Summary:
In this article Deleuze and Guattari offer an alternative philosophical theory explaining how human knowledge works. The general conception held on how one can approach knowledge likens it to a structure such as a tree, a consistent logical flow building from the bottom up. Deleuze and Guattari, however, offer the word ribosome as a description for their new approach to knowledge. Webster’s Dictionary defines rhizome as, “ a somewhat elongate usually horizontal subterranean plant stem…producing shoots above and roots bellow.” All points are connected to each other through the root system but since it is constantly expanding at random there is no logical organization or center from which everything is expanding upon. Deleuze and Guattari write, “Unlike a structure, which is defined by a set of points and positions, with binary relations between the points and biunivocal relationships between the positions, the rhizome is made only of lines, lines of segmentarity and stratification as its dimensions” (NMR 409). Everything is separated into dimensions that can’t be reduced to simple units, a beginning, or an end. “Instead “linear multiplicities” based off consistency form a metaphorical map that can be continually changed and manipulated by the human mind.
Inquiry:
To be honest I’m not sure I understood the majority of the writing in this article. I agree with concept Deleuze’s and Guattari’s presented regarding different dimensions being sporadically connected and separating our various approaches to knowledge. The human brain has specific areas that have been found to control certain aspects of our thoughts, behaviors, and sensations, so it makes sense that each of area records whatever knowledge is being gained pertaining to that area of the brains specialty. Through utilizing multiple forms of knowledge gained and interconnecting all this at the same time we are able to function in the manner we think of as normal. It does not seem as rational to me to think that the approach to knowledge by the human mind is like that of a tree, with everything neatly sorted out and leading smoothly to each other from the bottom up in perfect succession.
Questions:
1) 1) Do you think our approach to knowledge is more like a tree or a rhizome?
2) 2) Deleuze and Guattari say that book has no object and that it is simply the way in which it functions and relates to other things that forms our impression of it. Would you agree with this?
3) 3) Deleuze and Guattari say knowledge has no beginning or end simply a middle, so is knowledge truly timeless or can it come to an end?
I would not fully agree with Deleuze and Guattari's statement as I believe that knowledge is progressive and in that sense, must have a beginning and move forward. Computation limits the kinds of inferences we can make about the world. For example, science requires a theory, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion. I need to first master theory in the classroom and then gain experience from the lab bench. Fundamentals (possible the roots of the tree), are required to build upon. Each medium of learning is just important as the other. Out in the world, we observe, note patterns, and then make generalizations. Knowledge could be alluded to a timeline. Like a timeline, some events may reoccur or become irrelevant. The information we access from our brain could be cross-listed in many different areas. With that, it could draw comparisons to Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome as the information suspends across dimensions like a network.
ReplyDelete