Introduction: Can the research experience be folded with sounds and images that fold darkness?

The question in the introduction's title points out the need to overcome the conduction of narrative research and the organic regime based on the sensor-motor scheme, which prescriptively shapes researchers' experience, so that, in this process, we can move and force the thought to leave the darkness and set ‘crystals’ that project different perspectives in the narrative processes.

Therefore, this article seeks to present narratives of self in research processes by recording experiences lived in the intercessions between cultural, artistic, and educational processes in the self-writing style in crystalline and fabulatory ways, allowing for problematizations and/or the creation of fictional folds and the design of life shared in public school.

The premise of this research approach could be summarized in the slogan: With pieces of Is, we assemble, in folds, a singular and complex being because the personal and the collective dialogue merge, establish, move, and complement each other (Figure 1).

Thinking 'thought' in ^{Deleuze (1991}), which creates through subversion and chaos, implies knowing up close the extensive infinity as a creation force that, no matter how much it folds, unfolds, and refolds, carries with it the marks/curves of involvement, development, involution, and evolution.

To Deleuze, the fold is power as a variation condition, “[…] force itself is an act, an act of the fold” (^{Deleuze, 1991},p. 37). We can understand the force of vibration and modification through Deleuze's fold, producing a difference beyond the recognitive processes.

Deleuze reaffirms that the thought only thinks by a chance encounter that violates it, forces it, which coerces it to think what it needs, what is necessary, what can no longer not be thought. Deleuze insists that the thought does not think for itself, does not create, what matters is what forces it to leave its lethargic state of less power: the recognition (^{Heuser, 2010}, p. 31).

Thus, researchers and research participants, as experience beings, are potentially beings of rupture and, as such, try to provoke an experience thought that unfolds, folds, and refolds forever- as a space-time of eternal processual crossing.

In this crossing, self-writing is folded, refolded, and unfolded. In the contribution of self-writing (hypomnemata), narratives are taken beyond the individualization process, i.e., they are conceived as agencies in networks that potentialize events inscribed in collective forms (^{Foucault, 1992}). According to ^{Foucault (1992)}, self-writing is self-exploration, no longer to reach God but to reach the many universes interconnected in the I. We need to advance in the sense that self-knowledge should lead us not to be different from others but to reach them. In self-writing, as textuality, the narrator extrapolates the frontiers between real and fiction.

Self-writing is a singular narrative that ^{Deleuze (1990}) distinguished, in the chapter ‘ The powers of the false,' as belonging to the organic or crystalline regime. In the first case, the narrative is related to the sensor-motor scheme, which supposes the independence of the object. It assumes that the environment preexists the narrative. In the second case, the narrative counts for its object and can substitute it, always giving way to other narratives that can change the previous ones. If the organic narrative regime - sensor-motor regime - encompasses the real and the imaginary as two opposite poles, the narratives of the crystalline regime gather the two ways in a circuit in which real and imaginary, the current real and the virtual form coalescing narrative, intimately linked.

From that arises the narration that does not seek the truth, wants to be true even in fiction, to become a falsifier. If the crystalline description no longer presupposes a reality, the narration no longer refers to truth, substituting the shape of truth with the power of falsehood (^{Machado, 2009}).

Deleuze calls falsifying narratives these creative fabulations that lay beyond truth and false. He highlights the creative power of what our world would commonly call 'false.' The proposal is essentially ethical-political: What is opposed to fiction is not reality. It is not the truth of the masters and colonizers. It is the fabulatory role of the dominated while granting falsehood the power, which turns it into a memory, a legend, and a monster (^{Deleuze, 1990}).

What is broken here is more than an internal veridical model of the fictional narrative: it is the model that makes fiction into a higher truth and, because of this, far from life. Finding the fabulatory function is recovering the bond between life and fiction. It is to see the reality of fiction, to make visible that its falsifying power is, before all, a creative power of worlds, inhabitable and liveable worlds. Consequently, what is affirmed is not the truth of fiction but its falsifying reality.

Thus, we understand that in data production, a central issue is the fabulations because we are invaded by fabulations with ‘truth effects’ (^{Foucault, 1975}), such as those of consumerism, electronic games, media, commercial cinema, and others. Our mind is shaped by the media as consumers of dreams, representative democracy, and objects and symbols, which we can call unrealistic fabulations because they put us into a state of mental torpor and voluntary servitude (^{Gauthier, 2014}).

Therefore, fighting against this type of fabulation and creating achievable fabulations is necessary. If the fabulating role falsifies memory, it is precisely because it is not a faculty for the past and conservation of the past but a faculty for the future, for creating new and powerful images, without which the present does not occur. Fabulation is the power of false because it does not force its passage. It forces us to say: I am another. Fabulation is a memory of the future (^{Deleuze, 2018}).

Hence, in the crystal-image, the present is suspended in favor of a direct connection between the past and the future, which allows us to apprehend a past in its virtual dimension. In the image-fabulation, it is the present itself that opens up for the future, letting us see the states of change that cross it. Therefore, this new image, more than offering us an indiscernibility, makes us see the body as a field force, a field of force intercessions.

The broadening of awareness through crystalline description mobilizes the powers of 'false' - thus called in our unrealizable realistic-mediatic context. What is false in this context is beyond the duality of true and lie, right and wrong. The realism of the daily news, soap operas, and social networks is generally an aspect of the unrealizable role of the current forms of domination. For this reason, it works very well; we buy cheap little dreams, day after day, night after night. The realizing fabulation is a form of 'awareness' because it shows the other side of mediatic scenarios and frees itself from it. The realizing fabulation works through unknown affections, while the unrealized fabulation does so through familiar affections, dominated and dangerless, the connection of characters and their perspectives in time and space, within the being, within us.

In the research processes, in their relationships with culture and art, we should create other ways to see and state the school routine and beyond. At every moment in the research processes, we tend towards an equidistant relationship between personal and collective and/or follow (standardized) forms that impose what can be seen and what can/should be stated.

In this sense, we also need to consider that school and, mainly, the cultural industry will incarcerate/subsume a world previously shaped by cartoons, films, videos, and others, presented and consumed as massive shapes, understandable and reproducible so that the researchers stop their singular creations to open possible and compossible worlds.

To dive in the sea, we need to inspire-conspire, but how can we dive in the sea of research, inspiring- cospiring- creating self-narratives in collective processes?

Taking ethics as a freedom problematization, the ethical exercise of research consists of questioning, provoking, and tensing the power relations and subjection conditions when seeking spaces of creation, difference production, and possible reflections in the research field.

Up to here, we have talked about self-writing (hypomnemata), discussed the act of folding-unfolding-refolding, and described the organic narration relationship, crystalline-falsifier, realizing and unrealizing fabulations. Still, we need to point out clues on how to dive into this ethical-aesthetical-political sea: how to inspire-conspire to breathe other possibilities to, through self-narratives, dive into the meeting with others?

In the context of research intervention, this exercise can be understood as an analysis of implication, which is not located in a specific research moment or a particular methodological element but “[...] as a condition for the possibility of self-establishing the relationship researcher-researched and the research field at the same time” (^{Lourau, 2004}, p. 190).

In this reference, the institutional intervention seeks to provoke a rupture in the established way organizations work and, thus, discover what is generally not declared, not assumed by the collective, keeping itself hidden in the relationships that the individuals and groups created with the institutions.

In the movement of institutional analysis, the institutions constitute a dynamic. They are always in movement, in a game between maintenance and creation, conservation and dissolution. The processes of transformation and creation result from forces that compose the instituting movements. At the same time, the instituted, which also comprises the institutions, establishes itself as the effect of the instituting action. Furthermore, it is imbricated in its equipment and functions, generally tending to reproduce other established forms and order maintenance.

The institutional analysis uses devices to intervene with the instituted and trigger analytical processes. According to ^{Foucault (2000}), devices encompass institutions, scientific discourses, philosophical proposals, and what is said and not-said, which can agency change movements.

Being in the intervention field imposes the exercise of implication analysis, i.e., the analysis of relationships that we establish with ourselves and others - the passage of oneself to the multiplicities - because we are taken by them, whether we want it or not. To research-intervene, the group of researchers needs to promote self-analysis and self- management in the intervening collectives and the dynamic of one's work, allowing the exegetical practice of self- writing.

According to ^{Lourau (1975}), the implications are primary and secondary. The primary implications are related to the connections between the group analyzed and the external analyzers. The secondary ones are connected to all institutions that cross us. We can highlight the latter's different natures as the affective, existential, and professional implications.

As a limit of the implication analysis in research, we situate the organization of spaces for an end, as, generally, the way of thinking and conducting research is individualized and competitive. Building research collectives willing to analyze implications is complex because it involves time, participation in numerous meetings, and mainly the internal availability for the analysis process, knowledge, and transformation from the technical-ethical-political perspective.

The review of these actions, in the implication analysis, reflects in the production of devices and in the construction process of collective studies, always unfinished, that seek to remind what often is forgotten in the institutions, in this case, the defense of life.

Thus, we highlight that the discussion and analysis of implication is not part of the research but an existing research condition, establishing the whole process. The theoretical reflection is also an exercise of implication analysis, as it indicates the forms of the concepts used depending on the trajectory and the establishment of the subject-researcher- writer, which occurs during the research experience and not a priori. So, writing is also a process, an exercise, and a practice of self that can provoke transformations.

To ^{Foucault (1992}, p. 146), “[...] no professional skill can be acquired without exercise; neither can one learn the art of living, the Techne tou biou, without an askesis which must be taken as a training of oneself by oneself [...]”. Hence, the research process implies the practices, the concepts, and the analyses articulated in the art of living.

Writing is one of the elements of this áskesis of the subject-researcher-writer and the establishment of this relationship of someone with oneself. What is the tactic? What is the instrument of this áskesis? We can think that the paraskeué is for áskesis, as the methodology is for research experience. Paraskeué is one of the tactics of áskesis, one of its strategies. Therefore, we can understand the method as a paraskeué, an equipment.

[...] paraskeué could be called a preparation both an open and an oriented preparation of the individual for the events of life. In the áskesis, the paraskeuē involves preparing the individual for the future, for a future of unforeseen events whose general nature may be familiar to us, but which we cannot know whether and when they will occur. (^{Foucault, 1992}, p. 387).

This position affirms the existence of determinations, concepts, and logic that are not given a priori, before the

subject's experience and encounter with the practice field and the other. This way of researching presupposes constant reformulations in constructing the problem and the process, with subjects that compose the intervention field, in which researcher and field are mutually transforming. The experience and the meeting establish the process.

In this sense, these strategies allow the research process to follow pathways and detours produced in the meetings between the subjects. The implication analysis, the field diary, the work agendas, and the emphasis on the process stand out among these strategies to record and analyze the experiences, which are vital during the whole research trajectory. They can be ways to potentialize the researcher's self-exercise and its effects.

Next, we present three examples of field diary records (these three examples aim to ilustrate self-writings crystalline and fabulatory, different in their relationship with others, in problematizations of implication analysis in their studies. The first and second examles are taken from two doctoral theses, the third a proposal of a doctoral qualification.All are referenced) which illustrate self-writing to reach the many interconnected universes in the I,i.e., self-writing potentializing the meeting with others:

(1) I open the virtual class. A student enters some minutes later. As I have known him for three years, I have a face to the voice. We talked about some difficulties of the present time, the limits and possibilities of our subject, and the school. He seems anxious. I notice that I feel hopeful for this first contact after six months and a half. And having such a small number causes damage. When finishing the class, I notice more of my lonely images in the following times. Without suspecting that this would be a constant during the next months. And in a few weeks, I would lose my only student because he would make choices due to commitment demands and screen time. [...] I seek a word that I didn’t know the name of. A word in which the present really fits and can expand. Because of the urgency mode, what urges is just the echo of a past. I seek an unpronounceable. What, just as my I in the little square on the screen, is faceless and unpronounceable. But it does exist! [...] My silence is followed by static. I carefully listen to each testimony. It is a meeting with the psychology group. Individual-collective experiences are shared. Issues brought to light. Questions that do not leave my mouth and could not be said by me. Surprisingly, some coincidences emerge. Other more generic issues emerge because the obvious needs to be said. What emerges are strategies used for self-care. I think of care as cultivation. I do not say what I think. [...] When Ifinished theclass, the students walked to the court, wherethey hung their backpacks. One of the students said it out loud: close the gate, teacher. Nobody will leave. What happened? I asked. Where are the two hundred reais? Nobody leaves. Calme down, I’ll call the principal; Principal: The school doesn’t know how to solve these things. Nobody answered or dared to move. While I asked the doorman to call the coordinator, call the principal, the student made a call. Nobody leaves. The guy is already going down. My head starts to tingle. The guy was not the guy - not the boss but close to that. I remembered the teacher who had been mugged some days before when leaving the school. In the following hours, when the news spread, her purse returned to her hands. The burglar was the same age as our students. And, like some of them, he didn’t have a second chance. The principal went down with the coordinator. I was in the court with the students. The guy arrived at the school gate and gave an hour for the money to appear. On the contrary, outside the gate, things would be solved in his way. [...] What exists no longer fits us. We know this most cruelly. And what would best fit the time and needs present does not exist yet. There lies a crisis. This transitory state lets us between the pessimist that is established and inhabits us and the terrible indolence of accommodating ourselves to what, as said, no longer fits. But exists! (^{Ramos, 2021}, p. 61-62)

(2) The feet moved from one pedal to the next but did not feel the heat. They seemed to be under a certain type of spell. Frozen. Trembling. One could not imagine a meeting under these conditions. The stomach turned into a knot. One needed to experience other ways on this path. The white sneakers are no longer physically present, nor are the black boots. No laces were wishing to be tied, but a wish to find. Not much was known about the meetings to be produced. While this made them tremble even more, it improvised a state of alert, of attention. Jardim XXXX was where they should go. The cold that assolated the feet was pumped through the body. When getting closer to that school, a short pause. Deep breath. The blood circulated a bit more easier, but the frozen sensation lingered. They entered the school and already tripped into the little ones. The blood flow grew. They walked slowly to the teachers' room. They felt the school also freezing, as the skin of an amphibious. There was much rush in the teachers' room, people walking from one side to another. They barely arrived and heard the sign to the court. The gate opens, and an impressive number of little feet run, seeking their teachers. Names start to be called, and the agitated blood calms down. Together with those feet, there were 25 other different pairs of shoes. They go up the ramp, looking for their classes. Thoughts crossing: What would be the possible encounters with those little feet? Could they produce different pathways? Was there still a thought that they had entered a known territory? However, nothing can be foreseen. One needed to experience. (De)(re) territorialize. The need to create a desert for new occupations and new nomadisms. [...] This land called Jardim XXXX was only the first of the pieces of XXX for where these feet will wander again. It was not possible to know beforehand the affections that would take place. One could not imagine that these lands that caused fright could help update different movements of thought that follow these pathways. The encounters produced in these pathways did not always provoke calmness, as a good fairy bringing a good end. The encounters delineated as night shadows also have their force. They follow the escape line of a witch's laughter. Would it be possible to think with the feet? With the dirty that sticks when running in the yard with the children? With feet that swing by, not reaching the floor? Would the feet be helping to see and feel the world? It was no longer possible to be Hermes's apprentices. Maybe they wished to be Athenas's apprentices, not only for her wisdom but also for the art of war. Differently from Ares, the carnage was not part of Athenas's cunning. This is about combative experimentation. How can one not wish to combat the forms of oppression in schools? How can one not be combative when we cannot stop facing the blows we suffer? Some floors where the feet walk are drenched with gravel. Often, it hurts to walk. These blows are, almost always, too strong. How can one follow only technically the abandonment cases in/of schools? Walking over gravel can make the feet bleed. But when the blood is seen as a memory to be evoked, still there is life! The roughness of these stones mix with the blood of those who passed there with their feet. Friendships are confirmed. Curricula produced. Learning moving. A contagious zone was invented. In common, there is the combat against thought petrification and neglect. (^{Lourenço, 2019}, p. 23-25).

(3) The void? No combat. There is no pretense. The void is not a thinking body. The Cartesian logic (cogito ergo sum) does not work or any other variation of cogito. The void wants nothing. We may want the void. We, perhaps, would wish a void- becoming. But the void is nothing, wants nothing, and does nothing, so it is impossible to establish a relationship to come. Would the void be outside? If the void is not or is only a sensation, would it be the outside? Or the OUTSIDE? The outside, which Foucault and Deleuze, round and round, discuss as something from which emerge virtualities, potentialities, ideas, and images. We do not believe so. It could, maybe, draw an escape line between the void and the outside. A line that perhaps connects them. Is the outside the void? No. But the void connects us to the outside. An escape line is not only contained in an entanglement of lifelines that detours from life's hardships or delineates a breakthrough in a radically unexpected direction. Not this or maybe even less than this. Perhaps the void crossed the outside as a glimpse, only a sensation. A screen, ink, sensations, and there is a point maybe in the void that only allows us to question all we understand as something. Nietzsche (2012, p. 91) says that “We can destroy only as creators,” i.e., only when giving ourselves the act of creation - then we resume fabulation as a method of creation in the common - we can dig the world. But not only dig anything; dig images. Open holes in images. Tear voids that question more than answer.

The void explains nothing.

The explanation, however, digs faced with it.

The defenses are no longer lifted.

How to defend? How to explain?

The reactive life does not know how to act when faced with the void.

It is bravely justified as a president from nowhere.

As one of those presidents, we know well.

A reactive life that does not know how to act. It never did.

The void lapses answers and well-thought-out ideas.

It does not crack sensations but tingles our feet.

And ears. And tongues. And fingers. And buttocks.

And eyes. And noses. If art works through fabulations, even better if it can

Tear a void through wear we can pass. (^{Roseiro, 2021}, p. 206-209).

We highlight that the records and testimonies in the field diaries and other materials allow for analyses that are always incomplete because it is possible to review the research trajectory and produce different meanings for what was experienced, providing conditions for the analyses of implication.

The implication analyses are produced through the intermediation of analyzers that emerged during the research process. They can give visibility and provoke the devices that establish the power relationships in which they are

produced. Thus, the critical research issue is to question how the devices can be shown or provoked in this space, by constructing analyzers that can place such devices and their effects under analysis.

‘Device’ and ‘analyzer’ are terms that connect and relate to each other but are different. To ^{Baremblitt (1998}, p. 71), “[...] an analyzer is not only a phenomenon whose specific role is to express, show, denounce. It contains self- defending elements, i.e., to start the process of its own explanations”. An analyzer enables relationships and shows the different practices and agencies, simultaneously potentializing the process to understand and clarify what the analyzer does in a particular field and what it moves, allows, and provokes.

The devices present in the research field indicate the historical conditions and the heterogenous relations that make them work in a sense because “[...] we belong to devices and act on them” (^{Deleuze, 1996}, p. 92). The analyzers can show the device effects, how they update themselves in the specificity of the research context, and their fragilities and rupture possibilities. This process produces singular relations and analyses, allowing some analyzers to emerge due to the movements, encounters, problematizations, and reflections. The choice of analyzers is essential so that it would be possible to potentialize several processes of change and ruptures in this field of power relations.

This mutual implication of notions presented provokes a coexistence relationship between both. What emerges as an analyzer, which shows the multiplicity of relationships in a field of practices, which manifests and portrays logics and workings, can only do so when inserted in subjectivation processes, immersed in visibilities, sayabilities, and power relations, which indicate the devices as historical and heterogeneous content, and as a machine to 'make' see and say the agencies.

Usually, in school routines, we mostly write bureaucratic texts and/or with little reflection, and we share even less, considering that the visible and the sayable are immersed in a power relationship. Thus, we advocate self-writing in its relationship with others to resist or subvert the powers. Subjectivation and not subjection, the subject as “[…] an irreducible existence choice[...]” (^{Gros, 2004}, p. 618), a subject that is able of truthful writings, what does not mean true in itself but that seeks possible answers to think the ethical-social-cultural issues of our time.

Self-writing is also written to others. ^{Foucault (2006}) identifies ethopoetic writing as one way to make life an art form, a technique- a self-technique. These forms of writing would be closely connected with the care of self, related to care and the government of others. In any way, field diaries and personal diaries, such as letters, do not close on themselves because they establish themselves as an invitation to think about themselves but also in relationship to others.

We must consider that these writing methods are composed of fragments of what you see, hear, and read - writings composed of other writings. It is essential to highlight that writing, as friendship, inserts itself in the practices that establish ascesis. Through self-writing, which is completed by the reading of others, it is possible to create discourses received and taken as true in the rational principles of action. Writing has an “[...] ethopoietic function: it operates transformation of truth into ethos” (^{Foucault, 2006}, p. 147).

Self-writing opens the possibility of operating true discourses, which we think, defend, believe, and construct in actions and ways of being within a particular ethics. This is one of the questions ^{Foucault (2006}) recovers from analyzing stoic practices of áskēsis or self-care. Self-writing can be considered a possible way of subjectivation from Foucaldian theorizations. Self-writing is a form of reflection, of establishing a relationship of forms with itself and showing and transforming itself. There is no subject essence to be unveiled - the subjects are forms, not substances. This writing, which can be self-referenced and composed of other writings and experiences, is not enough in itself. It has to be socialized, completed with someone else’s gaze.

Thus, writing is completed with the reading of others and rewriting. Writing affects other writings and the practices of who writes, reads, and participates in implication analysis processes. There is a critical political-cultural dimension. It is a form of resistance, a form to find a breathable space between the relationships of knowledge and power, one of these “[...] ethical-subjective and intersubjective operations - directly implied in the resistances of power” (^{Branco, 2000}, p. 312). It is a form of resistance that makes politics. It is not only something subjective and individual but collective, which can consolidate into friendships, with no family bonds, establishing itself as a more creative space for political-cultural reinvention.

Involved researchers tend to make folds in the narratives, from which emerge, as unfolds, the need for a political composition for a collective life created in active ways to contrapose the ‘colonial-capitalist ideal’ (^{Rolnik, 2016}) and how to present propositional statements to help less conservative ideas gain more influence in the debates, seeking a direct intervention in the educational process.

In this sense, the educational process has great capillarity in social sectors with an affinity with conservative ideals due to elements such as fear of social violence, the irrationalism of religious fundamentalists as a response to reality, the lack of hope from the unemployment increase, and the absence of governmental social investments. Furthermore, conservative ideas and societal organization are disseminated, fomenting individualism disconnected from any collective and social bonds.

Open the window to let the sun enter the home: narrative, art, and culture

After all, as ^{Deleuze (2008}, p. 14) states, “[...] we can only wish together”. We thus escape from the interiority of a culture through the exteriority of meetings, examining the connection between the thought movement and a given culture. In this process, art is fundamental.

Contemporary society is marked by images that attract the gaze, which agency gazing possibilities under certain visibility conditions, inserted in the social and historical processes. These agencies provoked by images establish ways of seeing and narrating life.

The present certainly needs to pass for the new present to arrive and pass by, while it is present at the moment it is. Therefore, the image must be present and past, still present and already past, at once and at the same time. If it was not already past while present, the present would never pass. The past does not succeed the present. It no longer is. It coexists with the present it was. The present is the current image, and its contemporary past is a virtual image, a spectacular image (^{Deleuze, 2005}). The problematization of visibility can be referenced to the understanding of statements and sayabilities because, for Deleuze, “[...] they [statements] are never hidden and, however, are not directly readable, not even sayable. One could believe that the statements are frequently hidden, the object of a disguise, a constraint, or less than repression” (^{Deleuze, 2005}, p. 62). He highlights:

Summing up, if we do not rise to its extractive conditions, the statement continues to be hidden; as long as we have reached the conditions, on the contrary, it is visible and says all. [...] May all be always said, at each time, perhaps this is the greatest historical principle of Foucault: behind the curtain or the pedestal because there is nothing behind or beneath (^{Deleuze, 2005}, p. 63).

Summing up, the visible and the sayable are not reduced to gaze and speak, thus clouding the complexity of these productions. Furthermore, the visibilities and sayabilities are not immediately perceptible nor obvious, even if explicit and, simultaneously, there is nothing behind or besides because all can be seen and announced. The possibility conditions for the statements and visibilities are essential; they are much more than saying and seeing because they are developed in the power conditions encompassing history, economy, politics, government, institutions, and culture, among many other elements.

The position of understanding the research process as a practice of self from the subject-researcher-writer is an ascesis that can have as devices, as paraskeué, the research intervention and/or artistic signs in general, establish a robust strategy of ethical reflection in practice and as experience. Folding the lines of visibility and invisibility in a research process, such equipment produces interesting effects and materialities that provoke and call for reflections.

According to ^{Sontag (2004}), analyzing photographing as an action from reading, from photographic intervention, it is possible to think that there is also an intervention and an implication in the act of painting, as an exercise of gaze, and the act of provoking other ways of seeing. The imagery intervention inserted in the context of research-intervention seeks to tense, problematize, and provoke the ways of seeing and ethics of seeing, to intervene in the lines of visibility/invisibility in the educational processes, summoning productions and reflections. Would this hypothesis apply to using artistic, imagery, and literary signs as aids in escaping standardization and opening for creation?

We propose an alliance between researchers and all those potentially interested-involved in the relationship issues between research, education, culture, and art to think, together with literary and pictorial images. This life that insists on overflowing amidst the imposed ‘truths’ that fixate our gaze and sayings. If we agree with Deleuze's premise of a strong capitalist attack against the lives produced in the bodies, i.e., in producing subjectives, it is also possible to make an imagery reading of the opposite of these contention forces. The amount of images that produce the way necessary for capitalism is undeniably easy to find. However, relying on the ethical bet that life and resistance foresee the attempts of control, we believe it is also possible to say this for the imagery production of the world, for the images that spread life. The escape of universalizing models, 'unmodeling', is related to the opening for life, the creation of singularization lines of life, contraposed with the lines of subjection and death.

Problematically, we start from the principle of conceiving existences not as an inert archive, a supposed deposit of world memories, but in their relationships with the gesture - in this case, the way birds fly to find the blue - as an existence proposal that establishes itself in a network of relationships, that is, the variable continuumof our life. We do not intend to fixate meanings but to show the lifelines we witness and implicate a ‘will for art’ (^{Lapoujade, 2017}a). In a way, it is a political question to ask: How can we make a singular life of each body expand to the point that it overtakes the limits and expands movements towards 'one' life as a work of art?

Life as a work of art in producing new political-ethical-aesthetical ways of life in combat in school times-spaces through non-fundamentalist curricula and a non-dogmatic education. The undefined article is evidenced when we learn

with ^{Deleuze (2002}) that life is not reduced to an I but is always a multiplicity, collective, and singularizations. We then throw ourselves against impositions of a single world possible that, with its dogmas, crumble subjects’ lifetimes. Dogmas that also cross schools and subjugate teachers and students.

Fundamentalism turns dogmatic research and teaching, with its power of social cutting and segregation, raising fear with the presence of others, depriving us of knowing individual affective bonds and, especially, collective bonds, considering art as a collective affective bond, i.e., as signs crossed by multiple forces that we point out in this text as a way of resistance. Art and sensitiveness can become a way of resisting through the perceptual opening for other compossible (or not) worlds.

In the research movements, teachers and students can make other uses of space, body, and language, reinvent affective relationships as ethical practices, and recreate compositions between the bodies. Culture and art open new/other ways of appropriating nature, existences, and knowledges that open up and enrich affective relationships and collective solidarity because they broaden life as a space for affective exchanges, poetic creations, inclusive relationships that multiply through creative power, and refound the fight relationships of power/knowledge.

In these fights, the demands of those with rights generally stand out, in this case, those called 'majorities.'The 'minorities,' which differ from the dominant axiomatic, lack rights and a language-force to establish them. The right became inseparable from the determination of a fundament under which the majority can claim this or that right. The devoided are those that do not fit the fundament established by those with the knowledge and the power, while the latter decide about their distribution and sharing. So, as ^{Lapoujade (2017}b) affirms, it is a political issue but also aesthetic and cultural. Earn the ‘right’ to exist; there is the challenge!

Final remarks

For the blue to enter the home, what effects does art have over culture, life, and research that insists on overflowing in crystalline-fabulatory narratives? Facing the need to increase the power of being affected, we understand culture and art as an access path to unknown affections (^{Rayel, 2017}).In this sense, we realize that our perception is conditioned to the 'imperatives of practical life .'We act - or are acted upon - by reactive forces and/or passions that dominate us, which reduce our power to act. However, if, according to ^{Espinosa (2007}), it is possible to abandon, at least partially, the world of passions when selecting joyful affections, we also see in ^{Nietzsche (2014}) the possibility of affirming life (Figure 2). Life is affirmed amidst forces in the constant combat to create “[...] the weakness of will, or, to be specific, the inability of not responding to a stimulus is itself merely another form of degeneration” (Nietzsche, 2014, p. 32). In ^{Foucault (2006}), we notice self-writing as a mechanism to capture the self and the others in us; this inherent alterity in itself, the subject itself, can lead us to construct ourselves through the creation of pathways able to connect the many steps lived in the I in the meeting with the other. In ^{Deleuze (1988}), we see the affirmation of life through repetition, in an endless return that preserves from the memory only the pure form of time, i.e., the disjunction, the difference of oneself in time, meaning that the third synthesis does not make anything from the past return, it only refers to the becoming. Becoming becomes the possibility of an event, not in the sense of a project but the openness and/or fold for the engagement in an extraordinary thought, a thought-world, impersonal, that overflows the regularities of ordinary thought. In this case, memory is no longer personal, becoming a memory-world or a memory-cosmos. The eternal return is the endless affirmation of the being, the positivity that, by nature, diverges. It is the implementation of multiplicities and becoming. Therefore, the eternal return produces the active-becoming. Becomings are pure positivities because they transform want into creation, and carry out the equation want = create (^{Deleuze & Guattari, 1996}).

It is essential to establish an implication between the research, its agents, culture, and art to create an intense and vibrating language, characteristical of a linguistic-image system in constant unbalance, bifurcated with its terms in continuous variation, producing 'collections of intensive sensations,' 'blocks of variable sensations', impersonal individuation, individuation with no subject, of a singularity defined by affections, powers, and intensities.

Figure 2 To find blue, I use birds (^{Barros, 2021}). 

Where before there seemed to exist only finished forms, we see the tension of a trace that hesitates because it wants to explore what is beyond what is known by wishing to cross the limits of real with the invention in crystalline and fabulatory narratives.

Therefore, we are reminded that art is the highest power of false. It, a falsifier, does not want a limit. On the contrary, it wants to erase the boundaries of real, of life reduced to explanations, of the life that knows everything about itself. If knowledge, as we highlighted before, gives to life the laws that separate it from what it can do, that spare it from act and, in general, forbid it to act (^{Deleuze, 2018}), art and culture, conversely, affirm life exactly when life fakes it, when life deceives life, making it believe it can do more. “The power of fake should be elevated to a will of deceiving, an artistic will that is the only one capable of rivaling the ascetic ideal and successfully opposing it” (^{Deleuze, 2018}, p. 132).

If culture and art exercise their senses when creating, may it be a meeting with the research without a teaching-body, an encounter of exchange and learning. A research that, in a crystalline and fabulatory narrative, can deceive the world in an artistic becoming, a study with a solid and affirmative collective thinking-acting.