A G+D Dérive

G+D mention Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (an early 19th century naturalist) in the first reading, and I found the mention of "electrification" according to Geoffroy interesting.

"Electrification is the opposite process, constitutive of strata, it is the process whereby similar particles group together to form atoms and molecules, similar molecules form bigger molecules, and the biggest molecules form molar aggregates: 'the attraction of like by like'... as in double articulation" (45)

When first reading this quote, I thought that this went against what G+D mention as "the simultaneous unity and variety of the stratum." This is because it seems like electrification is the amassing of like objects: molecular+molecular+molar comes across as an addition of similar items to me for some reason.

G+D define them as:
molecular-ordered
molar- organized

Is there even a distinction there? A refresher of double articulation may help me understand this.

Double articulation (40):
1. Substance to forms
2. Forms to substances

Thus, the molecular and molar seem intertwined with this double articulation, where there is a similarity between the two articulations, but they do differ. Yes, electrification must have "individuals and milieus."

However, for some reason electrification pings me again. I associate electricity with electrification, but I am unsure of how an electric molar mass operates (I assume it must have mass from the electron). How is this limited body able to have all the various stratums within a stratum? How can "a stratum: molecular materials, substantial elements, and formal relations or traits" of this small magnitude have "both exterior and interior are interior to the stratum" (49)?

I then must turn to Darwin's evolution with "degrees of development within multiplicities allows for individuals and milliues to mix on the stratum (48). The electrons are not single individuals, right? Electrification does not act alone, but with other organisms where so the electrons can "incorporate or appropriate materials, the corresponding organisms are forced to turn to other 'more foreign and less convenient' materials that hey take from still intact masses or other organisms" (51). Is what I identify as "the electron" stratum able to incorporate non-electrons? I love this idea of sign+non-sign incorporated into other identities, but is that really what G+D are arguing (or would I have to refer to their later analysis of sets and structures to see what they mean here?).

Am I allowed to interpret electrification as a "single abstract machine that is enveloped by the stratum and constitutes its unity" (50)? Sorry to keep hitting this thing on the head, but I find it hard to deal with an almost massless object with terminology related to gigantic natural features. Linguistic features seem almost impossible to deal with stratums in some way- they have no body, no inside or outside at all.

---

Alternate question:
I interpreted "indirect discourse" as what is labeled "hearsay" (76)

Do D+G then go on to almost privilege this "'free' indirect discourse" (80)?

This 'free' indirect discourse is defined as
"a collective assemblage resulting in the determination of relative subjectification proceedings, or assignations of individuality and their shifting distributions within discourse"

And collective assemblages are defined as
"redundant complex of the act and the statement that necessarily accomplishes it"

Thus, language functions as a collection of all these order-word statements. I am not sure what this 'free' is all about. Is that linked to language's ability to deal with incorporeal transformations?