## Molar and Molecular “in Meinong and Russell we find a distinction between multiplicities of magnitude or divisibility, which are extensive, and multiplicities of distance, which are closer to the intensive. And in Bergson there is a distinction between numerical or extended multiplicities and qualitative or durational multiplicities. We are doing approximately the same thing when we distinguish between arborescent multiplicities and rhizomatic multiplicities. Between macro- and micromultiplicities. On the one hand, multiplicities that are extensive, divisible, and molar; unifiable, total-izable, organizable; conscious or preconscious—and on the other hand, libidinal, unconscious, molecular, intensive multiplicities composed of particles that do not divide without changing in nature, and distances that do not vary without entering another multiplicity and that constantly construct and dismantle themselves in the course of their communications, as they cross over into each other at, beyond, or before a certain threshold. The elements of this second kind of multiplicity are particles; their relations are distances; their movements are Brownian; their quantities are intensities, differences in intensity.” (Deleuze, 1987, p. 54) “stratification. Strata are Layers, Belts. They consist of giving form to matters, of imprisoning intensities or locking singularities into systems of resonance and redundancy, of producing upon the body of the earth molecules large and small and organizing them into molar aggregates.” (Deleuze, 1987, p. 61) “the illusion specific to this posture of the abstract Machine, the illusion that one can grasp and shuffle all the strata between one's pincers, can be better secured through the erection of the signifier than through the extension of the sign (thanks to signifiance, language can claim to be in direct contact with the strata without having to go through the supposed signs on each one)” (Deleuze, 1987, p. 65) “A form of content is not a signified, any more than a form of expression is a signifier.” (Deleuze, 1987, p. 66)“ "Delinquency" is the form of expression in reciprocal presupposition with the form of content "prison."” (Deleuze, 1987, p. 87) “We are never signifier or signified. We are stratified.” (Deleuze, 1987, p. 88) “Signs are not signs of a thing; they are signs of deterritorialization and reterritorialization, they mark a certain threshold crossed in the course of these movements” (Deleuze, 1987, p. 88) “The plane of consistency is the abolition of all metaphor; all that consists is Real.” (Deleuze, 1987, p. 90) “The strata themselves are animated and defined by relative speeds of deterritorialization; moreover, absolute deterritorialization is there from the beginning, and the strata are spinoffs, thickenings on a plane of consistency that is everywhere, always primary and always immanent.” (Deleuze, 1987, p. 91) “What we call the mechanosphere is the set of all abstract machines and machinic assemblages outside the strata, on the strata, or between strata.” (Deleuze, 1987, p. 92)“ each statement accomplishes an act and the act is accomplished in the statement.” (Deleuze, 1987, p. 100) “the opposition to be made is not between noise and information but between all the indisciplines at work in language, and the order-word as discipline or "grammaticality"” (Deleuze, 1987, p. 100) mapping vs tracing redundancy is tracing “Direct discourse is a detached fragment of a mass and is born of the dismemberment of the collective assemblage; but the collective assemblage is always like the murmur from which I take my proper name, the constellation of voices, concordant or not, from which I draw my voice.” (Deleuze, 1987, p. 105) “I always depend on a molecular assemblage of enunciation that is not given in my conscious mind, any more than it depends solely on my apparent social determinations, which combine many heterogeneous regimes of signs. Speaking in tongues. To write is perhaps to bring this assemblage of the unconscious to the light of day, to select the whispering voices, to gather the tribes and secret idioms from which I extract something I call my Self (Moi). I is an order-word.” (Deleuze, 1987, p. 105) - **Language is not for information;** it is for obedience (Order-Words). - **The speaker is not an individual;** they are a mouthpiece for society (Collective Assemblage). - **We don't speak directly;** we repeat social codes (Indirect Discourse). - **Therefore, you cannot study language as a science of words (Linguistics).** You must study it as a science of power (Political Pragmatics).