A for assemblages___fragment for

Assemblages (  Jill Franny, Mona and the others live in assemblages, as agencements of the fiction machine ) are already different from              
                                                    strata. ____ 

The strata __ the place where normal biography is written __ The strata  infinitely, as the word indicates,  are the regular daily lines gathered in forms of the visible, the statistical visible anatomy  of the body, the geology of the earth .

They are produced  (written)  in 
the strata,

 but operate in zones where milieus become decoded:  (The milieu, in this c ase, is writing and the decoded space of blogs)

begin by extracting a territory from the milieus. Every assemblage is
basically territorial.
  Jill's becomings   ~ Mona's line of flight   ~ Franny's deterritorializaton realizationof ~

                 The first concrete rule for assemblages is to discover
what territoriality they envelop,

                                           for there always is one: in their
trash can or on their bench,

                 Beckett's characters stake out a territory.

Stake /cake/william blake ~

Discover the territorial assemblages of someone, human or animal:

The territory is made of decoded fragments of all kinds,

Bits and parts from here there 
hither  & hinterland of other learnings


which are borrowed from the milieus but then assume the value of

"properties": even rhythms take on a new meaning (refrains).

In the book this chapter has numerals printed
along side
of the different sentences that refer to the other sections
of the book
where these matters
are discussed


 The territory
makes the assemblage.

The territory is more than the organism
and the milieu, and the relation between the two; that is why the
assemblage goes beyond mere "behavior" (hence the importance of
the relative distinction between territorial animals and milieu

Inasmuch as they are territorial, assemblages still belong to the
strata. At least they pertain to them in one of their aspects, and it is
under this aspect that we distinguish in every assemblage content 
from expression.

 It is necessary to ascertain the content and the
expression of each assemblage, to evaluate their real distinction, their
reciprocal presupposition, their piecemeal insertions.

 The reason that
the assemblage is not confined to the strata is that expression in it
becomes a semiotic system, a regime of signs, and content becomes a
pragmatic system, actions and passions.

This is the double articulation
face-hand, gesture-word, and the reciprocal presupposition between the

This is the first division of every assemblage: it is simultaneously
and inseparably a machinic assemblage and an assemblage of
enunciation. In each case, it is necessary to ascertain both what is said
and what is done.

There is a new relation between content and
expression that was not yet present in the strata: the statements or
expressions express incorporeal transformations that are "attributed"
as such (properties) to bodies or contents.

 In the strata, expressions do
not form signs, nor contents pragmata, so this autonomous zone of
incorporeal transformations expressed by the former and attributed to
the latter does not appear.

 Of course, regimes of signs develop only in
the alloplastic or anthropomorphic strata (including territorialized

But this does not mean that they do not permeate all of the
strata, and overspill each of them. 

Assemblages belong to the strata to
the extent that the distinction between content and expression still
holds for them. 

We may also think of regimes of signs and pragmatic
systems as strata in their own right, in the broad sense previously

But because the content-expression distinction assumes a
new figure, we are already in a different element than that of the strata
in the narrow sense.

The assemblage is also divided along another axis. Its territoriality
(content and expression included) is only a first aspect; the other
aspect is constituted by lines of deterritorialization that cut across it
and carry it away. These lines are very diverse: some open the territorial
assemblage onto other assemblages (for example, the territorial
______________________________________So Deleuze and Guattari's  Book it's ending to be read at the End   ~ as quick wash to the silver sea of Mud

refrain of the animal becomes a courtship or group refrain). Others
operate directly upon the territoriality of the assemblage, and open it
onto a land that is eccentric, immemorial, or yet to come (for example,
the game of territory and the earth in the lied, or in the romantic 11 artist
in general). Still others open assemblages onto abstract and cos-and mic
machines that they effectuate.

 The territoriality of the assem-4 blage
originates in a certain decoding of milieus, and is just as necessarily
extended by lines of deterritorialization. The territory is just as
inseparable from deterritorialization as the code from decoding.
Following these lines, the assemblage no longer presents an expression
distinct from content, only unformed matters, destrati-fied forces, and
functions. The concrete rules of assemblage thus operate along these two
axes: On the one hand, what is the territoriality of the assemblage, what
is the regime of signs and the pragmatic system? On the other hand,
what are the cutting edges of deterritorialization, and what abstract
machines do they effectuate? The assemblage is tetravalent: (1) content
and expression; (2) territoriality and deterritorialization. That is why
there were four aspects in the privileged example of Kafka's


It is composed not of chapters but of "plateaus." We will try to explain
why later on (and also why the texts are dated). 

To a certain extent, these
plateaus may be read independently of one another, except the conclusion,
which should be read at the end.