I would like to share and discuss this in class tomorrow.

(Same as published in Innovate?)

Let us summarize the principal characteristics of a rhizome: unlike trees or their roots, the rhizome connects any point to any other point, and its traits are not necessarily linked to traits of the same nature; it brings into play very different regimes of signs, and even nonsign states. The rhizome is reducible neither to the One nor the multiple. It is not the One that becomes Two or even directly three, four, five, etc. It is not a multiple derived from the One, or to which One is added (n + 1). It is composed not of units but of dimensions, or rather directions in motion. It has neither beginning nor end, but always a middle (milieu) from which it grows and which it overspills. It constitutes linear multiplicities with n dimensions having neither subject nor object, which can be laid out on a plane of consistency, and from which the One is always subtracted (n - 1). When a multiplicity of this kind changes dimension, it necessarily changes in nature as well, undergoes a metamorphosis. Unlike a structure, which is defined by a set of points and positions, with binary relations between the points and blunivocal relationships between the positions, the rhizome is made only of lines: lines of segmentarity and stratification as its dimensions, and the line of flight or deterritorialization as the maximum dimension after which the multiplicity undergoes metamorphosis, changes in nature. These lines, or lineaments, should not be confused with lineages of the arborescent type, which are merely localizable linkages between points and positions. Unlike the tree, the rhizome is not the object of reproduction: neither external reproduction as image-tree nor internal reproduction as tree-structure. The rhizome is an antigenealogy. It is a short-term memory, or antimemory. The rhizome operates by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, offshoots. Unlike the graphic arts, drawing, or photography, unlike tracings, the rhizome pertains to a map that must be produced, construc

random notes: Chapter 1, Curriculum and Representation ... here are some notes, particularly talking about Deleuze's philosophy up against Marx, Feminism, Psychoanalysis, Poststructuralism, and Systems Thinking. Vis-a-vis Marx: Surplus value could be enslaved through consumption rather than just exploited through production as in Marx. ... Human destiny itself is "recast" ... tools are necessary to resist subjugation ... the way to resist is to become a producer rather than a consumer (35) Non-binary models ... differentiation -- singularities -- becomings or formations ... new multiplicities (also see Massumi 1992) or (patriarchy) vs. and (opens an escape route/a away to get away from exclusionary logic) ... includes individual struggles ... warns that all struggles involve the danger of becoming hegemonies themselves ... new thought born of violence in thought -- therefore violent in the molecularized outside a state apparatus ... (appearance of "the state" here ... follow-up on this) Vis-a-vis Feminism (support but also discord) * woman-becoming * micro vs macro ("molar politics" ... minority demands for self identity) pg. 41 teacher must carry resistance into the microscope of difference and reconstitution ... into caring for oneself ... this makes change at grassroots conceivable (See also Swamihathan) Vis-a-vis Psychoanalysis Deleuze rejects the "poor technicians of desire" who make it about structure and lack ... Instead desire is recast as primary, positive, productive -- producing the real, creating connections, relations, alignments ... analyze and actively engage in critical experiementation to make new connections Vis-a-vis Poststructuralists Deleuze talks about force rather than power (Contrast this to Foucault who talks about the history has the form of war thar than language ... relations of power rather than relations of meaning) ,,, talks about relation to Cezanne -- moving to for