Wiki as a rhizome

No clue if this will help anybody but me (but you're all in my head, so...) -- my notes from 1. Introduction: Rhizome.

Note - I'm iffy on my use of "plateau", but I really can't figure out a way of describing it. It seems to me to be the meta (metaplateau?) of the rhizome, though I'm conflicted in their use of planes. I don't know... anyway...

“A body without organs” (p4) = decentered, deGeneraled. Organ assumes a functional center and is object oriented. Organs are defined in a trace (following the food, we go mouth to stomach to intestine) while the rhizome, though instantaneously traceable, resists such signification. The rhizome still has a semblance of root-tree, does it not? Well, in place of root is the rhizome, and rhizome presupposes tree (because the rhizome still has a semblance of root-tree)… ? Yet “one becomes two” (top middle of p5) as I employ a root-tree opposition to describe the rhizome… perhaps my circle rhizomatifies sufficiently? Is it correct to say that the dichotomy is a connected feature of the rhizome?

“multiplicity” (all over the place)= Instead of a point, a line which sweeps a plane. Instead of an organ with a defined function, a plateau that is ever connected to all other plateaus. Deleuze AND Guattari (food for thought?) I’m having trouble conceptualizing “plane of consistency” increasing in dimensions with increasing connections to other planes (p9).

Homogeneity/heterogeneity of language (p7) – I’m not certain on the *geneity plays, but while one can view a Language to have defined structure, this assumes a unifying “mother tongue” or root. I’m reminded of constative/performative replacing true/false.

“Yes, couchgrass is also a rhizome” (p10) – for starters, couchgrass is a joke/’put down’, right? They talk about grass in opposition to the tree as a conceptual model of the rhizome. So couchgrass, while still grass, never leaves the couch. Another anal machine?

Orchid and the wasp (p10)– Adaptation picks up on this (well, on orchids at least)… orchids mimic in color and shape a specific type of species (not just wasp, but specific type of wasp). Then the orchid/species have a sort of “dance”… some pollen gets spread and some nectar gets drunk, and both are smoking cigarettes. So… the mimicry is deterritorial. The wasp forming a union with the orchid is reterritorial. The pollen being spread to the wasp is reterritorial. The breaking of the union is deterritorial. I see the interaction, but I’m not seeing the rhizome. Aparallel evolution… is that to say their evolution is inexorably linked/crossed? So the chaotic motion of a single plateau within a rhizome creates consequences for all other plateaus. Ooooh, so that’s like the friendship theorem (p17) – “If any two given individuals in a society have precisely one mutual friend, then there exists an individual who is the friend of all others.” – can’t explain it, but I’m certain its connected!

“Write, form a rhizome, increase your territory by deterritorialization. (p11)” Deleuze and Guattari have written a rhizome with their “lack of structure.” Use of cross-disciplinary vocabulary. “Free association” though bound by “the letter C” (the flow of the stream, the channels of the rhizome of which they and you and me are a part of). Planting roots is to stake out a defined space which will always be smaller than the collective movement of all interrelated plateaus.

“The rhizome is … map and not a tracing (p12)” – A map of all possible points… a shape composed of an infinite connection of lines and curves. I think I like curves better than “plane of consistency” forming n dimensions… but not really now that I’ve written it. “The tracing should always be put back on the map” – it is thus alright to say “be like old man river” so long as the statement is implicitly conjuncted with “… and … and … and …”

(p16) “opposed segment” – more on the dichotomy which I think I mentioned above?

(p17) “n is in fact always n-1” Is that to say “our 3d vision is actually 2d”, or “the essence of the plateau is everything but the plateau?” or both, or none of the above?

(p 18) I’m pretty confused by the East vs West agriculture/horticulture, as it seems to contradict my understanding of their talk of America. Anybody care to elucidate?

“Don’t go for the root, follow the canal” – the bible of the American dentist. Awesome.

On rhizomatic reproduction (p21) – So are they saying there is a finite “surface area” or plateaus, the rhizome doesn’t really reproduce as much as it shifts and refolds and reconnects? There is nothing new under the sun, only new ways of connecting it up? “Unlike the tree, the rhizome is not the object of reproduction: neither external reproduction as image-tree nor internal reproduction as tree-structure. The rhizome is antigenealogy. It is a short-term memory, or antimemory. The rhizome operates by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, offshoots.”

(p22) “Typographical, lexical or syntactic creations are necessary only when they no longer belong to the form of expression of a hidden unity, becoming themselves dimensions of the multiplicity under consideration; we only know of rare successes in this.” – not sure about ‘hidden unity’ or anything at all in this sentence, but I was thinking about the stark contrast in typography between D&G and Ronell.

And to cap it off: “The tree imposes the verb ‘to be,’ but the fabric of the rhizome is the conjunction, “and … and … and …” This conjunction carries enough force to shake and uproot the verb ‘to be’” (p25). So a plateau exists (to be) connected, and not to be. It’s interesting because 60s pop culture (which to me means The Beatles) showed a love of just being… “that you may see the meaning of within, it is being.” Despite what I’ve just read, I’m dichotomizing the two uses and trying to sort it out… D&G use “to be” as a signifying agent, whereas The Beatles seem (to me) to ascribe a certain rhizomatic character to it.