Yes, tubers seem to be associated with rhizomes becuase of the constantly
redeployed, non-centralized manner with which they propogate themselves across
the land. I'm no botanist either, so I don't know whether this is really
the case, but it works for me. And yes, of course we should expect to find
"knots of arborescence"--just as we should expect to find pointless
chaotic play on tree, hallucinogenic whorls of wood, or nooks and crannies
for birds to briefly erect their twig-yurts before wandering south. Any
time we think we've found a pure expression of Deleuzian
modes--rhizomatics, BWOs, smooth space, etc--we're lost. Rhizomes "go
tree" by laying down roots, but they are radically distributed roots,
roots on the fly--and they die while the plant itself continues to live.
So do nomads or birds build shelters, mini-interiorities justified by
their practical dimension, and destroyed by the flight that has already
been inititated at the moment of arrival.
Another fascinating link of the "line" rhizome/tuber is
rhizome/tuber/mushroom (for it is preceisely these lines of assocation
that cross genus and species that D*G are pointing us towards, rather than
the genetic organization of species in botany or natural
history--organizations which when graphed often resemble trees.) Besides
the shamanic resonance, mushrooms point to the parasitic dimension of
rhizomatics--unlike a tree which, once anchored, "stands alone," a rhizome
does not exist apart from its immediate landscape, hugging the turns of
the earth, constantly probing a field which it never rises above.
Mushrooms are even more blatantly parasitic, upsetting the normative
allimentary logic which guides most growing things. We need not grow
towards the sun.
I say all this knowing that a natural scientist could probably blow these
speculations out of the water. Oh well.
Does anyone recall the discovery of the "largest organism on earth" a few
years ago--it was "one or many" mushroom(s) distributed over hundreds of
acres somewhere in the Midwest I believe. Genetically, all the various
mushrooms were "the same"--they were clones, and many were still linked to
each other through a fine network of fungus fibers, or whatever it is that
connects mushrooms. Others, though "independent," were identical
genetically. Quite a Deleuzian problem, huh? (Unfortunatley I seem to have
lost my news clipping). This problem is not linked directly to
rhizomatics, though it is the case that some mushrooms propigate in a like
manner of decentered tendrils. Apparently the mushroom was even later
upstaged by a copse of aspens with the same genetic material--clealry an
arborescent form, but one that perhaps stages "zones of rhizomatics"
within a tree formate.
[__]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[__]
[] Erik Davis (oo) Cernunnos sez (cribbing the Fall): The only []
[] erikd@xxxxxxxxx __ thing real is waking and rubbing your eyes. []
[__]==================== ww ==============================================[__]
------------------
redeployed, non-centralized manner with which they propogate themselves across
the land. I'm no botanist either, so I don't know whether this is really
the case, but it works for me. And yes, of course we should expect to find
"knots of arborescence"--just as we should expect to find pointless
chaotic play on tree, hallucinogenic whorls of wood, or nooks and crannies
for birds to briefly erect their twig-yurts before wandering south. Any
time we think we've found a pure expression of Deleuzian
modes--rhizomatics, BWOs, smooth space, etc--we're lost. Rhizomes "go
tree" by laying down roots, but they are radically distributed roots,
roots on the fly--and they die while the plant itself continues to live.
So do nomads or birds build shelters, mini-interiorities justified by
their practical dimension, and destroyed by the flight that has already
been inititated at the moment of arrival.
Another fascinating link of the "line" rhizome/tuber is
rhizome/tuber/mushroom (for it is preceisely these lines of assocation
that cross genus and species that D*G are pointing us towards, rather than
the genetic organization of species in botany or natural
history--organizations which when graphed often resemble trees.) Besides
the shamanic resonance, mushrooms point to the parasitic dimension of
rhizomatics--unlike a tree which, once anchored, "stands alone," a rhizome
does not exist apart from its immediate landscape, hugging the turns of
the earth, constantly probing a field which it never rises above.
Mushrooms are even more blatantly parasitic, upsetting the normative
allimentary logic which guides most growing things. We need not grow
towards the sun.
I say all this knowing that a natural scientist could probably blow these
speculations out of the water. Oh well.
Does anyone recall the discovery of the "largest organism on earth" a few
years ago--it was "one or many" mushroom(s) distributed over hundreds of
acres somewhere in the Midwest I believe. Genetically, all the various
mushrooms were "the same"--they were clones, and many were still linked to
each other through a fine network of fungus fibers, or whatever it is that
connects mushrooms. Others, though "independent," were identical
genetically. Quite a Deleuzian problem, huh? (Unfortunatley I seem to have
lost my news clipping). This problem is not linked directly to
rhizomatics, though it is the case that some mushrooms propigate in a like
manner of decentered tendrils. Apparently the mushroom was even later
upstaged by a copse of aspens with the same genetic material--clealry an
arborescent form, but one that perhaps stages "zones of rhizomatics"
within a tree formate.
[__]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[__]
[] Erik Davis (oo) Cernunnos sez (cribbing the Fall): The only []
[] erikd@xxxxxxxxx __ thing real is waking and rubbing your eyes. []
[__]==================== ww ==============================================[__]
------------------