pragmatic/machinic

"The same semiotic material can be functioning in different registers. A material can both be caught in paradigmatic chains of production, chains of signification (under the cardologic), but at the same time can function in an a-signifying register (the ordologic). So what determines the difference? In one case, a signifier functions in what one might call a logic of discursive aggregates, i.e. a logic of representation. In the other case, it functions in something that isn't entirely a logic, what I've called an existential machinic, a logic of bodies without organs, a machinic of bodies without organs. In that case, what are we talking about? We're no longer talking about representing, but of enunciating, of creating what one might call an existential enunciation (_e'nonciation existentielle_), a production of subjectivity, a production of new coordinates, an auto-coordination, an auto-referentiation. In the domain of the logic of discursive aggregates (the cardologic), there's an exo-referentiation; there's a referent, like in Peircian semiotics, where there is always a third term, a ternary nature which refers at one remove to the semiotic reference, whereas there (under the ordologic), it's the same mechanism, inside this ternary nature, it's the auto-positionality of subjectivity that asserts itself there, that asserts itself on all sorts of levels, on a modular level or on an incomplete level. It's a very complex level of collective assemblage."


extracted from here 


Guattari on Semiotics and his term of a-signifying semiotics. 

Expression

"This is what we are told by the forces of the outside: the transformation occurs not to the historical, stratified and archaeological composition but to the composing forces, when the latter eneter into a relation with other forces which can have come from outside (strategies). Emergence, change and mutation affect composing forces, not composed forms."


Deleuze, G. (1988) Foucault. The Athlone Press. London. p.87