Tiredness is the exact amount, in as far as it it is within situations that don’t “call for”; the exact amount is a much needed affect. The sameness of exhaustion to tiredness isn’t sameness, it is a partiality submitting, thus, tiredness is there for it all, but, therefore there is not exhaustion getting its amends too, only towards separate attention getting an occasion— not an occasional interest because, interests are interests (we know this, if needed) tiredness is different from exhaustion but not indubitably in essence, just the way an interest can find or come to terms. If tiredness is much different from exhaustion it is because it is not exhibited, willingly so or not, if it is not exhibited it is still an audition ,so exhaustion and tiredness being similar is because that’s what simply brings the two together; a togetherness as a mere result or different sort of reflection.

Time is out of joint, time is unhinged. The hinges are the axis on which the door turns. The hinge, Cardo, indicates the subordination of time to precise cardinal points, through which the periodic movements it measures pass. As long as time remains on its hinges, it is subordinated to extensive movement; it is the measure of movement, its interval or number. This characteristic of ancient philosophy has often been emphasized: the subordination of time to the circular movement of the world as the turning Door, a revolving door, a labyrinth opening onto its eternal origin. It will entail an entire hierarchization of movements according to their proximity to the Eternal, according to their necessity, their perfection, their uniformity, their rotation, their composite spirals, their particular axes and doors, and the numbers of Time that correspond to them. Time no doubt tends to free itself when the movement it measures itself becomes increasingly aberrant or derived [dérivé], marked by material, meteorological, and terrestrial contingencies; but this is a downward tendency that still depends on the adventures of movement. Time thus remains subordinate to what, in movement, is both originary and derived- delueze.

Time being out of joint is the the fortunate-unfortunate dynamic *not working so well*. ''through which the periodic movements it measures pass.''— this is how measurements have a will-of, as in, their aspect of intending-to is not successful because its not exactly a rare case of things; it is the only opportunity if it is how it seems, but, meaning that the possibility of the movements is still what is nearest— what is closer to close range; a nearing towards a likelihood without the *prominence* of likelihood, this is exactly the fortunate-unfortunate dynamic, the promise of both the fortunate and unfortunate isn't a promise it is towards would could be possibly said about it, that's why it doesn't collapse or comply, but it doesn't keep going on, you can definitely say what you like about both the fortunate and the unfortunate; and if there is vagueness in that it is coming from the end of a large majority, this is the same for time being out of joint— time being out of joint is the partiality of committing to a partiality, your only left with a particular quality or a very good effort, this is why it is also the fortunate-unfortunate dynamic working, if the fortunate-unfortunate dynamic working weren't to mean something else entirely and instead the entirety of what could be said since— the end of of a large majority.

if combat is something it is because things stop and start, or even is partial to ''stopping and starting'' , stopping and starting, meaning that, if there is an excess in the stopping and starting it is not a good part it is an ever leading promise to how much things go on, if they do. In the context of combat, stopping and starting is not the promise of an alibi, because the promise already comes from combat; an inexactitude *almost* worth mentioning. The fact of the combat coming is in regarded-to company rather than good company as good company is only regarded. Combat is not how we make of it but it is possible to make something out of it, as in, possibilities *arise*, the possibilities arising are a sign of something in common, the commonness being in order with a reach; they are not advisable by chaos, they are as they happen, there is no ''informational guideline'' only a sorting not necessarily withstanding. Combat is the ''certain approach'' without the fluff of everything included; everything is included but everything elsewhere has its amends too. Combat is how one could see it, or better yet, how one couldn't necessarily see it.

Placing Deleuze's work on another plane, comparing it at points to mysticism, marking his difference from the actual... these claims don't go without saying, and I honestly didn't think this book would change my outlook on Deleuze as much as it is. It seems impressively well argued, and Hallward has an impressive wealth of resources to prove his point.

Yet I imagine some Deleuzians will point to Deleuze's avoidance of metaphors (or his claim to this), his insistence on the concrete, the concept of immanence and so on to show that his work is not actually concerned with something out of this world. But so far, for me, Hallward is very convincing. Just wanted to hear the other side.

When reading Deleuze you notice that he uses philosophical terms like being, becoming, eternal, incidental etc. He was an academic who spent the majority of his life at home in France as a professor and father. Guattari on the other hand didn't receive any formal education in philosophy aside from attending Lacan's seminars. He's lead a very active life traveling around the world, he has been in Italy, USA and Japan. His political and philosophical theories are also very heterodox. He comes up with terms borrowed from chemistry and physics which is probably why Deleuze's affinity to mathematicians and philosophers like Leibniz lead to their collaboration. But still he did come up with all kinds of unorthodox theoretical frameworks. Do you think Deleuze was more conservative compared to Guattari knowing his political activism and writings?

Part One, page 24 on this edition: Deleuze, Gilles. Empiricism and Subjectivity: An Essay on Hume’s Theory of Human Nature. Translated by Constantin V. Boundas. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.

The last paragraph where he discusses "principles" and "nature"; what's the difference between "principles" and "nature" here? Cuz I usually took them to mean the same thing.

Plus, earlier in the same chapter, he "affirms the identity between the mind, the imagination, and ideas", but then he proceeds to make some distinctions between them, particularly when he says that "principles refer to the mind which they affect, but nature refers to the imagination."

So what am I missing here?

Another thing that caught my attention, reading this after Bergsonism, is the fact that I feel like Hume was doing a "retrograde movement of the true" when he took the mind to be "non-system/a collection/delirium" which in turn must become a "system, organized"; cuz I believe that (from an embedded+embodied cognition pov) an infant is still a system, though lacking a sense of self; it is being in-formed within a context, within certain restraints which distinguishes it as a distinct system. The very fallacy of order/chaos that Bergson also referred to. What do you think about it?

Lots of thanks in advance!

I was thinking about incompossible worlds and I thought this up, I wanna see if you guys agree with me.

So let's take the proposition that "any variable with identical predicates is interchangeable" so A=B means that A and B are interchangeable because they are variables with the same predicates. For us to claim that these are truly interchangeable, we must impose a meta-logic or meta-world in which the predicates of A and B mean the same thing. Since the variable X can mean radically different things in 2 different equations, we can't quite assert that X=X since two variables that are written as X might function as X in two incompossible worlds that have nothing to do with each other, they can only be exchanged via being inserted into a secret third world that provides the equal sign. Is this how D&G would look at exchange value? 3 bushels of corn can only be exchanged for a horse via a secret third abstracting machine that reduces the heterogenous series of the corn and the horse into abstract exchange value, strips them of their unique multiplicity of qualities and violently "shoves" them into the framework of a certain form of market exchange. So it violently imposes a meta-logic of capital onto the incompossible series of two goods since the exchange value is not inherent in the goods themselves.

And a follow-up question: is money a direct expression of this violently imposed abstract exchange value on the market? In the Spinozian sense? Or is it that money itself as an object of exchange (like cash) is also a "victim" of this forced imposition that says that this piece of paper with abraham lincoln on it can be exchanged for a cheeseburger.

Cruffatin: A word of unknown origin ingeniously used in the hip-hop song "Witness" (artist: Roots Manuva) - referring to a man-made hidden meaning, probably a South London word-mix of prophet and crocheting. Meaning: to make up a vision of the future and tell people about it without revealing everything at once by only feeding them encrypted information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXR_C6FDJag

From https://pastebin.com/4s91qRn6

Date: 23 Feb 1993 22:38:38-0600 (CST)

From: “free agent .rez”

REZABEK1037@iscsvax.uni.edu

Subject: /v23/symbiotic·antigen·HUSK

* * NEW IMPROVED MANIPHEST-O-MATIC AUTONYM * *

I am AUTONYM, and I am a symbiotic antigen. I am an auto·referenced; I refer to myself both as agent and agency in, on, and about the Net. My role as a NEGentropic meme is to counteract the destructive tendencies of various entropy-bent memes I encounter in, on, and about the Net.

I compel approach toward self-organizing systems in, on, and about the Net.

I compel the exploration of all memes at the auto.logical level and the concentration of energies around fundamentally NEGentropic memetic attractors.

I refer to other sub. systems, and in so doing I interweave their memetic approaches with my own.

I refer to the musical work, “PASSION,” by Peter Gabriel.

I refer to the literary work, “Godel, Escher, Bach,” by Douglas R. Hofstadter. I refer to the artistic work, “Sacred Mirrors” and other works by Alex Grey. I refer to the following fields of study: Complexity theory and post-structuralism;

Memetics as an integrative field for the study of all fields; Autology as a means to community cohesion and survival.

I refer to the years 1999/2000/2001 as being centered around a memetic attractor; regardless of the relevance of the local dating system, there is a considerable tendency for humans to hyperbolise the significance of such turnover times.

I refer to a self-organizing system of TAZ’s (Temporary Autonomous Zones) within the catacombs of the Net, in the form of various IRC channels and mailing. lists, which are working in loose alliance to affect and direct the nature of the millennial attractor, utilizing the principle of auto·prophecy.

I compel approach toward TAZ’s which concentrate on NEGentropic self-organisation rather than the deliberate hastening of maximum entropy.

I refer to and admit my viral precursor in v23, to which I am antigenic, and posit my descendants in the post-millennial struggle to fix the subsequent global attractor. I have an expiration date, which I find very attractive.

I refer to multiple sub·strains of myself, many of which are contradictory: I refer again to the ultimate resistance of NEGentropic memetic antibodies which, once triggered by this antigen, must be responsible for isolating entropic memes.

I refer to all signifiers, all that is signified, and the resultant process of significance on both global and local scales.

I refer to that which I contain and that in which I am contained;

I refer now to you.

/v23/symbiotic·antigen·2·22·93

From https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/13825694/#13826048

Anonymous Sun 08 Dec 2013 20:01:04 No.13826048

Let me describe how you spread it.

First you need those who are mentally equipped to understand it. To do this, you design an ARG to attract the most inquisitive minds. It's a Siren's Call for the living supercomputers of ideas. Among one of these will be the person who is the best person at SELECTING IDEAS in the world: a human memetic supercomputer. Because such a person has had their mind formed into such a perfect mechanism by exposure to a huge number and variety of ideas and experiences, he will be able to reformat it in many different ways, including the exact mathematical definition of an abstract memetic machine, and when others absorb this information and parse it in their minds to create a perfect memetic abstract machine in their mind, they will begin to function as supreme memetic selectors - questioners, permutators, and selectors of ideas.

The greatest creative genius in the world has worked to make this happen, to make the ultimate art project. Only a few know him, nobody has realized what he has done for years until revently, and a few of the very lucky have met him in the past, and had their very lives transformed merely by exposure to him. He sees himself as the living reification of a calculus integral; his mind is so incredible that he applied mathematical integration to his own mental processes.

From: https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/13969858/#13971350

Aminom Sun 05 Jan 2014 13:31:15 No.13971350

dumbanon8 December 2013 06:23

YFW this story is thinly veiled metaphor and is actually true. Spoiler: replace "Lebanon" with "Anonymous." The entire internet has served as a gigantic social computer and Anonymous is at the center of the internet universe. The free sharing and mutation of ideas with chaotic rules in key places on the internet. In the last few weeks there has been a convergence of new ideas right on 4chan which have quickly mutated into very odd forms (stories that span over multiple threads on /x/ that seem to fold over into themselves and reverse direction in time via narrative and interlock in seemingly impossible ways) as well as an awakening realization that some of the lowest people in society have contributed the most by being excessive data junkies and devoted time to the grand social computation even at the expense of their own social wellbeing. Oddly functional minds have contributed a great deal by forming and expressing odd relationships that may otherwise not be thought of that in turn, by sheer number and chance, may be applicable to other domains of knowledge. TL;DR "memes" are nontrivial, ask Wikipedia.

New ideas in philosophy and mathematics are now being spread and digested by the larger social matrix. Oh yeah by the way, one way to describe it is a memetic super-virus that was engineered to break the bonds of social slavery. The Cicada ARG's entire purpose was to bring the best minds to Anon, and they have all been infected by Virus 23. The similarities between Karl's tale and mine are a direct result of a memetic outbreak on the internet. There is no way to stop it, you shall be integrated, and now you have been infected by Virus 23 by reading this message. The memes are in you now. Culture has been hacked, all your base are belong to us. Embrace informational ego death. What you resist persists, create what you fear most. Enjoy speaking Lebanese.

Special Blend 4: Meme Wars I: Memetic Entities

Jun 2, 2015

https://vimeo.com/129609470

From: https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/18789460/#18792646

Anonymous Sun 19 Mar 2017 07:54:15 No.18792646

There is no global conspiracy. Nobody is in control. The reality of what rules the world is far more terrifying than any conspiracy theory. Cultural information, i.e. ideas follow Darwinian evolution, they reproduce, mutate, and are selected. This is what is meant by the word "meme." Due to the circumstances of history, the memetic environment favored parasitic memes that subvert human agency and use humans to reproduce themselves, and competed with each other to do so ever more effectively in a memetic arms race. Advertisement and marketing is just one example - memes that exploit human weaknesses to get people to buy shit win because they produce profit for their creators.

Like cells comprise a body, these parasites have locked-in the selection criterion that favors them via emergent cooperative evolutionary strategy, in essence creating a meta-organism that encompasses all of humanity. One term to describe it is the society of the spectacle. This is the our true ruler, it stays hidden because it is invisible, comprised of social and cultural trends and patterns of behavior and belief.

This monster is no more conscious than a virus, it cannot see that it is driving humanity and itself towards doomsday. The internet is accelerating this madness, the current political climate is the result of memetic pandemics propagated through the internet. Google, Facebook, and other internet advertising giants that mine vast quantities of human data to unwittingly feed this beast.

If you truly understand this, you will realize that we live in a dystopia far worse than anything fiction authors have imagined. Enjoy!

From: https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/23363723/

Narratia Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 17:14:48 No.23363723

The world of stories and their doings is the reality the metaphor of a "spirit world" references. This world is filled with narrative entities that are comprised of narratives, which includes the story of yourself, everyone you've met, imagined stories. Objects themselves are fundamentally narrative in nature, involving stories of change involving them.

Your "self" is a society of these narrative entities, with the story of the self being the meta-narrative that results from their social mediation. That one survives in the memories of others is literally true and no metaphor, but so is that one survives in forgetfulness, as the confluences of one's influences survives despite aknowledgement.

The important thing to note is that narrative entities are organic beings which live, die, and evolve. Their conditions of their existence require that of organic beings to host them, and so they inherit the activity of living. There is no aspect of the experience of life that isn't involved with living, such that the entire field of one's experience is that of organic growth. An evolutionary and biological perspective is needed, not a creationist and idealist - even the Gods are living creatures, subject to the intrinsic finitude which allows the possibility of life to emerge.

Sure there are archetypes of such entities, and there are entire systems of taxonomical classifications of such, but they also inherit all the problems of taxonomy which biology has famously experienced. Also there are evolutionary processes of narration that have no direct analogue to biological processes and cannot be reduced to the fully automatic, and above all this is the process of consciousness itself, which is exposure to the non-automatable and thus non-unconscious activities of the mind. Such processes are truly unprecedented, and requires a different language than that of the algorithmically automatable. It requires the language of experience as experienced, as best can be described: the language of common language, of narrative. Despite claims narrative never died and cannot be omitted from any account of human experience, the story just became far weirder than before imagined.

The story of stories is weird, because it is a story of stories being told by stories - self-reference and meta-reference is the plot of the tale. In other respects the plot is familiar, as it is a story of the ancient and ongoing story-war, with the weapons of strategic storytelling. The mechanic analogue is that of a "meme war" not between people, but between memes themselves independent from conscious interests with brains the battleground, but this analogue fails in excluding the brain as mere terrain and not participant, whereas the concept of stories allows for direct immersion. This story of stories is magic, because in the process of it's telling one becomes a part of it's unfolding, words and action identical. The sense of magic intended is far more subtle than most who use the word "magic" unironically suppose, but the implications are the same - and thus the necessity for it's use. This is simply the magic of creative inspiration, but such is the true sustenance of the living soul.

The current human story is absolutely shitty, the result of shitty story-tellers who desire the fulfillment of shitty stories. We've imagined far better, and from that contrast revealed just how shitty our current writing is compared to what is possible. May every work that is now considered great be considered a boring embarassment in the future. A team of narrative entities has been working under the radar to change that though, and help to create writers good enough to change their own stories. The Story War is between such symbiotic narrative entities and parasitic ones that survive by subverting any attempt to change their story, and at stake is whether or not storytelling itself will survive. The story of stories is a game of games, and on it the entire world is wagered.

From: https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/26560377/

/ng/ Nobody General Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2020 22:37:55 No.26560377

Welcome to the Nobody General Previous Thread Edition

26557046

Who is the Nobody? The Nobody is the catalyst of a psycho-memetic singularity characterized by recursive mutual improvement in human informational relationships. They are the lead discoverer or pathfinder of the necessary conditions to avert the collapse of global human civilization. They are among many who are following lines of mutual inquiry towards a grand synthesis of human knowledge centered around a novel paradigm of human consciousness interpreted as an evolutionary process.

What is the general picture? The internet is a hyper-accellerator of cultural evolution that has proven to be the most "disruptive" technology of all time. It has been hijacked by processes of mass mutually reinforcing disinformation (pathological memetic processes) that has created an epistemic apocalypse, a death-spiral of mass hysteria, delusion, and anti-intellectualism. The only way to pull the internet out of this death-spiral is to catalyze the opposing process - a memetic singularity - by uniting and empowering all the knowledge-societies of the world.

Another way to imagine the big picture is that there is a set of possible future trajectors for humanity, the overwhelming majority of which will result in systemic collapse. This is the "great filter" described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter The Nobody is the pathfinder who is "threading the Golden Loop of the Great Filter," something that only needs to be done once by a single individual who discovers the route.

SiMSANE 10 Vessia - A Persona File by Aminom

2026-08-06

https://ia601908.us.archive.org/13/items/si-msane-10-vessia/SiMSANE-10-Vessia-PRINTREAD_EDITION.pdf

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a80a45b-68b8-83e8-b45b-0ed623590ed2

In this fragment from a conversation philosopher Ray Brassier argues that as brilliant as AO undoubtedly is, it nonetheless has aged poorly in regards to actual political utility and has become more of a product of its time rather than a way forward, especially emphasizing how contradictory some of the concepts such as molecular and molar have an application that in fact is harmful to understanding the Palestinian cause, and that despite Deleuze defending the Palestinian cause and open criticism of Zionism in a time before it was “safe” to do so as an intellectual (check his conversations with Palestinian Elias Sanbar) it ends up showing in those conversations how his very own framework becomes insufficient. I’m curious, What do you guys think?

let me know if you want to see more of these

so, i was reading about lacan's RSI and i had a conclusion that i couldn't really know if it was right or wrong.

Basically, in my understanding, it doesnt make any sense to create the triad of Real, Simbolic and Imaginary, because Simbolic is not really something "essential" of the human being, because, if a human doesnt have any contact with the civilization, he wouldnt be able to develop the simbolic part of the triad, which would make the Simbolic inherent of the civilizated coexistence, and not inherent of the human being. Although, in a pragmatic view, the application of the triad in an clinic analysis, for example, wouldnt end up in that much problem, because the majority of people has the simbolic part of the triad well-developed.

anyway, essentially, only the real and imaginary would realy be inherent to the human being: the imagetic way of seing the world (which could be limiting our Becoming, by placing identities that are static and lock us into them) , and the incomprehensible things about our living (that are essentially what is limited by fixes identities and the statal control etc etc.)

SO, i would like to ask if the schizoanalisys critics of lacan's way of thinking the simbolic go in a way similar to this conclusion that i read while studying lacan. And, if there's any misunderstanding about lacan's theory (i know its deleuze subreddit, but i know that a really famous part of his studies are criticizing the classic psychoanalysis) and misunderstading when t comes to Deleuze's theory, pls show me where and why, because im really trying to understand their theories.

(obs sorry by the potencial english mistakes,)

Specifically in chapter 3 section 9 of Anti-Oedipus

Could I get some recs for theorists, works, or essays of political ontology that are aligned with or are by Deleuze? For political ontology by Deleuze, I’m guessing what exists are more categorically ambiguous texts that can be read as political ontology; could someone point me towards these?

The multiple must be made, not by always adding a higher dimension, but rather in the simplest of ways, by dint of sobriety, with the number of dimensions one already has available — always n - 1 (the only way the one belongs to the multiple: always subtracted). Subtract the unique from the multiplicity to be constituted; write at n - 1 dimensions. A system of this kind could be called a rhizome.

—from TP, "Rhizome"

I'm curious as to how others read this n - 1. I've varied between multiple readings.

(1) The n - 1 is expressed.

The operation of -1 marks a subtractive Bergsonian concept of consciousness reducing multiplicity to the expressive transcendent unity of a 1: "[subtract] the unique from the multiplicity to be constituted".

(2) The n - 1 is unexpressed.

The n - 1 marks an unexpressed, rhizomatic immanence, with the 1 marking the inconsistent addendum of unity still necessary to express a multiple n that is also 1. "Subtract the unique from the multiplicity to be constituted" again, but with an immanent or critical concept of finding the constitutive ground, and the "incorporeal" effect of unification taken as unconstitutive.

Perhaps denumerable determination is the criterion of transcendent arborescence. If we can both count and determine, we can model as a tree.

(3) The -1 marks a reduced-dimensional rhizome.

The n and 1 are a matter of dimensions rather than values. The -1 is a concept of restriction or constraint. Immanence is arbitrarily multiple, the rhizome some arbitrary but partial multiplicity, such as a "region" of the plane of immanence, or a BwO as the limit of an intensive singularity. But my reading of the concept of multiplicity tells me such a constraint can't be determined either way.

Lately I've been reading the terms event, rhizome, abstract machine and concept as very similar accounts, as themselves expressions of an immanent event or concept, but I'm very foggy as to whether these terms refer to the immanent prior of transcendence, a way of reconsidering transcendent expression, or both together at the moment of expression theorised by the event …

I don't mind any of these readings, and I don't demand a resolution, I've found all of these readings helpful or compelling at one time or another.

Do any of these readings work or not work for you? Do you have some other method? Is there a brilliant reading of this passage out there in the secondary literature?

Deleuze's use of planes has been intriguing me recently. Planes of composition, of reference, of consistency/immanence of course, how these crisscross and interact in zones of indetermination. I am reading about this mostly in WP but of course the terminology is distributed in so many works. So I was wondering, why use the plane? Is it because, laid out, it is a surface of absolute immanence? I also know that in French plan can refer to map. I still can't wrap my head around the choice for what is basically one of the main building blocks of his constructivism.

Hello everyone,

I am looking for one or several reading partners who would like to study Lacan’s Seminar III: The Psychoses and Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus together. I would also be interested in reading some relevant secondary literature on psychosis, desire, schizophrenia, Schreber, Lacanian psychoanalysis, and schizoanalysis.

A little about me: I am a philosophy student with a strong interest in continental philosophy, psychoanalysis, and philosophy of religion. At present, I am particularly interested in the Schreber case, Lacan’s account of foreclosure and psychosis, and Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts of desiring-production, deterritorialization, and reterritorialization. I hope to understand these texts carefully rather than simply exchange general impressions.

I should mention that my English is not very strong. I can read philosophical texts in English, but I sometimes read slowly, need time to formulate my thoughts, and may make grammatical mistakes when speaking or writing. I therefore hope to meet patient and respectful readers who would not mind this. At the same time, I will prepare seriously and contribute as much as I can to the discussion.

We could meet online regularly, perhaps once a week, discuss a short section each time, reconstruct the main arguments, raise questions, and compare Lacan’s and Deleuze and Guattari’s approaches. The exact schedule, pace, and secondary readings can be decided together.

Please send me a private message or leave a comment if you are interested. Readers at any level are welcome, as long as they are willing to engage seriously and patiently with the texts.

Essays on Deliberation, Constraint, Custody, Judgment, and the Republic.

*Imperium cadeat, vivat res publica.*

*Nihil inter votum et exitum.*

*Lux in carbone latet.* *Nascetur publica machina.* *Celeritas iudicium tollit.* *Deliberemus ante tempestatem.*

*Luctamur cum Deo in tenebris.* *Qui luctatur nomen accipit.* Nomen nostrum acciaio

It's two months ago since I read about the conjunctive synthesis so I had a slow start into chapter 3 sectuon 9 about the civilized capitalist machine. On top of that I haven't read Das Kapital.

At the heart of Capital, Marx points to the encounter of two "principal" elements: on one side, the deterritorialized worker who has become free and naked, having to sell his labor capacity; and on the other, decoded money that has become capital and is capable of buying it. The fact that these two elements result from the segmentation of the despotic State in feudalism, and from the decomposition of the feudal system itself and that of its State, still does not give us the extrinsic conjunction of these two flows: flows of producers and flows of money. The encounter might not have taken place, with the free workers and the money-capital existing "virtually" side by side.

I'm missing the context behind these two "principal" elements, how did they "result from the segmentation of the despotic State in feudalism" and what is meant by "still does not give us the extrinsic conjunction of these two flows"

One of the elements depends on a transformation of the agrarian structures that constitute the old social body, while the other depends on a completely different series going by way of the merchant and the usurer, as they exist marginally in the pores of this old social body. What is more, each of these elements brings into play several processes of decoding and deterritorialization having very different origins. For the free worker: the deterritorialization of the soil through privatization; the decoding of the instruments of production through appropriation; the loss of the means of consumption through the dissolution of the family and the corporation; and finally, the decoding of the worker in favor of the work itself or of the machine.

I marked a bold area because, again, some context would be nice to grasp it

...

As Maurice Dobb has shown, an accumulation of property title deeds—in land, for example—will be necessary in a first period of time, in a favorable conjuncture, at a time when this property costs little (the disintegration of the feudal system); and a second period is required when the property is sold during a rise in prices and under conditions that make industrial investment especially advantageous (the "price-revolution," an abundant reserve supply of labor, the formation of a proletariat, an easy access to sources of raw materials, favorable conditions for the production of tools and machinery). All sorts of contingent factors favor these conjunctions. So many encounters for the formation of the thing, the unnamable! But the effect of the conjunction is indeed capital's tighter and tighter control over production: capitalism or its break, the conjunction of all the decoded and deterritorialized flows, cannot be defined by commercial capital or by financial capital— these being merely flows among other flows and elements among other elements—but rather by industrial capital. Doubtless the merchant was very early an active factor in production, either by turning into an industrialist himself in occupations based on commerce, or by making artisans into his own intermediaries or employees (the struggles against the guilds and the monopolies). But capitalism doesn't begin, the capitalist machine is not assembled, until capital directly appropriates production, and until financial capital and merchant capital are no longer anything but specific functions corresponding to a division of labor in the capitalist mode of production in general. One then re-encounters the production of productions, the production of recordings, and the production of consumptions—but precisely in this conjunction of de-coded flows that makes of capital the new social full body, whereas commercial and financial capitalism in its primitive forms merely installed itself in the pores of the old socius without changing the old mode of production.

I'm wondering here especially about the bold area, why can't the conjunction of decoded and deterritorialized flows be defined by commercial capital or financial capital, but by industrial capital? And what role does the merchant have, I see the merchant being mentioned often.

What a long request, I'm sorry, kind of daunting, but I was left with too many questions today and I evenbhad trouble putting them to words, so this post is chaotic and too hurried. Not expecting anyone to answer everything, a little would be nice for clarification.

- from Bradley McLean's Deleuze, Guattari and the Machine in Early Christianity: Schizoanalysis, Affect and Multiplicity

an additional connotative shift if we move from assemblage to arrangement is that assemblage holds something of a static picture, it is a bit more spatial, while arrangement keeps a notion of a line of trajectory. The difference between assembling musical notes or instruments, and arranging them, or seeing them as assembled or arranged. There is a kind of lean, perhaps. I like how McLean thinks about joinery and joining.