Introduction

Professional graduate programmes in Brazil were recognised by ^{CAPES Ordinance 80/1998}; however, according to ^{Hetkowski (2016}), the first programme in education field was only implemented in 2009, focusing on the management and evaluation of public education, linked to the Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF). Since then, professional master's degrees in education have grown exponentially in recent years, multiplying nationwide, mainly to cater for professionals working in public basic education, expanding to professional doctorates in education, which follow the same perspectives of training and production on/in the workplace.

These programmes are offered in the stricto sensu modality and call for applied research, considering professional aspects and the students' work environment as drivers for problematisation and interventions, through the link between higher education and basic education (^{Fialho & Hetkowski, 2017}). The courses include proposals for modifying teaching practice and/or issues that cut across the professional field of education, emphasising educational products development based on applied/interventional research.

Research in professional master's and doctoral programmes is usually interventionist in nature. However, it is important to mention some (theoretical) considerations, because intervention is not just a practice to be carried out when referring academic research field. According ^{Teixeira and Neto (2017}, p. 1056), "[...] Interventional research would be practices combining investigative processes with concomitant development of actions that can take on diverse nature". The authors warn against the indiscriminate use of this research possibility, considering the existence of various nomenclatures such as: action research, participant research, active research, among others; in addition, they highlight the lack of care "[...] with epistemological, theoretical and methodological assumptions, as well as conceptions of the world and education that should underpin our choices when we develop a research work" (^{Teixeira & Neto, 2017}, p. 1057).

^{Hetkowski (2016}) states that applied/intervention research, in professional modality, arises from questions and problematisations based on the researcher's daily life; therefore, "[...] it intervenes scientifically in the context studied and encourages the researcher to overcome the discursive and epistemic dimension, expanding the possibilities of proposing and acting, together with a collective, searching for real solutions to real problems" (^{Hetkowski, 2016}, p. 22). The author mentions some conditioning elements for intervention, such as engagement, knowledge of the space, the subjects and their participation in the research.

Considering this propulsive nature of interventionist research in education professional graduate programmes, this study is guided by the following question: what can Deleuze's philosophical experience stress about what is meant by intervention for graduate programmes in professional master's degrees in education?

We have used some of Deleuze and Guattari's conceptual tools to (re)pose some problematisations on this subject, which is so dear and important to professional graduate programmes in education. We emphasise the need to be careful when using these authors in this field of discussion, given that they have not directly addressed education as a philosophical problem - perhaps professional master's and doctoral programmes in education - in their investigation universe. In this way, we have tried to bring these authors’ philosophy closer to the intervening act as a compositional practice. It's not about creating another category for interventional nature research, but of launching some problematisations about intervention in the educational research universe in professional programmes, without neglecting the inherent epistemological issues.

For didactic purposes, this text has been organised into three sections: I) Intervention research in professional master's programmes in Brazil - we present a brief description of research in professional master's programmes that use intervention and have Deleuze´s philosophy of difference as theoretical configuration; II) Intervention: some contributions - we discuss some of Deleuze's possible contributions to what is understood as intervention; and III) Textual interventions - with the forces crossing our bodies as the sensitive axis, we exercised a textual intervention in a research study found on the CAPES platform.

Intervention research on professional master's programmes in Brazil

In this section, before going into problematisations about intervention, we present a brief survey of academic productions involving the proposed theme. To do this, we searched for work already done, registered in the CAPES Platform Theses and Dissertations Catalogue, using the following descriptors: I) 'Intervention' AND 'Deleuze'; II) 'Intervention Research' AND 'Deleuze'. Initially, we defined these descriptors in order to carry out the search looking at research developing interventions based on Deleuze's thinking, specifically in professional master's and doctoral programmes in education. Simultaneously, in the mentioned descriptors, we used the following filters: 'Type' (Professional Master's Degree); 'Major Field of Knowledge' (Human Sciences); 'Field of Knowledge' (Education). We didn't use a time cut-off, given the small number of studies found. Therefore, after using the filters, we selected all the academic productions dated between 2015 and 2018.

The search yielded the following results: for the descriptor 'Interventions' AND 'Deleuze', we found 166 papers and, after applying the filters, only six remained; for the descriptor 'Intervention Research' AND 'Deleuze', we found 56 papers and, after applying the filters, only one remained. The papers found are listed in Table 1:

Table 1 lists a small number of authors who venture into interventional academic productions based on the philosophy of difference, specifically emphasising Deleuze's perspectives and concepts. In professional master's programmes in education in Brazil, we only found seven studies and the work entitled 'With letters and words: art teaching and literacy' (^{Benevit, 2015}) is repeated in both descriptors. In fact, we only have six studies on the subject in question, mostly in the south-eastern region of the country.

Among these works, we highlight the research by ^{Rodrigues (2016}), which refers to the disabled female body and seeks to explore the power of these bodies in their multiplicities, by intervening with/through dance in physical education classes. Based on the philosophy of difference, the author considers the possibilities of dancing, aiming for contact, exchanges and sensibility of a body. The movements traced by ^{Rodrigues (2016}) through/in the research propose experimentation with the other, having the dance as a way of expressing, improvising and inserting oneself culturally.

Still in the physical education field, ^{Fidalgo (2015}) carries out a cartography in his classes, experimenting the use of educational games aimed at co-operation rather than the characteristic competitiveness of this curricular component. The author follows a path of (re)inventing ways of relating to others and to knowledge through games; this strategy can create lines of escape, intervening in a relationship that can sometimes be competitive and excluding in the school environment, deviating towards the multiple, cooperation, playing and dancing together.

Based on Deleuze and Guattari, ^{Rivaroli (2016}) seeks to map the experiences carried out in the school, as well as in the researcher's own life, in order to understand the articulation between the environment, the social and human subjectivity, according to Guattari's three ecologies. From this perspective, the author moves with the students to problematise anthropocentrism, intervening with them in watching, drawing, writing and experimenting (not necessarily in that order), a different way of seeing and thinking about/with nature.

Between 'right and wrong' in literacy, ^{Benevit (2015}) proposes teaching letters and words in conjunction with art, (re)inventing with 'mistakes', creating processes of opening up to a free and creative practice of writing, reading and imaging words. Using cartography, the author provokes problematisations beyond the assertive, seeking, in events and 'mistakes', other ways of expressing and creating as an artistic production. The deviations proposed by Benevit (2015) intervene in practice, in the "discarding" of what is not considered correct, intervenes and produces.

^{Campesato (2017}), in turn, problematises time and space and their impact on the school curriculum. These elements are essential for understanding the subject to be formed. The author dialogues with teachers to problematise these issues, to understand the powers of space, as well as the interferences occurred from a controlled time and space and for results delivery. The intervention and/or proposal arises from these encounters, from thinking with the other.

^{Alves (2018}) developed her study looking for a literature different view, so that it can be seen and experienced beyond a curricular component in the school environment. The research focused on the protagonism and resistance of black women; to this end, the author worked with the novel ‘The Women of Tijucopapo’, taking it into the classroom and building reading and writing productions through workshops, having the production as creation in the practice of writing and discovering 'worlds in the world'.

In addition to the mentioned investigations, a large part of the research carried out at graduate level, especially in the professional modality, has a dual character in its intervention practices: the researcher and the researched, or the one who intervenes and the one (or ones) who are object of the intervention. It seems that the research act does not always succeed in subverting the dual subject/object logic, starting from a subject that seeks to act on the object. Somehow, the subject or object is scratched until we find a face.

In this context, we use a series of methodological procedures to answer a few questions: 'Who is this research subject?'; 'Who are those being researched?'; 'How can we change this reality? But before that, we ask: 'What is this reality?'; 'What does this research have to contribute to moving us from an inferior (educational) state to a superior one?

When we do a research, it is difficult to break out of certain naturalised logics, based on certain models of intervention. We take scientific research to produce a rule, a law, a truth, to conform the teacher and student to a method and tell them: "this is the best way to teach and learn", assuming a moralising form of intervention, in view to producing a prescription, and it is not uncommon to find expressions like this in educational research: "The teacher/student/manager must...", "it is necessary...", "it has to..." (^{Chaves, 2013}, p. 127). However, we understand that it is possible to produce another image for intervention, to get involved with other ways of experiencing it, to be on the lookout and to cultivate a way of paying attention as intervention.

Intervention: some contributions

No, I didn't want freedom. Just a way out; to the right, to the left, wherever; I didn't make any other demands; the way out could also just be a mistake; the demand was small, the mistake wouldn't be. Go ahead, go ahead! Just don't stand there with your arms raised, pressed against the wall of a crate. A free thought (^{Kafka, 1994}, p. 60-61).

In the philosophy of education field, criticism of the modern subject is not uncommon (^{Gallo, 2008}; ^{Brito, 2012}). We dare say that this was one of the most important concepts for modernity, as well as for the educational process that was being forged there. The subject was understood as a great presupposition of the SELF centrality, without possible subjection, which would be emancipated through reason; therefore, the subject would be endowed with capacity to intervene in a world presented as amorphous and inert soil. For this reason, a key idea for such enclave is the notion of intervention, especially when thinking about education. Now, the self-centred subject needs to intervene in formal education, and this is an important attitude for guiding the pedagogical act along a linear path of subjectivising bodies according to the norm.

Of course, for Deleuze, an intervention would not be concerned with the dualistic metaphysics subject/object, i.e., a subject analysing the object (abstraction or another subject); this positivist condition has already been questioned by more contemporary interventionist research, according to which there is a need of relationships, in order to transform reality from the subjects participating in the research, including the researcher (^{Teixeira & Neto, 2017}). However, even understanding that relationships occur, the poles are still evoked and the duality (subject/object) remains in place. Therefore, an educational process rejecting dichotomies seeks interventions, based on the creative act in education, because, according to ^{Tadeu (2002}, p. 54),

Disappear the subject and the object. None of that matters. As a problem, of course. It's no longer a question of a body formation or development - that of the knowledge-object or that of the learner-subject. What matters now is what compositions are made and what compositions can be made, and whether they are good or bad from the power to act point of view. Moving from formation to composition, from development to combination, from organisation to agency.

Deleuze´s philosophy radically criticises any dualism, especially the subject/object. Therefore, thinking about an intervention would mean distancing oneself from notions that still relate a subject and an object, no longer problematising them or relying on this reality based on a modern, essentialist idea of truth. With the philosopher, we would have a fold or contribution within another theoretical field to dilate or make an intervention.

The one who intervenes would not stop at a monolithic subject, there would no longer be a Modern SELF; as state ^{Deleuze and Parnet (1998}, p. 109), "[...] there are no more [pre-existing] forms, but kinematic relations between unformed elements; there are no more subjects, but dynamic individuations without a subject". In this sense, Deleuze contorts individuation with Simondon, a fundamental principle for his philosophy, in order to counter the monist notion and the dual hylemorphic of the individual (^{Damasceno, 2007}). Thus, the person who intervenes would be a kind of larval subject, a pre-individual period, which is composed of a minimum of stratified apparatus and a "[...] variable informal matter, an intensive modulation of forces, an intense and unformed matter that has not yet been configured as a stable composition" (^{Damasceno, 2007}, p. 84).

In this way, intervention should be thought as more than pedagogisation, training and guiding bodies, because what matters is its construction in the collective, an exercise that actualises something new, creating new realities and experiences culminating in joyful and festive learning. Intervention takes on a proportion in which the one who intervenes devours and is devoured. We no longer see the researcher or the teachers/students in terms of a Manichean delimitation; on the contrary, we see a collective rich in thought, imbued with a depth that uproots the superficial meaning often attributed to an intervention: transforming reality through a certain control degree.

In his philosophy, ^{Deleuze (2003}) prioritises multiplicities and does not refer to a subject in advance. In the same way, in our view, education can be taken as a theory of multiplicities, without the need to resort to the subject, because we understand the the subject as the one who intervenes, which no longer fulfils this new problem that has arisen in educational research. So, what can the intervener do? To emit signs. Intervention is always based on one force over another, a violence coming from outside, a foreign body that affects and binds the senses tending to strive for balance, for the norm and for the already given.

The researcher is not a representative of the student or the theoretician; the researcher is just a thin line of life that triggers signs; or, as say ^{Deleuze and Guattari (2013}, p. 78) about the philosopher: "[...] he is only the shell of his main conceptual character and of all the others, who are the intercessors, the true subjects of his philosophy".

In the first instance, intervention is relational and and it's not about analysing an empirical social-educational issue. The important are the activated intercessors, as mobilisers of creations, which are not necessarily subjects; the intercessors can be anything. In this sense, we could say that Deleuzian philosophy takes place through these intercessors that help to produce an entire philosophical conceptual mesh; therefore, life is not in one instance and thought in another. For ^{Deleuze (1988}, p. 156), it is important to "[...] manufacture your own intercessors [...]", which produce effects on bodies. In the author's words,

The essential is the intercessors. The creation is the intercessors. Without them there is no work. They can be people - for a philosopher, artists or scientists; for a scientist, philosophers or artists - but also things, plants, even animals, as in Castañeda. Fictitious or real, animate or inanimate, one have to make his own intercessors (^{Deleuze, 1988}, p. 156).

If, in order to intervene, one possibility is the intercessors production, perhaps research at school can be used in another way to resist, because to create is effectively to resist. Intercessors are used to create new writing, a new way of relating to oneself, to others and to research, in order to produce another possible education. Thus, in interventionist research, we have the possibility of making some openings so that other existences can be considered.

It seems that there is no way to think about research without thinking about intervention, without being willing to think about something that already delimits a field of forces in which the researcher and the 'object' are in relation. Instead use the subject/object dualism, we need to think about what ^{Deleuze and Guattari (2003}) call enunciation collective agency. In discussing the expression in relation to so-called minor literatures, or rather, not of a minor language, but of a "[...] language that a minority constructs in a larger language" (^{Deleuze & Guattari, 2003}, p. 38), the authors point out that: (1) language is affected/modified by a strong component of deterritorialisation; (2) everything in minor literature is political; (3) everything acquires a collective value.

Shifting this discussion to problematise research, we can say that, depending on their stance in relation to the investigation, the researcher is surrounded by a strong component of deterritorialisation and may even believe that acting alone; however, everything acquires a collective and intervening value. In this way, what he says constitutes a common action and is necessarily political, as expresses a collective agency of enunciation and not an individual enunciation.

From this perspective, we are betting on an intervention that proposes co-experimentation, in which the notions of subject and object no longer account for what is produced there; it is a field of forces and affects; a fine and powerful intervention that makes people see, opening the way to encounters, snatching away inertia and affirming becoming, alliances and heterogeneous connections. Now, in this intervention, the most important thing is not the beginning or the end, but the in-between, the passage, the middle, where the time is that of the event and the zone is that of intensities.

For this reason, When we think about intervention allied to becoming, it would be difficult to continue with the classic notion presented at the beginning, because, for research in education, "[...] becoming cannot be seen as a result, a transformation [...] from something inferior to something superior" (^{Brito, 2011}, p. 242). Therefore, writing research not dissociated from empirical production does not give rise to the idea of reflecting on a given or even an illogicality; intervention allied to becoming brings a politics of writing that understands it as a way of life, which is pure vital encounter and creation.

We don't want to say that it's only the researcher who intervenes! If that were the case, we would fall into the aforementioned clash about the modern subject. On the contrary, we understand the one who intervenes as the one who is open to encounters and, more than that, enhances them, produces a whole environment so that such encounters provide collective thinking, intensifying the powers of becoming, because an intervention is an event, a movement.

Well, we used the particle 'with', because interventionist research would not stop at researching 'about'. So, the Deleuzian question, inspired by Artaud, "What can a body do?" is dragged into the problematic, helping us to ask: what can an intervention do? We definitely don't know the answer beforehand.

In the wake of 'with', ^{Moraes (2010}) proposes 'researchingWith'. The author starts from the psychology field to think about a research that, according to her, does not flirt with the modern science moulds. ResearchingWith is in the collectivity field, where the dual axis researcher/researched breaks down, giving rise to a way of understanding a research that doesn't judge but connects. Furthermore, there is another way of understanding research; what attracts our attention is the notion that researchingWith consists of "[...] becoming with the other, transforming oneself, producing worlds that articulate, compose themselves" (^{Arendt, Moraes, & Tsallis, 2015}, p. 1156), an argument that, according to the authors, is based on Donna Haraway, but which certainly has a lot to dialogue with Deleuze. We can therefore take as inspiration researchingWith like one of the ways of thinking about intervention as an ntervening act with those present bodies, which are not delimited by a human order.

It's not a question of searching for an identity, extracting knowledge from those being researched. It seems that education, like modern psychology (^{Moraes, 2010}), has a certain charm for faces and essences, in the illusion of one day being able to decipher them. Rather than obtaining a truth, composing worlds - where there is a sensitivity to signs and affections, which is pure contingency - there is no control, in the identification and resolution sense, but shuffling the lines that trace a face. It is not a territory without clashes and counter-arguments, where everyone thinks the same. Intervention dialogues with the different, gives voice to those who are not listened, in order to always produce something new; even when there are returns, they are always different and partial.

Thus, research using this intervention idea has no procedural commitment to a closed method. In any case, as conceived by Descartes, the method and its scientific control, based on the stable ground of reason, or even of positivist science, are not disregarded; such concepts have their importance in the incursion of other narrativities thought.

Thanks to modern philosophy, science has reached its level and, for this reason, we can ask questions and propose other avenues - from other fields - for research. That's exactly what we're proposing here. If intervention makes a kind of method outline, but without radically opposing it, we will be faced with a force of experience, in Deleuzian sense, which doesn't try to predict, but rather to open up paths and produce cracks in the walls. We understand that in each encounter various signs emerge, heterogeneous forces acting from connections; therefore, to understand the phenomenon, we don't need to make a cut, a brushstroke; on the contrary, we value what the phenomenon can cause and its connections in multiplicities.

In A Thousand Plateaus, ^{Deleuze and Guattari (2011}) did a beautiful job, in which they didn't want to study the Earth, but to compose a philosophical thought, with the Earth's aberrant movements as the driving matrix, the multiplicities of multiplicities that make up the entire vital plane. The authors emphasise the rhizome's principle of multiplicity in its connections tangle; the dichotomy becomes null and "[...] it is only when the multiple is effectively treated as a noun, multiplicity, that it no longer has any relation to the one as subject or object, as natural or spiritual reality, as image and world" (^{Deleuze & Guattari, 2011}, p. 23).

Still thinking about the Earth and its compositions, let's take as an example the force-image of the biologist and the forest [1] (^{Silva & Brito, 2020}): many biologists usually carry out their research procedures in a cut-out forest in order to study certain variables, such as the soil, a species of animal, plant or fungus. Even those who study the relationships between species are unidirectional, based on a cut-out, a brushstroke of control, in general, imbued with that which is real in the study of life.

Let's say the biologist decides to experience the forest in a different way: he walks through the forest and experiences encounters with rocks, bats, plants, lines, guano, leaves, fungi, making of these encounters a new materiality of sensations in his body (which is the professional biologist, but not only), which is vibrant to events and understands that it is constructed from symbiotic relationships; he doesn't worry about affiliations, but about the alliances created there; he refuses the structural classifications he learnt from biology and, based on the forest movements, exercises a writing that is also research, a rhizomatic manifestation of what is meant by research. Well! This biologist would be faced with what we understand as intervention, insofar as he affects the bodies of that forest, by which he is also affected and, above all, creates an imagetic and scriptural experimentation zone, with the forest as his vital plane and his dissolution as a biological biologist.

Beyond an action, in its physical sense, intervening can be a pause that would never have the function of saving its research subjects; the pause promoted by intervention would be "[...] what we experience when, during a debate, a participant takes the floor and presents what is being debated 'in a slightly different way'" (^{Stengers, 2015}, p. 5). Thus, intervention is not synonymous for convincing, but for promoting forms that live and think together, given that not everyone is obliged to feel affected. It would be inappropriate to say that intervention does not seek to answer 'what to do?’. If this happen, disappointment could be one of the resounding feelings. We need to think the intervention as a sounding board that suggests composing together.

The notions presented here would help to tension not only the theoretical issues for research-intervention, but also to propose an intervention, with writing as the generating axis that could be born from the intervention itself; this writing would take place in the collective, creating an experimentation zone of writing or the subject or object distanced from this dichotomy in order to think about education through the lens of intensities (^{Kohan, 2002}). In the educational process, research seeking interventions in listening and collective creation can contribute to thinking about other education configurations.

Those who write use writing to intervene in the world, sometimes integrating into it, sometimes composing other possible worlds, co-operating by combining with a form of life, so that both can exist in a new envelope, because "[...] the writer emits real bodies" (^{Deleuze, 2013}, p. 172). In this exercise of writing, one believes in the world, one affirms oneself with the world.

In the introduction to his book In the time of catastrophes - resisting the coming barbarism, ^{Stengers (2015}) argues about 'intervention', which materialises in his book as a political force, as an inventive tool. To intervene, in this case, would be to promote a pause and not a humanist salvation for a given situation that has been raised and, therefore, the school institution can be abandoned as a salvationist condition for a dead education. Thus, the pause promoted by the intervention would be "[...] what we experience when, during a debate, a participant takes the floor and presents what is being debated 'in a slightly different way'" (^{Stengers, 2015}, p. 6). For this author, the intervening act is far from convincing, but rather promoting "[...] for 'those whom it may affect' what makes us think, feel, imagine" (^{Stengers, 2015}, p. 6).

Thus, there is nothing neutral in the intervention proposed by the author, much less a cosmopolitan Kantian notion of intervening for a better and fairer world through reason. Intervention, in Deleuzian version, to which ^{Stengers (2015}) resorts, would be the search for new weapons, the creation of weapons and "[...] a life that explores connections with new powers to act" (^{Stengers, 2015}, p. 6). If the cited book is an intervention tool, it would not be appropriate to say that intervention does not seek to answer 'what to do?’. If that happens, disappointment could be one of the feelings that resonates. It's like thinking intervention as a resonance box, promoting a fold in the world.

Intervening becomes a movement - not always expected - connected from clues of the taken path, which is no longer a unilateral and neutral route. Does only the participant need to intervene? Does the researcher have all the knowledge to act on the research object? We try to think an intervention happening simultaneously, builting together and acting on the participating bodies. The rhizome is traversed through its connections and, in the midst of the clues, the researcher and participant(s) build possibilities in reality. In this way, we act on micro-social scales until we reach a broader level. According to ^{Guattari (2012}), it is important to intervene in a local context, to open a crack in the way we relate to ourselves, to society and the environment, to experiment possibilities for (re)creating ways of teaching, learning and, above all, living on/with this Earth.

So, in a research project, the intervention aims to produce a capture in the school's daily routine that traces the processes paths, the liquid paths outlining its maps, its networks, the students’ activities and movements markings, to find out what affects their bodies that play and what educations are invented. Those who intervene must take off your neutral researchers clothes, directing their gaze towards the set of artefacts produced by the collective in that research.

Final considerations

The biologist feels this sighing of the earth, feels it in his body, feels that it throbs when the earth breathes... Something has fallen, it really has, and the biologist feels that this fall has friction, has triggered horrors, but also possibilities for emerge other lives. And even if this sky falls and we are dancing, the dance calls for a dream with the earth and other lands still possible. When your strength runs out and the weight of the sky is unbearable, don't feel, don't stop, don't cry! Try dancing! Dance while the sky falls, catch a glimpse of the stars, call them to dance while you fall, after all, you don't know what will happen. This is the time to see the sky more closely, to feel it in your body. You don't know if everything will turn to cosmic dust. And if it does, disperse in the dust, become molecular and help to compose new skies (^{Silva, 2018}, p. 63).

For the empirical production of intervention as a textual poetics, considering the process and not just a final product, the gaze must be directed towards the set of artefacts produced by the collective, taking as a force-image what is boiling in that place, the productions of forces, in order to carry out an empirical materialities triangulation. The search for encounters with bodies is not limited to a specific sphere: the suggestion is a nomadic and wandering gaze and, who knows, to invent a new way of looking at the same element already been seen so many times, promoting encounters that generate events, seeking to potentiate these events even more, having chance as this concept generating force and, with this, creating a map of these encounters, which will be the intervention.

Intervention is also allowing oneself to be affected in a joyful way, in the composition of an immanence plane, to know what an intervention can do and what its affections are, its affections forces, in order to produce a world and formers of worlds. It's interesting to realise that those who intervene disappear, they are not at the centre of life. In this way, we want to produce other shared paths. We understand intervention as events production, encounters and experimentation with possibilities. In this sense, intervention is no longer an one-way street, but a mutual affectation between researcher and study participant(s).

Therefore, in this research, we don't aim to carry out a genealogy of intervention as a concept to be frayed, but rather to situate ourselves as an artist who, when looking at a blank canvas, or even a greenish wall with moss, sees less an inert material than a series of events narrated by the lines, the fallen plaster, the aged tar, glimpsing the potential of using these elements to produce interventions in that place and in themselves. There are layers and layers of stories on that wall, from which texts emerge telling about an event from the 'past'; however, that 'past' is there: it is the conclusion of an eventful time in which the past and the future are present on a wall that tells, speaks and interacts, because, like the intervention, it is a matter of life and death for those who seriously take it.

About these questions, some clues have been launched, crossed by experiences in search studies that are part of research in education whole traditional framework, which we don't want to problematise here (not in an exhaustive way, as this has already been done too much). Our aim is much more to produce vital processes; to try to think about the problematisation raised, which is the purpose of an intervention with the following objective: "to experiment with possible ways of thinking about interventions in order to promote other ways of looking at education".

In this panorama, the argument raised is that, by producing a politics of existence in face of the intervention desired in education, new encounters with the world would be experienced, acting in inventive interventions that would crack an educational context based on Modernity.

We ended without concluding the intervention in thought and we propose a textual intervention. Among the works previously presented in Table 1, in which we listed the studies found in our research in the CAPES Platform Theses and Dissertations Catalogue, we chose the study by Michele Caroline da Silva ^{Rodrigues (2016}), entitled Cartographies of the sensitive - the disabled female body in physical education classes, in order to carry out another writing incursion inspired by it.

This incursion is a kind of textual intervention, triggered by the interventions proposed in the selected text; it is a writing that, as it happens, builds bridges and breathes something new into every word, phrase and experiment. As ^{Brito (2018}, p. 39) says, encounters "[...] are capture, theft, deformations, disasters. I found Deleuze, and I stole Deleuze"; in the same way, we find Michele, and we steal Michele. As ^{Deleuze and Parnet (1998}, p. 15) emphasise about encounters and theft,

To find is to find, to capture, to steal, but there is no method to finding, nothing but a long preparation. Stealing is the opposite of plagiarising, copying, imitating or doing like. Capture is always a double-capture, theft a double-stealing, and that's what makes it, not something mutual, but an asymmetrical block, an a-parallel evolution, nuptials, always 'outside' and 'between'.

In this finding and stealing, there is the experimentation of the unexpected, the reinvention of the established. And so we move on to 'a dance with light feet'. Michele - who alone is already many - produces a dance in which flourishes a body that dances with Spinoza, Nietszche and Deleuze; however, these are not the philosophers: they are the dancers of her intervention. The call to dance would never be to the philosophers, because there is a transmutation of thought there.

Dancing would be the ultimate expression of body writing, because from now we only write as far as our fingertips. Movements are written with the whole body. So-called female bodies experience dance, which is never alone, but has contact as composition. The so-called disabled body, in which limitations are imposed...Which body is 'normal'? And Michele dances in a cartography in which the movements problematise, recognise a body that has been limited, but made up of multiplicities that can be discovered and/or rediscovered in the experimentation of dancing, one step here, two steps there... And the body goes on dancing, deterritorialising, breaking out of the enclosure in which the disabled female body has been marked out to remain.

Michele used cartography as an intervention procedure, travelling through affections to build a cartography of dance. We understand cartography as a "[...] mode of experimentation, of evaluating life, which places writing as a politics of existence" (^{Brito & Chaves, 2017}, p. 8). Furthermore, it would be difficult to conceptualise what cartography is as a method, something that even Deleuze and Guattari didn't do with this concept (delimit, signify, conceptualise), because, according to the authors, it is an open and contingent map.

But what is cartography for? As a methodological procedure in education, cartography serves as "[...] a diagram, a plane of immanence. To find out what a body can do. What are the affections of a body?" (^{Corazza & Silva, 2003}, p. 69). What would a cartographer be if not an intervener who maps out daily plots involving events, situations, activities and learning? We learnt exactly that with Michele and her encounters. But as a disciplinary institution, the school also moulds bodies, making them docile, as ^{Foucault (1996}) says in the book Discipline and Punish and as ^{Veiga-Neto (2002}) rightly points out in the distribution of space and time in the school, governing two axes - the body and knowledge:

It's easy to see the analogy between disciplinary operations aimed at docilising bodies - especially children, in the case of schools - and operations aimed at organising knowledge. In any case, these are operations of confinement, gridding, distribution, allocation of functions, hierarchisation. In any case, it's always about economically organising space and time. On the one hand - on the axis of the body - the aim is to maximise the useful force of the body and the work extracted from it, at the expense of the least political force applied to it. On the other hand - on the axis of knowledge - the aim is to maximise intelligibility, at the cost of less dispersion and indeterminacy of knowledge. In this game are inscribed the docilisation of the body and the power that acts on and through it. The most remarkable result of all this is that this game ends up hiding its contingent character, its game-like character, when it works. In this way, everything that happens seems to be natural and necessary (^{Veiga-Neto, 2002}, p. 173).

How can we deviate from the established, from this docilisation of bodies and limitations acceptance? A single answer is daydreaming; however, we believe that, in this rhizome, research aimed at producing events, experimenting, can open a crack to see possibilities for building new realities. We return to Michele, in this cartography that intervenes in bodies and, more than that, intervenes in standardisations repeated daily in order to reproduce a normal body. On entering this system, the student, especially the female student, "[...] begins to draw stereotyped pictures, she models herself according to dominant attitudes" (^{Guattari & Rolnilk, 1996}, p. 99).

With Michele, we think again about the inclusion of people with disabilities in the school environment: is it an inclusion of people or just of bodies in a space? What can this disabled body do to force the established? Michele warns us about the encounter with these bodies: "In the midst of the multiple bodies, there was the encounter with the Disabled Female Body. This body contributed to the de-automatisation, de-familiarisation and de-territorialisation of the way we think, act and feel professionally" (^{Rodrigues, 2016}, p. 10). This encounter presented numerous difficulties in the course of experiencing these bodies.

The encounter with the other, the open eye to build differentiated, inclusive classes... Michele intervenes in herself, in the construction of classes in which the disabled body could be inserted, participating and dancing, making visible the inventiveness and sensitivity of people with disabilities. A becoming in dance that allows itself to be created. ^{Deleuze and Parnet (1998}) highlight becoming as capture, far from following the established, standardising models, they are phenomena of "[...] double capture, of non-parallel evolution, nuptials between two realms" (^{Deleuze & Parnet, 1998}, p. 10). The gestures and steps improvisation builds an invented dance that discovers the body elasticity and mobility. The intervention becomes here and there, intervening in the bodies present in Michele's research and in her own actions as a teacher.

From a dance-intervention, or vice versa, Michele proposes to enable a body that improvises, becoming a rhizome-body. Thus, as a body of connections and multiplicities, the rhizome has no beginning and no end; it connects to one line and another; this body would be an 'open system' (^{Deleuze, 2013}) of possibilities and improvisation to the unexpected. To the bodies taught to limit themselves, Michele calls them to dance, taking herself out of the planned routine. The intervention conceived like this becomes production of events and subjectivities, allowing bodies to overcome imposed barriers.

Michele teaches us that in order to paint new educations, it's important to dance... Not exactly dance as the content of a discipline, but a dance created with every touch. A dance-intervention, unrelated to a given choreography: which paths will I dance and lose myself in? I invented them. It is with this power of invention that we dare to think about intervention in professional master's research, with the possibility of experimenting and (re)discovering new paths for teaching practice, for the Brazilian education professionals’ actions.