narrator: "Which makes us think of the rhizome as a map, something that's always open and can be entered at any point. Think about it-" me: "okay?????????" narrator: "-is there really a starting point to reading a map?" me: "oh shit...."
I feel like it's actually a super easy concept and you might be overthinking it.. at least it always has been to me. A rhizome is a structure without a center or base. Think about decentralized, non-hierarchical, nonlinear, complex systems.
Can you add closed captions to this (and your other videos) please? These are great teaching tools but accessibility demands greater use of closed captions. TH-cam can add them somewhat automatically. They're flawed, but it's a start. Or you could add them manually or add a transcript in the description section. Thanks!
Had no clue what this gal's up to. Rhizome is NOT a theory. But once you read the original text, it's a simple analogy. Rhizomes (eg, ginger plants) have roots and shoots spread out with no central root or trunk. So is the structure of D&G's explanation.
This is great. Thanks. But, I can't imagine what you think the "music" adds. It's just a distraction to me. The sound of your voice is all I want to hear.
With regard to the bag of marbles: isn’t it the case that adding or subtracting marbles would also feel different (I.e. its weight) in a similar way to the explanation about temperature? Maybe I’ve misunderstood. Is the multiplicity a perspective on a thing, or is it an aspect of said thing?
Lateral thinking -- to me that about sums it up. Not that it should be summed up with two words, but if I had to explain the Rhizome concept to someone with no knowledge of D&G, that's how I'd begin. I'd also point them in the direction of Bruno Latour's books 'We Have Never Been Modern' and Reassembling the Social'. These book pursue a similar line of thought to'A Thousand Plateaus', but the writing is clear and succinct. As for D&G being 'postmodern' (as per the comments below), that's not a term I'd use to describe them. They're really materialists and have more in common with someone like Marx than Lyotard'. Rhizome is one way of approaching materialism. Great video
Finally, I get it! I've had various people try and explain it to me over the years and I've decided for the 4th time to try and read A Thousand Plateaus. I think I'm getting there at last....
It might be appropriate to note that a rhizome is an underground stem of a plant that can regenerate from nodes on the rhizome and is responsible for the spread of the species. This is not a new word or concept. Also, crabgrass does not have rhizomes, but quackgrass does. Your usage of the term "rhizome" seems reasonable, though.
It is impossible to think or even to see without employing heirarchy. If you look at a face and do not see some features over others, you won't see the face.
"The head is included in the body, but the face is not. The face is a surface: facial traits, lines, wrinkles; long face, square face, triangular face; the face is a map, even when it is applied to and wraps a volume, even when it surrounds and borders cavities that are now no more than holes. The head, even the human head, is not necessarily a face. The face is produced only when the head ceases to be a part of the body, when it ceases to be coded by the body, when it ceases to have a multidimensional, polyvocal corporeal code-when the body, head included, has been decoded and has to be overcoded'by something we shall call the Face. This amounts to saying that the head, all the volume-cavity elements of the head, have to be facialized. What accomplishes this is the screen with holes, the white wall/black hole, the abstract machine producing faciality. But the operation does not end there: if the head and its elements are facialized, the entire body also can be facialized, comes to be facialized as part of an inevi- table process. When the mouth and nose, but first the eyes, become a holey surface, all the other volumes and cavities of the body follow. An operation worthy of Doctor Moreau: horrible and magnificent. Hand, breast, stomach, penis and vagina, thigh, leg and foot, all come to be facialized. Fetishism, erotomania, etc., are inseparable from these processes of facialization. It is not at all a question of taking a part of the body and making it resemble a face, or making a dream-face dance in a cloud. No anthropomorphism here. Facialization operates not by resemblance but by an order of reasons. It is a much more unconscious and machinic operation that draws the entire body across the holey surface, and in which the role of the face is not as a model or image, but as an overcoding of all of the decoded parts. Everything remains sexual; there is no sublimation, but there are new coordinates. It is precisely because the face depends on an abstract machine that it is not content to cover the head, but touches all other parts of the body, and even, if necessary, other objects without resemblance. The question then becomes what circumstances trigger the machine that produces the face and facialization." Year Zero: Faciality from A Thousand Plateaus by Deleuze and Guttari
I still don’t really understand why the processes in a rhizome would be considered illogical. Isn’t this just system dynamics + basic logical pathways?
Funny, it seems to be totally coherent to me. And restates a concept that I have accepted for some time. No philosophers. Just my own intra-active thought.
I'm wrestling with this right now. Think it might help to go over Borges' "The Garden of Forking Paths". The universe might be a rhizome if time can split in some fashion, but this would imply more than one universe....I think
James Johnston Woops - we had a link up but it's not working now. We will get it up and running and update you when that happens. Thanks for the heads up :)
I get it, kind of I guess, but I have no idea how I would ever apply this practically. Seems utterly stupid and impractical. Why would I ever stop and go "but what if I applied some rhizomatic thought here?" No, we just think how we think, and that's something that has developed over millions of years of evolution. I can't just decide to apply some "rhizomatic" bullshit and expect it to do anything other than get me stuck in a quagmire of confusion by tripping on my own thinking. If it means "thinking from multiple angles" or whatever, then that's something people already do.
Hi everyone, this video is great and I have (automatically) transcripted it to citate it. I leave u all the transcription below. I know there are several mistakes but you can easily correct them (first of all interaction with intra-actions, the web speech api cannot understand the pronounce difference) I think interaction term that comes to us from feminist physicist Karen barad describes interaction as a mutual Constitution of an takeaway agencies and what agency again simply we can understand agency as the ability to act so in other words interactive the meaning of people and things and other stuff ability to act sounds like interaction that doesn't it well it's breakdown the difference first let's look at the prefixes inter and intra inter means among or in the midst of where is intra means within will be at the word action to these prefixes we had a whole different meaning when two bodies interact the age rating of level of independence each entity exist before the account or one and other however when bodies interact they do so and Koch institute of ways individuals materialize through interaction and the ability that emerges from within the relationship not outside of it so why is this distinction important well interaction gives us a whole new way of thinking about a relationship with each other with matter with materials with nature and with discourses when these different things are in relationships with each other our ability to do stuff changes transforms or emerges take the reasonable or phenomenon as an example we can see the above phenomenon is not just the virus itself but is an interaction of the actual virus with human and non-human actors including human bodies discourses on Africa pandemics the Royal politics political pundits news channels in fear is not just a virus but a phenomenon that made in unmade through interactions between nature culture and technology through interaction we are all brought together into the above phenomenon and yet this interaction separated into new Coke and Stitch with its subject through interactions we become at least temporarily the afflicted none of which of the Opera not at risk and the exposed and unexposed studying these interactions reveals differences get made and unmade it's unlikely that many of us will interact with ebola virus but we will all interact with you both phenomenon and therefore we are all responsible for the matter produced in these interactions the discourses the materials and the subject positions interactions deferring deflect responsibility but in interactions responsibility is distributed among the constituent of entities this is where agency comes in the play agency is about action reconfiguring doing and being it is not exist separately but and burgers in the relationship in these interactions thinking with interaction means giving a cause-and-effect relationships individual agency and subject object I can't we gain new understandings of ethics and justice as not things at a predetermined but always changing and unfolding interaction all the questions said that boundaries and borders in linear time and in term it helps us think in terms of simultaneity it tears down the walls that contains disciplined thought and action to reveal the artificial boundaries we forgot we invented
Thank you very much for this video, it is very insightful and coherent enough to be used to explain the somewhat growth of informal settlements in South Africa from an architectural mapping approach
Im just starting to explore Deleuze's work and I just cannot shake the feeling that he's full of shit. The pseud-scientific jargon makes me think that he wants to sound more serious than he actually is. That being said, my distaste for his jargon alone doesn't make his work invalid
These fools have attempted to copyright chaos by giving it a another name and dressing it in a clown costume , once again the human ego proves itself to be hubristic by nature. The planet suffers because of the human parasite inhabits her.
narrator: "Which makes us think of the rhizome as a map, something that's always open and can be entered at any point. Think about it-"
me: "okay?????????"
narrator: "-is there really a starting point to reading a map?"
me: "oh shit...."
well if you cant recognize the pattern you are fucked
By far the clearest explanation of the concept I've encountered... and I still can't make heads or tails of it (I guess that's the point)
Heads AND tails idd
L
I feel like it's actually a super easy concept and you might be overthinking it.. at least it always has been to me. A rhizome is a structure without a center or base. Think about decentralized, non-hierarchical, nonlinear, complex systems.
I don't recommend watching this without sound
😂😂😂
Thanks i noticed 💀
Thanks a lot Stacey. That was very helpful. Hope you can make more videos ob Deleuzian concepts
keep doing your videos, they're very helpful and also amazing :)
greetings from Colombia.
+cagadas44 Thank you!
Beautiful name: shittys44. Don't misinsterpret me, I freaking love it.
Greetings from Chile!
Can you add closed captions to this (and your other videos) please? These are great teaching tools but accessibility demands greater use of closed captions. TH-cam can add them somewhat automatically. They're flawed, but it's a start. Or you could add them manually or add a transcript in the description section. Thanks!
Agreeing with this commenter. Please Closed Caption.
@@rhizomeflourishing7681 Agreed with these commenters. Please add Closed Captions
Thank you so much for this! I will be using it in class today to explain the theory more compactly than I every could.
Excellent and very succinct way of explaining the rhizome. Keep those video's coming!
Interesting video! How does this relate to Deleuze's concept of the "plane of immanance"?
Difference is immanent, not just in human life but life as a whole (even in microscopic level); so I guess Rhizomes are immanent as well ???
Excellent! Please keep these videos coming!
Thank you! We will be coming out with our next video soon. Check back next week.
I wish the audio quality is better, everything else is spot on
At 2:10 you have misspelled decalcomania. Having said this, I like the video and think that you have defined the topic well. Thank you!
Thank you! This makes for a great supplement to all of Deleuze and Guitarri's writings, concisely clarifying some of the more obscure points.
2:05 there is a small mistake in point 6. It's decalcomania
I was needing a quick and precise overview of the rhizome concept and yours was very helpful.
Thank you!
thank you for this! came here after watching Dr. Jiyoung Lee's presentation on BTS on K-DOC!!
My teenage son put me onto this vid! Thank you , very insightful 😊
I'm guessing your son is a debater
The beginning of a map is that "you are here" point. Of course, that's a subjective as it can get.
Thank you very much for your amazing way in putting complex things into simple words :)
this is awesome. please make more!
That was so good! You made a very complicated thing comprehensible. Well done and thank you.
this is half my thesis THANKYOU SO MUCH! KEEP DOING THIS VIDEOS PLEASE ! THE NEXT VIDEO MUST BE DERRIDA DECONSTRUCTION
Truly excellent. Fits with art 'cos it is about doing not explaining or at least about explaining as doing.
Great explanation. Short and meaningful.
I'm really thankful for your video, it was of GREAT help.
Great explanation!
Had no clue what this gal's up to. Rhizome is NOT a theory. But once you read the original text, it's a simple analogy. Rhizomes (eg, ginger plants) have roots and shoots spread out with no central root or trunk. So is the structure of D&G's explanation.
Great video!! Where are the reading materials promised at the end of the video though? I'd love to read more about this! Thanks!
This is great. Thanks. But, I can't imagine what you think the "music" adds. It's just a distraction to me. The sound of your voice is all I want to hear.
With regard to the bag of marbles: isn’t it the case that adding or subtracting marbles would also feel different (I.e. its weight) in a similar way to the explanation about temperature? Maybe I’ve misunderstood. Is the multiplicity a perspective on a thing, or is it an aspect of said thing?
Hi! Would you put the reading list up again? It seems that the link has expired.
Thank you for this introduction! Very useful and informative.
I would like to read about this topic. Could you please link your soures?
really really good and informative video!
Very cool, thanks!
Wonderful! Thank you very much, Stacey.
That was very helpful. Thank you.
Much needed. thank you
Lateral thinking -- to me that about sums it up. Not that it should be summed up with two words, but if I had to explain the Rhizome concept to someone with no knowledge of D&G, that's how I'd begin. I'd also point them in the direction of Bruno Latour's books 'We Have Never Been Modern' and Reassembling the Social'. These book pursue a similar line of thought to'A Thousand Plateaus', but the writing is clear and succinct. As for D&G being 'postmodern' (as per the comments below), that's not a term I'd use to describe them. They're really materialists and have more in common with someone like Marx than Lyotard'. Rhizome is one way of approaching materialism.
Great video
Couldn’t the bag of marbles also be considered a multiplicity since it’s weight changes as you remove marbles from it?
Finally, I get it! I've had various people try and explain it to me over the years and I've decided for the 4th time to try and read A Thousand Plateaus. I think I'm getting there at last....
Thank you . That was so helpful!
Beautiful ❤️
Great video
Very good one
very good video and useful
this was very helpful! thanks!
a piece, I need the pieces, its tuff stuff.
It might be appropriate to note that a rhizome is an underground stem of a plant that can regenerate from nodes on the rhizome and is responsible for the spread of the species. This is not a new word or concept. Also, crabgrass does not have rhizomes, but quackgrass does. Your usage of the term "rhizome" seems reasonable, though.
amazing. thank you
great video, thank you!
It is impossible to think or even to see without employing heirarchy. If you look at a face and do not see some features over others, you won't see the face.
"The head is included in the body, but the face is not. The face is a surface: facial traits, lines, wrinkles; long face, square face, triangular face; the face is a map, even when it is applied to and wraps a volume, even when it surrounds and borders cavities that are now no more than holes. The head, even the human head, is not necessarily a face. The face is produced only when the head ceases to be a part of the body, when it ceases to be coded by the body, when it ceases to have a multidimensional, polyvocal corporeal code-when the body, head included, has been decoded and has to be overcoded'by something we shall call the Face. This amounts to saying that the head, all the volume-cavity elements of the head, have to be facialized. What accomplishes this is the screen with holes, the white wall/black hole, the abstract machine producing faciality. But the operation does not end there: if the head and its elements are facialized, the entire body also can be facialized, comes to be facialized as part of an inevi- table process. When the mouth and nose, but first the eyes, become a holey surface, all the other volumes and cavities of the body follow. An operation worthy of Doctor Moreau: horrible and magnificent. Hand, breast, stomach, penis and vagina, thigh, leg and foot, all come to be facialized. Fetishism, erotomania, etc., are inseparable from these processes of facialization. It is not at all a question of taking a part of the body and making it resemble a face, or making a dream-face dance in a cloud. No anthropomorphism here. Facialization operates not by resemblance but by an order of reasons. It is a much more unconscious and machinic operation that draws the entire body across the holey surface, and in which the role of the face is not as a model or image, but as an overcoding of all of the decoded parts. Everything remains sexual; there is no sublimation, but there are new coordinates. It is precisely because the face depends on an abstract machine that it is not content to cover the head, but touches all other parts of the body, and even, if necessary, other objects without resemblance. The question then becomes what circumstances trigger the machine that produces the face and facialization."
Year Zero: Faciality from A Thousand Plateaus by Deleuze and Guttari
very helpful, thank you!
I still don’t really understand why the processes in a rhizome would be considered illogical. Isn’t this just system dynamics + basic logical pathways?
So helpful!!!! Thank you!!!!
Funny, it seems to be totally coherent to me. And restates a concept that I have accepted for some time. No philosophers. Just my own intra-active thought.
Have you gone over and read Rhizome, yourself?
he had to be extremely intelligent to get that reference
I am very smart.
Link below?
I'd like to see the metaphor extended to the rhizosphere
Perfect
This makes much more sense in 3 minutes than the entirety of Murdoch.edu
Brilliant thanks!
⚡
#Yes #and #life
Fantastic! Thank you very much ;]
Cool--thank you!
Compelling. Thank you.
couldn't agree more
thanks for the video (:
Can the universe be considered a rhizome?
I'm wrestling with this right now. Think it might help to go over Borges' "The Garden of Forking Paths". The universe might be a rhizome if time can split in some fashion, but this would imply more than one universe....I think
Interesting.
of course there are other universes. For a universe to be implies all possible universes. Don't you think?
Good video :D
The starting point to reading a map is your position
im even more confused now fam
add cc please
Wow, this is really d.o.p.e.
I need close captioning for this video. It's not accessible to everyone who needs it.
thanks a lot :)
ima rhizome
nice videos br0
So Knowledge is a rootless network of evolving non-local potentiality
So reality is a run-on sentence. Got it.
It's like ginger... if you cut off the roots, stem, and leaves.
Thank you for the help. I still am struggling to understand, but that has to do with the complexity of the concept, not your video. :P
Reading list? :D
I guess A Thousand Plateaus
James Johnston Woops - we had a link up but it's not working now. We will get it up and running and update you when that happens. Thanks for the heads up :)
am I the only one that saw a dried up yoda at 2:40?
Eh oui, l'épisode de Hannibal nbc
❤
There is no middle
I get it, kind of I guess, but I have no idea how I would ever apply this practically. Seems utterly stupid and impractical. Why would I ever stop and go "but what if I applied some rhizomatic thought here?" No, we just think how we think, and that's something that has developed over millions of years of evolution. I can't just decide to apply some "rhizomatic" bullshit and expect it to do anything other than get me stuck in a quagmire of confusion by tripping on my own thinking. If it means "thinking from multiple angles" or whatever, then that's something people already do.
Read the book
Go read Mille Plateaux and stop oversimplification
Hi everyone, this video is great and I have (automatically) transcripted it to citate it.
I leave u all the transcription below. I know there are several mistakes but you can easily correct them (first of all interaction with intra-actions, the web speech api cannot understand the pronounce difference)
I think interaction term that comes to us from feminist physicist Karen barad describes interaction as a mutual Constitution of an takeaway agencies and what agency again simply we can understand agency as the ability to act so in other words interactive the meaning of people and things and other stuff ability to act sounds like interaction that doesn't it well it's breakdown the difference first let's look at the prefixes inter and intra inter means among or in the midst of where is intra means within will be at the word action to these prefixes we had a whole different meaning when two bodies interact the age rating of level of independence each entity exist before the account or one and other however when bodies interact they do so and Koch institute of ways individuals materialize through interaction and the ability that emerges from within the relationship not outside of it so why is this distinction important well interaction gives us a whole new way of thinking about a relationship with each other with matter with materials with nature and with discourses when these different things are in relationships with each other our ability to do stuff changes transforms or emerges take the reasonable or phenomenon as an example we can see the above phenomenon is not just the virus itself but is an interaction of the actual virus with human and non-human actors including human bodies discourses on Africa pandemics the Royal politics political pundits news channels in fear is not just a virus but a phenomenon that made in unmade through interactions between nature culture and technology through interaction we are all brought together into the above phenomenon and yet this interaction separated into new Coke and Stitch with its subject through interactions we become at least temporarily the afflicted none of which of the Opera not at risk and the exposed and unexposed studying these interactions reveals differences get made and unmade it's unlikely that many of us will interact with ebola virus but we will all interact with you both phenomenon and therefore we are all responsible for the matter produced in these interactions the discourses the materials and the subject positions interactions deferring deflect responsibility but in interactions responsibility is distributed among the constituent of entities this is where agency comes in the play agency is about action reconfiguring doing and being it is not exist separately but and burgers in the relationship in these interactions thinking with interaction means giving a cause-and-effect relationships individual agency and subject object I can't we gain new understandings of ethics and justice as not things at a predetermined but always changing and unfolding interaction all the questions said that boundaries and borders in linear time and in term it helps us think in terms of simultaneity it tears down the walls that contains disciplined thought and action to reveal the artificial boundaries we forgot we invented
But but the mushroom has mycelia that goes off too :)
Thank you very much for this video, it is very insightful and coherent enough to be used to explain the somewhat growth of informal settlements in South Africa from an architectural mapping approach
fuck literation, is my early understanding. It seems volatile to speech, of course not only, but particularly.
Spinoza.
Astonishingly wrong on so many levels!
#notimeforcaution #freedom #anarchy Sefra Correa Marielyn Correa Wilson Correa watch
I don't think you understand ginger.
Question binaries - cause vs effect
Im just starting to explore Deleuze's work and I just cannot shake the feeling that he's full of shit. The pseud-scientific jargon makes me think that he wants to sound more serious than he actually is. That being said, my distaste for his jargon alone doesn't make his work invalid
thanks babes, going to instrumentalize this to promote fascism
These fools have attempted to copyright chaos by giving it a another name and dressing it in a clown costume , once again the human ego proves itself to be hubristic by nature. The planet suffers because of the human parasite inhabits her.
I had not liked it