Talk:Rhizome (philosophy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Citation Needed[edit]

As the 'citation needed's are about me, I won't edit but I am curious. As the points made in the second half of the paragraph that is about my rhizome article are from the article, and carry on from it, is all that is needed a restatement of the citation at the end of the paragraph? They are all points from the paper. --Davecormier (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Does your article demonstrate that the approach is gaining currency, or is it just an aspiration? I didn't add all those tags, but the argument sounds pretty dubious. DionysosProteus (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of the citation needed stuff relates to stuff actually in the article. I appreciate your feelings about the idea being 'dubious'. Certainly some people have taken it up http://www.elearningeuropa.info/out/?doc_id=19280&rsr_id=19655 this is a nice example. I guess i still don't understand the balance between it 'sounding dubious' and it being from a peer reviewed article. Maybe i still just don't get wikipedia... which is unfortunate, as I teach people how to use it for academia. --Davecormier (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.100.47 (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not "gaining any currency in academic circles" (nor do you provide a citation for that), at least not yet. This article is essentially an advertisement for your viewpoint and your article. I have articles, too, but I don't plug them constantly, because quite frankly they're not relevant. This is absolutely shameless. Like Kincheloe, some people in Ed just continually raid the Continental Philo vocabulary for buzzwords and foist it off as "research". That's besides the point. You need cites when you say something is "gaining currency". Also, I've never heard of the journal you wrote the article for, I can't find your article online or even cited anywhere (seriously, do you have ANY cites?), and every weblink with your name comes up "page not found". Guinness4life (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't write it, and would not have claimed that it is 'gaining currency...' whether it is or not. The article has been cited a half dozen times and has been used in classrooms... but is hardly taking over the world. The post preexisted my article... and had stuff added to it after my article was added. You don't "agree" with the article... which is fine, but the article links do currently work... the server of the journal was down, and the links broken, because the journal was discontinued. http://innovateonline.info/ Is wikipedia now constrained to using citations from journals that YOU are familiar with? It's quite well known in my field. Given your approach here, however, you've got the taint of certainty that implies that you don't particularly discuss, but, rather, decide. And you have decided. --Davecormier (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable sources[edit]

How does a peer reviewed online journal not qualify as a verifiable source? As of August this was tagged with the unverifiable source tag and yet it has a 'further reading' tag added to it to the peer reviewed article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.96.230 (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not just sociology?[edit]

Isn't this misnamed as Rhizome (sociology)? Should it be something like Rhizome (metaphors) instead? Jung's usage of the term rhizome as metaphor doesn't seem to be sociological, although Deleuze and Guattari's usage probably is. Mikkalai's insistence on splitting up the original unitary Rhizome article seems quite problematic. -- JimR 11:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved to a better title. Nothing problematic: totally different areas. That's why we have thousands of disambiguation pages. `'mikka (t) 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Metaphor? or Concept?[edit]

Is it really appropriate to label 'rhizome' in this usage as a metaphor, given Deleuze and Guattari's hostility to the notion that their appropriation of terms is metaphorical? I appreciate that the article makes a point of their concept of rhizome being non-metaphorical, but both the disambiguation page and the opening line say otherwise. I am not familiar with Jung's usage, but whether or not it is metaphorical, a more neutral description should discuss it as a concept, not as a metaphor. Philosophy does not work exclusively with metaphor - its work is done primarily with concepts, which may or may not have metaphorical elements or forms. Therefore, the philosophical usage of 'rhizome' should be primarily described as 'conceptual' rather than 'metaphorical'. --Rhizomachine 01:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Rhizome" means rhizome. The rest is metaphorical usage, like it Deleuze or not, period. The term was selected exactly because "rhizome" is an analogy to something different "arborescent". `'mikka (t) 03:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Mikka's common sense, but it is obviously a misunderstanding to qualify it as a metaphor, as Rhizomachine has noted. But why bother arguing the case against such "evidence"? Lapaz 04:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the introduction accordingly. A concept is not a metaphor. Lapaz 04:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-promotion?[edit]

There are two references in this article to the work of one "Jeff Vail". Mr. Vail is a blogger with a self-edited book at iUniverse press. He does not seem relevant enough to the article to justify his presence there. I would propose deletion. --Amador 22:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The original reference to Jeff Vail was added at this diff by an anonymous poster with no other contributions. An external link was added here, from a different anonymous IP address with one other edit (to Hubbert peak theory, apparently not related to Jeff Vail). I changed this to the more precise link to the inline version of the book here, because I thought it did have some relevance. I don't know anything more about Jeff Vail than this, or have any connection with him. I'll leave it up to others to decide whether the references should remain. -- JimR 07:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would probably leave Jeff Vail in there as a reference. I've been working on rhizomatic theory for the last couple of months, and he still seems to be the most relevant person on the subject working online. --Davecormier 16:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed them until there is evidence of this person's notability and authority on the topic (ie, he gets his own article). --ZimZalaBim talk 02:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Link to "Critical mass" seems to be incorrect[edit]

83.19.131.243 21:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rhizome as Philosophy[edit]

I've removed the references to Carl Jung's use of "rhizome" as it is not a philosophical use (the subject of this article) but rather a passing metaphor. The article still needs substantial work: the educational application detailed is a minor example and contains some terminological errors (data "representation", for instance, doesn't sit well with an anti-representational concept). I'm working on other D&G terms at the moment, but hope to get to this one soon. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

what?[edit]

I can't understand what the hell any of this means. Please make this article clearer by providing a clear definition at the beginning. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.242.202 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand it either. My head hurts. Please fix! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.181.215 (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything. It's just a load of pseudo-intellectual masturbation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.170.115 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much. Whenever you see Deleuze as the inspiration for anything it's generally garbage. The man is an academic fraud of the kind that's become quite popular in France.
I'll summarize. Top-down is hierarchical/capitalist authority = bad. Side-to-side (non) authority like potato roots (working together, etc ad nauseum) is the kind that should be in a anarchist/socialist utopia = good. Also, to save you the trouble of reading the guy's other books - according to D, Capitalism causes Schizophrenia, and Nietzsche was a Marxist. Guinness4life (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Or, you could, say, draw connections to network theory. You could say that Deleuze and Guattari are making a seminal contribution to the theory that underpins how knowledge is constructed in social networks. Social networks have a hierarchy, but that hierarchy has a very difficult time enforcing 'truth'. What comes to be known as knowledge is something that is negotiated through the interactions between the people in a given network... social or otherwise. Or, like Guinness4life, you could hate it because it doesn't map against your worldview. --Davecormier (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
There's also known connections with D&G's rhizome and Actor Network Theory. See this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93network_theory This looks to be worth writing up to me. NomadWarMachine (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear god. ^

None of which has much to do with the fact that this is an astonishingly opaque article that fails utterly to communicate the meaning of Rhizome (philosophy) to anyone who doesn't already know it (or think that they know it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.237.200 (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All amusing exchanges, but who wants to fix the article to make it intelligible? —Zujine|talk 11:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WHAT? I have to admit, this is the first time I have ever visited a Wiki page and came away feeling like I knew LESS than I did before I visited it. Please add me to the list of this page's victims -- surely we are not all fools.

But it does beg a question -- how did the 2 advocates of this theory manage to eat up 8 years worth of research on this abstract and unintelligible gobbledygook?68.190.23.42 (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

So the link to Obscurum per obscurius in See also is a small piece of fantastic irony I guess? 213.113.123.34 (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Material to link to: youtube video?[edit]

Youtuber johndavidebert gives an account of Deleuze’s A Thousand Plateaus ‘intro’ and covers rhizomes (imho) really quite well. Not sure if it would be worth linking in the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pH--FtP0j4 (Focus on rhizomes begins ~03:05, oh, and it’s a two-parter.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.104.119 (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Most-browsed Deleuze and Guattari articles[edit]

I wanted to find out which of the D&G articles garners the most traffic on this site. I thought this might be of interest to other editors interested in the D&G articles. All stats for June 2010:

Also related are:

But neither article has any substantial treatment of D&G

DionysosProteus (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fascicle (book) redirects here[edit]

Is it supposed to? I can't see what Rhizomes have to do with it, at all, but I may just be missing something. 155.135.55.233 (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it should. The fascicle book is one of the three types of book that D&G describe in the chapter/short book that this article is about--root-book, fascicle-book, and rhizome-book. I'm working on a new version of this article that explains it, but it's not ready to go into the mainspace yet. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

From reading this article, and some others in regards to assigning a goal for our existence, it is striking that all is either wholly individualistic or based on a community goal. I think it is pretty clear our individual goals are more or less simplified to a few tracks which drive more of the human output this days: wealth, success in a career, influence at the higher echelons of life, leisure and enjoyment of time, power over others and happiness. But in reality none of these goals addresses what should be the goal of humanity. Some say it should be a continuous evolution of science and knowledge till the point we become a knowledge society, some others might see as a spatial dominance, just like we did in the past with less evolved cultures. Yet still other philosophies look for human evolution (Nietzsche) to a whole new species. The political goal of humanity is not clear either because politics is also influenced by individual traits, therefore is not purely an representation of underlying human aspirations.

Pirategerman (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Uncited Source?[edit]

The source of the second half of this article seems to be largely taken word for word from this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=Li_JzmrWfkwC&pg=PA265

What's going on here? This is not from D&G themselves. The text has now been cited by several outside websites referring back to Wikipedia as the source, but there's no source given except for a page on rhizomes.org which also cites no source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.109 (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)