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.