Back to the frying pan...I think I'll dissent from CJS's conclusion about
flames and the rhizome. I'm still scratching my virtual head over what I
think about this, but I don't feel convinced that the recent skirmish here
on this net demonstrated that flaming can be subsumed and included by
rhizomatics. It seems to me that, on the contrary, what happened was a
kind of group decision not to enter into the kind of desire that flaming
represents, not to "bring the General in us out," as DG say in "Rhizome,"
a decision to stay on the schizo line and avoid getting pulled onto the
paranoid one. There's a difference between saying that recent events here
demonstrated that flaming can be rhizomatic too and saying that we luckily
*avoided* its rhizome-stopping possibilities, a difference between saying
that the rhizome can go on *in* a flame-hole and saying that we can
preserve the ability to jump out of one or even avoid one before we've
entered.
And yet, when I say "a group decision" or "we" what do I mean?
Consensus? Territorializing? If we were a "we," how did we "we"?
(Did we wee-wee? Did we wheeee? Were we weed?)
For me, this raises some interesting questions about
"consensus": DG speak very ill of it, for reasons that I
understand, yet they make a real point of counterposing to
it not an individualist but a collective desire, the
anarchic group-hanging-together. When I suggested caution in
slamming consensual theories, I guess I was thinking that
the two things often look very similar from some angles.
This is evident from the recent posts here: Erik's wonderful
post on a "de-facializing ethic," posts without names, is
very much in the Deleuzian mood...and yet it sounds
strangely like the old public sphere ideal of anonymity or
pseudonyms, blind readings. Or again, when Erik points to
the more rhizomatic nature of hobby groups, "plant your
seeds in dung," "no, try this," what strikes me about this
example is the friendliness and mutual supportiveness of the
exchanges, their lack of an adversarial tone (and the fact
that the group has an agreed-upon goal, the expansion of
techniques for growing things). Of course I can answer my
own objection, up to a point: obviously public-sphere,
anonymous disinterest can be given a molar reading: everyone
subjects themselves to discipline in which they try to
become-same, shedding their multiple natures for the one
perspective of the "public good," etc. Still...
Still: I have some "Kantian" friends who appear to think in
the whole lingo...yet if you listen to them, you can hear
not only that they, too, want to send out their rhizomatic
shoots but that their investment in this discourse isn't so
much about control and the Court of Reason as about
protecting a space in which they can play and discover in an
open-ended way. There's no question that the whole discourse
of consensus can be a form of control: anyone who's ever
held a minority position knows just how majoritarian it can
be in operation. Yet sometimes the Kantian/Habermasian talk
can express a different kind of desire, perhaps a frustrated
attempt to prevent paranoid invasions, to maintain what
little rhizomatic play one has been able to preserve, or a
dream of having a larger space for "composing" in a "non-
purposive" way. A bad discursive investment, maybe...but of
course the anarchist alternative is easy to parody, too. I
guess I'm not disagreeing about the consensus point, I just
feel a caveat about unconscious vs preconscious investments
bubbling up, the idea that you have to listen to the desire
behind the "ideology" (which DG always say they don't
believe in anyway, since the unconscious investment is what
comes first). It seems tome the liberal/consensus position may block a
run toward the schizo pole, but it sometimes has a real distaste
and hostility for movements toward the paranoid pole of desire--and this may
be important to keep in mind in certain situations. I'm curious to know what
people think about this.
About the consensus trap in netgroups (Erik & M Boon), about
that more rhizomatic hobby group: why couldn't a discussion
group be the same thing? "Yeah, put concepts X and Y
together, add this poem..." "No, not Y, I tried that and it
was really depressing"..."If you try concept G instead of Y
you can bring in corporate law and troutfishing, my
grandmother did that..." "You know what's fun, building a
A+B+G+X+Y machine just so you can obliterate it with a Q..."
Maybe a netgroup is just a bunch of headnodding cattle, but
hey, cows eat grass, they *ruminate*...MOOs may have their
advantages--no doubt--but maybe netgroup cattle can be
something other than a herd if they just learn how to
stammer. M-M-Moo, moowoo...
Greg
------------------
flames and the rhizome. I'm still scratching my virtual head over what I
think about this, but I don't feel convinced that the recent skirmish here
on this net demonstrated that flaming can be subsumed and included by
rhizomatics. It seems to me that, on the contrary, what happened was a
kind of group decision not to enter into the kind of desire that flaming
represents, not to "bring the General in us out," as DG say in "Rhizome,"
a decision to stay on the schizo line and avoid getting pulled onto the
paranoid one. There's a difference between saying that recent events here
demonstrated that flaming can be rhizomatic too and saying that we luckily
*avoided* its rhizome-stopping possibilities, a difference between saying
that the rhizome can go on *in* a flame-hole and saying that we can
preserve the ability to jump out of one or even avoid one before we've
entered.
And yet, when I say "a group decision" or "we" what do I mean?
Consensus? Territorializing? If we were a "we," how did we "we"?
(Did we wee-wee? Did we wheeee? Were we weed?)
For me, this raises some interesting questions about
"consensus": DG speak very ill of it, for reasons that I
understand, yet they make a real point of counterposing to
it not an individualist but a collective desire, the
anarchic group-hanging-together. When I suggested caution in
slamming consensual theories, I guess I was thinking that
the two things often look very similar from some angles.
This is evident from the recent posts here: Erik's wonderful
post on a "de-facializing ethic," posts without names, is
very much in the Deleuzian mood...and yet it sounds
strangely like the old public sphere ideal of anonymity or
pseudonyms, blind readings. Or again, when Erik points to
the more rhizomatic nature of hobby groups, "plant your
seeds in dung," "no, try this," what strikes me about this
example is the friendliness and mutual supportiveness of the
exchanges, their lack of an adversarial tone (and the fact
that the group has an agreed-upon goal, the expansion of
techniques for growing things). Of course I can answer my
own objection, up to a point: obviously public-sphere,
anonymous disinterest can be given a molar reading: everyone
subjects themselves to discipline in which they try to
become-same, shedding their multiple natures for the one
perspective of the "public good," etc. Still...
Still: I have some "Kantian" friends who appear to think in
the whole lingo...yet if you listen to them, you can hear
not only that they, too, want to send out their rhizomatic
shoots but that their investment in this discourse isn't so
much about control and the Court of Reason as about
protecting a space in which they can play and discover in an
open-ended way. There's no question that the whole discourse
of consensus can be a form of control: anyone who's ever
held a minority position knows just how majoritarian it can
be in operation. Yet sometimes the Kantian/Habermasian talk
can express a different kind of desire, perhaps a frustrated
attempt to prevent paranoid invasions, to maintain what
little rhizomatic play one has been able to preserve, or a
dream of having a larger space for "composing" in a "non-
purposive" way. A bad discursive investment, maybe...but of
course the anarchist alternative is easy to parody, too. I
guess I'm not disagreeing about the consensus point, I just
feel a caveat about unconscious vs preconscious investments
bubbling up, the idea that you have to listen to the desire
behind the "ideology" (which DG always say they don't
believe in anyway, since the unconscious investment is what
comes first). It seems tome the liberal/consensus position may block a
run toward the schizo pole, but it sometimes has a real distaste
and hostility for movements toward the paranoid pole of desire--and this may
be important to keep in mind in certain situations. I'm curious to know what
people think about this.
About the consensus trap in netgroups (Erik & M Boon), about
that more rhizomatic hobby group: why couldn't a discussion
group be the same thing? "Yeah, put concepts X and Y
together, add this poem..." "No, not Y, I tried that and it
was really depressing"..."If you try concept G instead of Y
you can bring in corporate law and troutfishing, my
grandmother did that..." "You know what's fun, building a
A+B+G+X+Y machine just so you can obliterate it with a Q..."
Maybe a netgroup is just a bunch of headnodding cattle, but
hey, cows eat grass, they *ruminate*...MOOs may have their
advantages--no doubt--but maybe netgroup cattle can be
something other than a herd if they just learn how to
stammer. M-M-Moo, moowoo...
Greg
------------------