Jonathan Maskit asked if rhizome could be considered a concept outside
of metaphysics, such as Derrida speaks of differance as outside of metaphysics.
Without taking up a discusssion of differance, let me say that in my opinion theanswer would be a provisional, and highly qualified, "no." Differance,
in my reading of Derrida, lies within the thinking through of identity and
the acknowledgement of the originary difference implicit in any thinking
of identity. I think the rhizomatic can be thought in terms of differance,
though it is a radically deterritorialized differance, that is, one that
is generalized throughout nature and not confined to the nature of the
understanding and Heidegger's "question of man." On the other hand, limiting
rhizomes to "man" could be understood as the aborescent (sp?) gesture
par excellence.
The question as to whether the concept of the rhizome lies "outside"
of metaphysics seems to me to be a question of how rhizomatic thinking
could be seen in relation to what at one time was referred to as the
"metaphysical tradition." Deleuze acknowledges a different set of
philosophical predecessors for whom the question of being is not read
(at least by Deleuze) in terms of identity (hence, the 'uselessness' of
Hegel for Deleuze (at least to my limited knowledge of D.). "Differance,"
by contrast, lies "outside" of metaphysics as far as it is the supplement
which allows metaphysics to be, but which can never be acknowledged within
a tradition in which identity is central, and not supplemental. The thinking
of differance comes _out_ of that tradition, but so radically dis-places
it that metaphysics can never re-place itself in, or as, the same (that is,
without acknowledging the spacing of that "same").
Several of us on the list have been questioning the role of
metaphor in MP because of its speculative possibilities. At least my
interest (one of my interests, if I can articulate it 'right now')
is to press the text on the 'totalistic' nature of "rhizome" and then
to ask if a 'positive' philosophy can exist which is not speculative.
(Furthermore, a philosophy which goes far beyond humanism in its natural
scope.) I think this question is still very much up for grabs in MP.
For that reason, I'm not so certain that an extension of "rhizome"
logic from one cultural realm to another is the most illimunating gesture.
It seems to be treating the rhizome very much as a metaphysical concept
and its very ease of transfer makes the concept 'itself' both reified
and suspect (at least as a critical tool). Perhaps as we go on in
reading MP the centrality of "the rhizome" will fade and we may find
it to be a "quasi-concept" similar to the Derridean trace. Even here,
however, I would suggest that it may be problematic to speak of a
"quasi-concept" outside of human experiences of finitude.
Ron Day
------------------