also: [[Line]].