Where we could be...

If the interval can be described as a break down of perception: a point where ‘volumes emerge from surfaces’ (Manning), where from a purely perceptual level things become a moving blur, a continuous trace, a tonal vibration, where matter seems to be expanding, then here we may have located a vector where two states of perception merge.
There is the perception of what we know, who we are, where we are going, etc. We could call this a conscious perception, which is continually working in relation to a more prescient or unconscious perception, defined as, where we could be.
Where we could be, is perhaps the slightest glimpse into a potential of prescience, a glimpse, a yearning, an attachment to a greater metaphysical system, or what is referred to as the Plane of Immanence. From the physical perspective, our thoughts process perception, make sense of the physicality of the world around us. Yet during the interval, as perception breaks down, does it also expand, infinitely, and during this expansion, it’s potential is also infinite, even if it only for a fraction of a second.
What I am trying to relate is that as physical movement has a quantum counterpart, realized by the waves it displaces, as a natural behaviour of molecular systems, do thoughts also have a similar quantum counterpart? Are thoughts themselves defined by a quantum relationship to the perception of space?

pile-up

It seems to me that the non-linear coming into being that Ryan mentions is also Deleuze’s second aspect of time; no longer a succession of movements and their units, but time as simultaneism and simultaneity (46). This second aspect of time is the fundamentally open whole in which the indivisibility of movement is understood as continuous and limitless, always giving rise to something new. I think of this open whole as the plane of immanence, which Deleuze tells us is both the movement established between sets and the movement which keeps them open, allowing them to move and change and get messed up with us as bodies, too

Sets and Domains

"We may therefor say that the plane of immanence or the plane of matter is: a set of movement-images; a collection of lines or figures of light; a series of blocs of space-time" (Deleuze, 61)

This formulation put forth by Delueze in order to clarify the relations between light, image and space-time could perhaps be seen as paralleling (or being derivations of) Einstein's concept of relativity, which originally lead to the definition of the space-time model. 

Einstein's theory allows that nothing can be considered to exist outside of an event's (observer's) future or past light cone as defined by the expanding light energy traveling from said event (observer). This is due to the limit of all moving phenomena as being necessarily slower than the speed of light. And, if nothing can move faster than light then reality needs to be contained within a light-event. What can potentially exist outside the light cones can not affect or be affected by the event; they for all intents and purposes do not exist.

Is it possible that the "set movement-images" referred to by Delueze and contained within its domain, as defined by the plane of immanence, is synonymous with the "set of all perception and matter" as contained in the future and past light cones of an event? And, if so, in how many ways can the event be defined?