Rhizomes:

[d63]

Rhizome 5/28/16 in which I push deeper into Deleuze’s concept of the refrain via Bogue’s book (BTW, thanks William​ (on his relation to the arts:

“The refrain territorializes chaos in forming a milieu; it deterritorializes milieu components and reterritorializes them in a territory proper; and deterritorializing forces constantly play through the territory, thereby opening it to the cosmos as a whole. Yet the basic function of the refrain is “essentially territorial, territorializing or reterritorializing, whereas music makes of it a deterritorialized content for a deterritorializing form of expression." The refrain, then, is “a way of impeding”, of conjuring music or doing away with it.” Music takes the refrain as its content and transforms it by entering into a process of “becoming” that deterritorializes the refrain.”

I would also paraphrase Frost in an interview:

“We rise out of disorder into order. I would sooner write free verse as play tennis with the net down.”

I would also note his dual refrain in the poem “Mending Wall”:

“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall, that wants it down.”

“Good fences make good neighbors, my neighbor says.”

Once again: the creative act never seems that far from Deleuze’s mind. But then it is not uncommon for any creative person to refer to the nature of the act they are engaged in. Most creative acts (if not all (end up being self referencing in that they are a manifesto for the individual’s particular mode of operation.

And we can see the roots of Deleuze’s respect for the refrain in Difference and Repetition based on the analytic/metaphysical assertion that even a pure repetition, at best, can only be different instances of the same thing; therefore, the only thing that can truly be repeated is difference.

And we see it all over the creative act. This is why, for instance, the refrain in Ginsberg’s “Howl” is so powerful to us: because it was powerful enough to him to set off a whole chain of associations. And anyone that has written poetry knows this. But it is not just within the work itself; the refrain is important as well in the life of creative –that is if they are to be creative. Think, for instance, of a dialogue out of Cronenberg’s The Fly in which Jeff Goldblum describes Einstein’s wardrobe. According to it, if you had looked into Einstein’s closet, what you would have seen was a repetition of the same uniform: a refrain. The reason he did this was because he didn’t want to waste a lot of mental energy on deciding what he wanted to wear that day.

(And I would note here how this goes to my concept of efficiency: the lowering of resources exerted towards one thing so that they can be exerted towards something more important.)

That said, what I hope to get into tomorrow is how, as Deleuze sees it, such repetitions: refrains (via becoming (become a path to social justice: a source of empathy which is all we really need to make things right.

We repeat ourselves to get beyond ourselves.

[d63]

Rhizome 5/29/16:

“That said, what I hope to get into tomorrow is how, as Deleuze sees it, such repetitions: refrains (via becoming (become a path to social justice: a source of empathy which is all we really need to make things right.

We repeat ourselves to get beyond ourselves.” –from rhizome 5/28/16

"Music, then, is a form of becoming, and it is “inseparable” from three specific forms of becoming, , "a becoming-woman, a becoming-child, a becoming-animal (with a becoming molecular implicit in all three)… Why a becoming-woman, -child, -animal? Social coding operates by way of asymmetrical binary oppositions, in Western societies through an implicit privileging of male over female, adult over child, rational over animal, white over colored, etc. A becoming deterritorializes such codes and in its operations necessarily engages the underprivileged term of each of these binary oppositions. Hence, “There is no becoming-man, for man is the molar entity par excellence, whereas becomings are molecular”. –From Ronald Bogue’s Deleuze on Music, Painting, and the Arts

“We’re going to build a wall; and the Mexicans are going to pay for it.” –Donald Trump

If we really think about it, we can easily see how Trump’s phallocentric and molar nonsense might appeal to republicans and the right. He comes off as the tightfisted patriarchal figure that will brush everyone aside and, seeing the simple answer in the midst of confusion, heroically set everything straight. And this, of course, appeals to fancy which, as described by Coleridge , is characteristic of intellectual and creative laziness that, in its laziness, fails to make the transition to imagination: the molecular understanding of the actual complexities involved in the issue of migration –not the to mention the simple detail that Mexico is not likely to comply. The frightening irony at work here is that the Republicans, in their molar simplicity, are basically supporting Trump (as they do many republican candidates (that is despite their many references to Stalin in reaction to progressive policies (for the very same reason that Russia supported Stalin at the end of the Russian revolution: he was a tightfisted can do kind of guy. And the same can be said for Hitler.

And as a progressive in the Midwest, I can see this phallocentric and molar dynamic all over the right. I mean there is a reason they also tend to talk about hunting and listen to country music, why the underlying message is always: keep things simple. It’s always about empowerment. I mean take a poll at any Nascar race and you’re likely to find that most of them are Republicans. Any sporting event for that matter –most of which will be sponsored by Bud: the hard beer. Of course, one has to wonder what happens when the system tells them: sorry guy’s, there is no longer enough fossil fuel left to support wasting it on trivial races. Will their fanciful selves come up with government conspiracies aimed at bringing down white males?

It is this present human and social condition that makes Deleuze’s emphasis on becoming (via creative play with concepts (bricolage if you will (so important.

We become to evolve. It takes creativity to do so: the transition from fancy to imagination (the molar to the molecular. And if we don’t evolve (become more feminine or childlike or animal (I really do love my dog because my dog really loves me, we may well end up destroying ourselves.

I mean there is a reason that most creative people tend to be progressive and, in America, support the Democratic Party.

[Arminius]

May I ask you why you are so interested in “rhizomes”?

[d63]

Rhizome 6/24/16, a kind of Ritz Cracker approach in which, not knowing what it is I want to say, I randomly bounce off of strings emerging in Open Mic and hopefully draw some energy from it. It’s kind Vampire-like if you think about it:

“Yikes, where to start.1. You are making grave errors in thinking here: 1.” –Janet

“How do you know you aren’t, Janet?” –Me

“ D Edward Tarkington I am not making errors in my thinking.” –Janet

Once again, Janet: how do you know you aren’t? I’m confident that if I scrutinized what you were saying enough, I would likely find them. Everyone has them. I mean a complete vision of the world would be a pointless one. In fact, I have found one already:

It is one thing to say you respectfully disagree with a person and proceed to show why. It is quite another to accuse someone of having errors in their thinking then claim that you have none –that is when we know goddamn good and well that you do. That comes off as authoritarian and dogmatic which is the very kind of thing that philosophy seeks to undermine. And believe me, it can shut down a discourse just like that.

Anyway:

“But Basic Income SAVES CAPITALISM for sure and I don’t want it saved. I want it to implode before the planet is completely gone for all the species I love. OK with me if humans go.” –Janet

I agree with the first part to the extent that it does save Capitalism. In fact, Zizek brought this up in one of his U-tube lectures in which he points out that, with a BUI, it would be harder for us show any dissent towards Capitalism –that is since it would be Capitalism supporting BUI. And this goes to the same problem I see with utilitarianism in terms of Efficiency: it seeks to maximize happiness; but you have to ask “at whose or what’s expense?” Utilitarianism is basically anthrocentric and neglectful of the other systems that sustain our species. There is the risk that BUI would sustain our current propensity towards consumption that our eco-systems cannot sustain –especially given the expansionary model that producer/consumer Capitalism works by.

As far as “OK with me if humans go,” I can sympathize while not agreeing. We are an evolving species that is at an important evolutionary step: we either work our way beyond our evolutionary heritage of the competitive mode, that which has gotten us to this point thus far, into the cooperative which emerged as we evolved into to more complex systems, or we end up losing it all. And I would note (as despairing as it may seem at times (how, between slavery, women, labor, gay and minority rights, drug laws even, the progressives (the ones working to facilitate the evolutionary step into the cooperative mode (have always been shown to be right. Always! And what we’re seeing with Trump is little more than an evolutionary backlash from a relatively young and adolescent country that’s having a hard time with doing what every other developed country has had to: step down from above other countries and take its place among them.

[Arminius]

So I am not allowed to ask you why you are so interested in “rhizomes”, D63?

[d63]

My Take on the Rhizomatic Method via the Analogy of a Fireworks Show:

Alright!!! Imagine watching a fireworks show. You see several projectiles rip upward into the nighttime sky and, suddenly, break out (in all directions (into other projectiles that, in turn, break out in all directions into other projectiles that explode into globes of light and fire that also consists of singularities that act in ways similar to the model I started this model with. We can see a similar dynamic at work (in a more slow motion manner (in the way a rosebush or the brain (via brain plasticity (break from themselves. But let’s stick with fireworks in order to get at the intensity that Deleuze and Guatarri were getting at.

(And it is important to note here that by the time D & G got to A Thousand Plateaus, they had decided (due to the real world results of The Anti-Oedipus (drug addicts and such: the consequences of constant acceleration (to tone it down.)

Of course, I have mislead you here in that the model I have presented comes off as arborescent in that it all starts with those initial projectiles, much as trees, rosebushes, and brains (via brain plasticity (do. But sometimes the only way out is through. So let us now imagine that same fireworks show just suddenly appearing in the nighttime sky without the initial projections: all these explosions just suddenly expanding from all points with no real center.

Now we’re getting closer. But not close enough. Now we have to consider the fractal nature of all the internal events at work in the explosions going on before us. But, for poops and giggles, let’s now imagine those explosions (those blossomings (going on all around us –much as reality does. And, once again, the only way out is through: sometimes you have to imagine the graspable in order to grasp (or imagine (what is beyond the grasp of our mental resources.

So I would now ask you to imagine all those fractal interactions (even the fireworks if it helps (contained in an aquarium: all this motion pushing against motion always enfolding motion while always being enfolded.

Now imagine the glass walls of that aquarium expanding into infinity.