deluze y gutari a thousand plateaus

deje esto para el final para que decante un poco. en buenos aires fui de oyente a unas clases (7) donde hablaban de la primera parte y ahi dos companyeritos, muy interesantes y apacionados, y que me recomendaron varias buenas lecturas complemetarias meintras tomabamos cafe, me anunciaron que me tomar'ia 10 anyos entender algo de k y esquizo. asi que aun si entenderlo espero arrebatarle algunas cosas que sirvan.

Deleuze and Guatari open thier book giving some directions into how to make the reading as well as establishing a base for their work. They position themselves outside the genealogy of state philosophers that they claim have contriuted to build a state power [among others by claiming a distinction between reality and representation, and the possibility of the aproximation of the real to a more perfected ideal that is represented by the state]. They will present pairs of concepts that is not implying a dualistic distinction but is a form of presenting different a form of connecting that establishes divisions and hierarchies and alternative momevents. Non is absolute in its result, and both get confused, but this is a presentation choice i understand.
They use the structure of plateaux following Batson notion of it: the making of a zone of intensity that instead of being evacuated and exhausted maintains its level as much as possible. This will be the opposite to a western climax as a drain of accumulated energy. [bateson lo usa luego para explicar la esquizo]

1. rhizome and tree
[esto me importa por Metodologico] The point is asking how does something work rather than what does it mean. Looking at work implies: how does it function?
what is connecting?
in connection to what is it transmitting intensities?
how multiplicities connect to other multiplicities?
how does this connection transform the parts/bodies connected?

To talk about how something work is different than to talk about how ideology is being produced, and what are the real relations that ideology is veiling. They claim that: "There is no ideology and there never was." (p4) The state philosophers work with a tree structure: hierarchical, dual and dialectic (states that are an improvement of previous states). The propose to follow a rhizome logic: with no given order, no centre periphery, no predefined movements, multiple. Any point of the rhizome can be connected to anything other and must be." (7)
In the rhizome there is no hereditary code but a flux of intensities.
[meth] The rhizome has no beginning and no end but only a midle. (20)
"Arborescent systems are hierarchical systmes with centres of significance and and subjectification, central automata-like organized memories." (16) If the tree is made of points and positions, the rhizome only of lines
However there are arborescent structures emerging form rhizomes and also rizhomatic roots of trees.

2. assamblage and multiplicities. (no encuentro las notas sobre las maquinas y el deseo pero basicamente el deseo conecta mas que busca la carencia y las maquinas incluyen toda serie de multiplicidades - humana y no humanas, animales y no animales, esta es la base de su postura antihumanista creo, por que implica un "funcionamiento" mas aca de la accion racional o de una estructura social, masumi da el ejemplo de tirar un piedra y romper la venta y todos los niveles en los que se puede entender, donde la piedra y la furz que lo arroja tambien son importantes)

Principles of Connection and heterogeneity. Ennunciation does not escape this, thus a semantic chain is connected with diverse forms of coding. Enunciation is also part of machinic assemablages and not a question of decoding, the wuestion is what is being connected and how does it work.
Principle of Multiplicity. Multiplicity imples the need to approach in extension, no discrete elements separated for their connections. They are flat as they occupy all the dimensions they can possibly do in a given plane [esto no lo entiendo]. They are defined by the outside, the possibility of connecting to other multiplicities and changing in nature.
Assemblage is the increase in the dimensions of the multiplicity through connections, by adding up. The basic relation is to add.
Multiplicities can be either heterogeneous, continuous, and qualitative or homogeneous, numerical and discrete

3. territorilization deterritorialization and reterritorialization - cartographies
Principle of asignifying rupture: the rhizome can be broken and this implies nothing as it can start again form any fragment. Ruture is deterritorializaton or a pat becoming detached form an assamblage, cretaing the possibilities for other configurations, by being reterritorilized somewhere else, an organization will stratify parts again. Rupture-Deterritorilization may be pushed by the circulation of intensities. Deterritorilization is about lines of flight that undo the strata and makes new connections. [como lo demustra el ig nobel de arqueologia: el armadillo desarma la estratigrafia del arquologo]
The rhizome is not good for a structural or generative analysis, to follow a genetic line or a structure is a This are principles of tracing would be about following predifined lines [transectas], rather than of producing a map of a number of connections to be discovered in the process. Maps then need to remove the blockages by fostering connections, and finding the many ways of entering.


4. nomad - war machine - and state
They propose to relate to the outside of a given territory by producing an assamblage that connects to it, and not by producing a model. Though need to be nomadic in order to connect to this outside, unlik the sedentary production of history, writen form the position of the state, within its structure. To map is about coming back and forth and using different speeds.

In the chapter Nomadology - war machine, they expand on the a nomad organization that precedes the state. they use a number of anthropological references to define what is the nomad.

The nomad moves across the desert with no prefigured direction. The stops are operative but not define a territory, any eye of water. They follow no path but advance and define in the way. [estos son algunos de los errores antropologicos de su argumento, basados en lecturas estudios de cr que ademas de estructuralistas fueron luego bastante criticados por el tipo de dato que producian] The nomad are guided only relatively by a magician, who has no funding pact with the group. The king has always been portrayed as good, clear and fair, while the magitian as obscure, arbitrary, unfair. this is the state logic warning against the nomad.
The state attempts to prevent war as much as it can, the nomad contrarily develops the war machine to be able to advance when the state develops and is in its way blocking movement. The nomad is a free floating war machine, composed of warriors. The state is more about police that prevents confrontation [esto vienen de virilio creo]. The state is about regulating the social through distinctions state-subjects of state, men and women. To have a military force the state appropriates a free war machine, thus the constant problems between state and army.
They use Clastres society against the state to explain why the nomad is different form state and rather develops mechanisms to prevent form becoming a state. The mechnisms are diminihing the prosperous and the arrogant, sorcery and the other etc.
But also war is a way of preventing form state to emerge as a central organization organizing and distributing social work.

The state main functions, aided by state science, are related not to producing but to internalizing the nomad body and the nomad band, sedentarizing them, regulating movement and organizing labour and rest. They dedicate a long examination to the production of science. The nomad creates an inexact science, that is always being appropriated by the king. The science of state finds correspondence of form and matter, restricting possibilities of other forms of association. The state is woried in reproduction raher than in following, a process that is constantly extending territory rather than fixing. The nomad science produces a smooth space, a field with no measures, that resists euclidian space by the possibility of undefined multiple vectors. It is nomos vs logos.

(toda esta seccion de vuelta no numeros de paginas)

5. smooth and striad

"the nomads do not move they leave to conquer or die" (482). The travell with a prefigured destination is the travel of the state apparatus. Voyage in place is the name of all intensities, even if they only develop as such. "What distinguishes the modes of voyage is the manner of being in space, of being for space." Travelling smoothly is uncertain and about becoming something different and multiple.
The striad is the closed space produced by the state apparatus to infold the nomad. But also the "multinationals fabricate a kind of deterritorilized smooth space in which points of occupation as well as poles of exchange become quite independent of the classical paths of striation. What is really new are the always the forms of turnover." (492)
To translate the smooth to the stria is not a secondary operation, not just to substitute trasversed space for movement. It consists in subjugating, overcoding, metricizing it. An example is the traslation fo intensive into extensive, or qualitative multiplicities of distance into a system of magnitude. The smooth allows the creation of the striad, the striad reimparts the smooth (smooth space of capitalism).
What defines the straid is that the number of diemnsions are given and this makes it possible to asigns constant directions.
While smooth space is that it does not have a dimension higher than which it moves through [aca de nuevo definenen esto como flat multiplicity y no entiendo muy bien que queiren decir]. The smooth space is a zone of indiscernability, an unexact multiplicity, constituted by an accumulation of proximities. The space escapes striation through deviation and through the spiral.
If gravity is a given force of atraction, Work is a force of displacement in a certain direction. Labour is to free action what in physics gravity is to work. Both transform free action into a defined movement. Work is an invention of the state, appears with the creation of surplus labour.

The smooth space is a haptic space. The orientation and links are in continuous variation. Creative process is done in the smooth space. The smooth space is made in the abstract line of the nomad (aca no entiendo por que abstracta) The striad is made in the concrete line. The abstract all is pure intensity, it is the live that is before the organism, inorganic, germinal, a body without organs (no organization no hierarchies).
What is interesting in the distinction of smooth and straid is the passages form one to the other. How the forces at work within the smooth straite it, and in this striation new forces develop new smooth spaces. Movements, speed and slowness are sometimes recreating the smooth.
Smooh spaces are not in themselves emancipating, but the strugle is changed in them, life finds new obstacles, invents new paces and finds new ways. "Never belive that smooth spaces will sufice to save us" (500)

bueno y con esto culmina la obsecion lectora por encargo. es un poco torturante el marco del examen pero leer y pensar siempre esta bueno. pero espero seguir subiendo cosas que lei, por ejemplo para los multiples grupos de lectura.