Deleuze: Circumstances/notes

Explore circumstances, dynamic mapping, networks, and flow

Thacker
30
in broad sense, protocol regulates flow

33
description of networks

60
network as unity & heterogeneity

network as multiplicity
-not because of multiple parts, but because it is organized around principles of perpetual inclusion (this
is critical)

61
Deleuze's definition of multiplicity [get the actual quote]:
no need of unity to form a system

I am unsusre of what to make of this policy/approach of perpetual inclusion as being the operating or
defining principle behind the concept of multiplicity. What does that mean? Multiplicity does not mean
breaking down or creating multiple parts but including an array of different entities. Does this mean
that the field or the concept or the object which is being considered needs to move up and out on a
scale, that being going meta, rather than shrinking down and getting smaller?

Also, what does scale really have to do with things hear?

Here's another question, when we are dealing with issues of multiplicity and tension, does that mean,
potentially, that the maps are being defined as much by the tension between the actual points because
that determines the nature of the connection, the distance, and the spatial placement, like gravity?

How do we describe the different forces and kinds of tension which enable or impact those relations?
How can we possibly visually represent them? What about that iA Twitter map and seeing if it possible
to represent concepts and constructs visually that way?

Lines of flight/Tension
If the lines between different nodes are lines of flight or simply lines connecting, these lines could also
represent and embody dynamic tension. What happens when these lines of dynamic tension get folded?
What does that mean, if anything? Can tension be folded?

Rhetoric
isn't a lot of this potentially like the rhetorical situation or contextual awareness? I wonder if you could
compare issues of circumstance to Kairos and see what parallels, if any, exist? Or this might be
another way for people to review and consider kairos, audience, and context as they are working in
rhetoric or in technical communication.

I am not sure if this part is actually more of a discussion of ramifications or just potential links for the
content as it is slowly developed.

Hardt/Negri

299-300
network models
oligopolistic tree
democratic rhizome

312
Network Production

Foucault
37 New Cartography: assemblages and abstract machines

“None the less, the diagram acts as a non-unifying immanent cause that is coextensive with the whole
social field: the abstract machine is like the cause of the concrete assemblages that execute its relations;
and these relations between forces take place 'not above' but within the very tissue of the assemblages
they produce.”

Deleuze defines immanent cause: “It is a cause which is realized, integrated and distinguished in its
effect. Or rather the immanent cause is realized, integrated and distinguished by its effect. In this way
there is a correlation or mutual presupposition between cause and effect, between abstract machine and
concrete assemblages (it is for the latter that Foucault most often reserves the term 'mechanisms').”

47
Strata: “Strata are historical formations, positivities or empiricities.”

120
image

124
Focault's general principle: every form is a compound of relations between forces

Negotiations

25
D interested in concepts & circumstances in which things happen
(look at where usability happens & the key concepts involved?)

“A concept, as we see it, should express an event rather than an essence. This allows us to introduce
elementary novelistic methods into philosophy.”
25-6
plateaus are like a set of split rings where each plateau can fit into any other plateau. Similarly, each
can have it's own tone, timbre, or climate.

It seems like plateaus map out a range of circumstances

26
if each plateau maps out a range of circumstances, how do you know where the edge is?

31
“not a matter of bringing all sorts of things together under one concept but rather of relating each
concept to variables that explain its mutations”

Can you see this on a map or in terms of a network. Thacker (60) defines network as a unity and
heterogeneity—they are the same but different. This seems to imply that it is the similarity which keeps
them connected by the heterogeneity which keeps them from being the same node or same site.

This would or could imply that the lines which are between the two different nodes are undertaking
multiple roles and having multiple impacts/positions. They could represent dynamic tension, both
pulling the two nodes together as well as pushing the nodes apart—keeping them separate by their
differences. [make sure to look more into dynamic tension as it is present in Deleuze and the lines of
flight, or at least see if there are similar concepts present in his work]

32
“a rhizome is precisely one example of an open system”

open system: when set of concepts relate to circumstances

“A system's a set of concepts. And it's an open system when the concepts relate to circumstances rather
than essences.”

“They're [concepts] singularities, rather, acting on the flows of everyday thought: it's perfectly easy to
think without concepts, but as soon as there are concepts, there's genuine philosophy.”

33
“What we call a “map,” or sometimes a “diagram,” is a set of various interacting lines (thus the lines in
a hand are a map). There are of course many different kinds of lines, both in art and in a scoeity or a
person. Some lines represent something, others are abstract. Some lines have various segments, others
don't. Some weave through a space, others go in a certain direction. Some lines, not matter whether or
not they are abstract, trace an outline, others don't. The most beautiful ones do. We think lines are the
basic components of things and events. So everything has its geography, its cartography, its diagram.
What's interesting, even in a person, are the lines that make them up, or they make up, or take, or
create. Why make lines more fundamental than planes or volumes? We don't, though.”

34
“Cartography can only map out pathways and moves, along with their coefficients of probability and
danger. That's what we call “schizoanalysis,” this analysis of lines, spaces, becomings.”

86
D sought to examine, see thing as they are in process, looked for lines not points
seeking the formation of things