Rhizome is not a good organization of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.18239499]

I think that horizontal organization of knowledge is either reducible to a vertical one or explodes into nothingness.
You have to have universal tools for measuring the nodes (or relationships between them) of your rhizome and their relations, and those would be at a higher level of organization of knowledge. (And the tools for measuring those would be at an even higher level, and so on.)
If you say that you use nodes to measure other nodes, this chain ends on some place (and this place is an axiom! a trunk of a tree!), cycles (and cycles have an element of arbitrarity, and also cannot arise step-by-step), or is supposedly infinite (and mental space is finite).
If you say that you do not have any tools to measure the nodes and their relationship of your rhizome at all, you become an epistemic relativist. Any node fits into your system equally well, and any can be removed. All is equally true. I think that this state of affairs is stable, but most do not want to be epistemic relativists/radical sceptics.
If you say that your rhizome is organized by "forces", the nature and exact properties of these forces becomes the next layer of the pyramid of knowledge.
Modern science allows a rhizome, but only to an extent - the absolute minimum, at maximum reductionism, is a three layer system of knowledge:
Empiricism and probability -> Fundamental physics -> Everything else.
(I advocate for grounding empiricism and probability in philosophical assumptions, and there are multiple ways to construct additional levels on top, but modern philosophy of science wants to reject as much of that as possible and does a pretty good job.)
It's a pretty flat system. And "Everything else" is allowed to be a rhizome, if you really want to. You can, in principle,
But you don't really want that.
Why? Because the amount of potential nodes, potential information, is GIGANTIC.
Rhizomes are a mess. Even with an appropriate universal tool of measurement, to get anywhere, you need gigantic computational power that you do not have. You want data compression. Moreover, you want data compression of data compression of data compression. You want nested models.
You want sociology to be defined by psychology, psychology by biology, biology by chemistry, chemistry by physics. You want to navigate all the facts and little bits of information about the world, fast. You want to estimate what fact is more important than another, more specific than another, more fundamental than another. If you truly faithfully connect arbitrary facts to arbitrary facts in a decentralized network, you will be unable to discern why a position of my pen on my table or critical reception of Pulp Fiction are less important than the chemical formula of water or the law of supply and demand.

TL; DR: Without nested models, you are lost. Without a foundation, you are lost FOREVER.

[Anonymous No.18239531]

>>18239499
>system of knowledge:
>Empiricism and probability -> Fundamental physics -> Everything else.
I always love when the ''i love science'' atheist crowd keeps saying statistics brings knowledge.


science is 100% statistics, ie rationalism, which is why there is no truth in science. Rationalism is not compatible with empriicism. It is rationalists who try hard to merge their rationalism with empiricism and the end result is what they call science but there is no empiricism in this.
It's like a redefinition of empiricism by scientists.
Scientists are not empiricists. An empiricist does not run an 'experiment'and even less a 'thought experiment. Running an experiment already is part of rationalism.

The whole secular infatuation over empiricism started by the self proclaimed enlightened secular rationalists who hated the christian rationalists larping as greek philosophers.

The secular intellectuals hated the endless christian speculations that they saw as unverifiable about god and the use of logic from aristotle. So they said they could speculate on nature and with their verification meme, their rationalist system about the world would be the truth.
So in order to be separate from the christian clerics, the secular rationalists said they were empiricist. Their big idea was the empirical proof which is completely retarded oxymoron.
A proof is never empirical. A proof always on the side of speculations passed as rationality.

Logic is just a field by autistic pedants about well formed formulas and valuations, ie a map sending a formula to 1 or 0 and asking what are those valuations which are stable under inference rules. Zero truth in this, especially truth in the casual sense. Tarski truth is moronic, meaningless. Peak atheist. Just like there is no truth in science, just some stats and a stat convention for saying ‘’if p value is XXX then the result is """"""""""""""’true"""""""""""


At best scientists can come up about some stats about some formal system (ie a model) like the spring or harmonic oscillator or the standard model. Like ‘’your material has such and wear and tear, and our backlog of such conditions lead to 60% of breaking in the next year, therefore your material may break or not within a year’’ That’s the pinnacle of the scientific claim and all their claims remain phrased as uncertainty.

[Anonymous No.18239579]

>>18239531
> science is 100% statistics [...] which is why there is no truth in science.
True! Science is unable to reach 100% or 0% of belief in anything. The map is never the territory, the phenomena are never the noumena, etc.
If you have any better options, I am all ears.
(And I'd be fucked if, like, Deleuze thought he could do better.)

BTW, I would like you to define rationalism and empiricism a bit more clearly. Especially since you claim that scientists redefined empiricism. Usually, in philosophy, rationalism is about pure reason as a source of knowlede and empiricism is about observation as a source of knowledge. (There is in fact a group of people who pretty much redefined rationalism as empiricism, though. So, again, defenitions are useful.)

[Anonymous No.18239641]

>>18239499
Needs more fractals

[Anonymous No.18239655]

If you respond to the rhizome you are the rhizome

[Anonymous No.18239657]

>>18239641
Intriguing! Please elaborate.

[Anonymous No.18239673]

>>18239655
What a dirty argument! I love it.
Sure. I have become a node.
But when the concept of a rhizome was first published, and it responded to a tree, haven't it become one of the branches of a tree? Haven't it been categorized as a concept of one of the branches of philosophy, which is one of the branches of knowledge, etc?
I'm afraid this works both ways.

[Anonymous No.18239680]

>>18239673

[Anonymous No.18239723]

>>18239499
>mistaking rhizome for being instead of process
You don’t actually know what their point in using the rhizome was, you’re arguing against your own misinterpretation

[Anonymous No.18239728]

>>18239680
I needed 10 minutes to figure out what you meant by this.
No. My meta-reasoning is not rhizomatic - at least, not intentionally. Both the tree structure and the rhizome structure are merely one of the layers of a tree.

[Anonymous No.18239735]

>>18239723
I think being dynamic changes nothing about the argument. Tree is also dynamic.
If it does change something, elaborate.
Also, very brave of you to claim the knowledge of the true interpretation. (And not very rhizomatic for that matter.)

[Anonymous No.18239753]

>>18239735
Lol they literally spell it out you pretentious dipshit, and repeat the point over and over across the book. If you think tree is also dynamic not only are you bad at grammar but I guarantee you that you didn’t read the book.
> The issue is never to reproduce or interpret, to make it signify according to a tree model. The issue is to produce the unconscious, and with it new statements, different desires: the rhizome is precisely this production of the unconscious
Page 18

[Anonymous No.18239769]

>>18239499
But wouldn't a frame or a sheaf enable us to examine only a part of the rhizome? The part we want to look at. Of course, locating this part will again require a large part of computation, but it is not as bad. In a sense the frame we choose will be like a node from which we have your Hegelian Betrachtung and expand to the possibility of research. I understand your concern for multiplicity but the entire point of adding tools and levels ontop is exactly why I see as the value of rhizomes. In this we have a certain givenness of the tools we just put on top. We have this natural process onto which we overlay metaphysics, as in a language, and we could do that infinitely as long as it is reasonable; but is reasonability a 'factor' of truth, being or thinkability? Is it possible in a potential and further scope, that this is real?--in other words.

We would want to work within the rhizomatic structure and modify it directly, instead of assuming its base as a given and expanding onto it. From that point we wouldn't gain real epistemic knowledge by any method but just empirical knowledge with false premisses.

I'm just an undergrad and still very, very much reading, so all of this might entirely wrong. That is at least what I work with when I examine flaws in epistemology. I would be glad for your opinion, anon. You seem pretty knowledgable and interested.

[Anonymous No.18239779]

>>18239657
I don't have answers.
Nature has a fractal dimension by which simple rules produce complexity over multiple levels of scale.
We generally try to map out this complexity in excruciating detail.
Our foundation seems to just be tiny pieces of complexity, rather than the process or rule that produces complexity.
Isn't statistics just a way of measuring complexity in small bits?
As complexity increases via generative process your compression will become increasingly lossy, which is probably the impetus for a gigantic rhizome in the first place.
I don't think the least bits of information that describes complexity is grounds for "fundamental"

[Anonymous No.18239792]

>>18239753
Tree is constantly growing by what they call binary division. Branches splinter. Complexity grows. Precision grows. Level of abstraction grows. Mistakes are corrected. Sometimes, layers can even be restructured - we did not use to place physics this high.

> The issue is never to reproduce or interpret, to make it signify according to a tree model.
They might not take it as "the issue", but either this is possible or the entire structure of knowledge falls apart.

You can keep rhizome as a production of unconscious and desires, and this might not even be wrong.
But if we are speaking of the production of conscious - of specifically the model of knowledge - I claim that you have go with a tree.
Rhizome is applied to a fuckton of things and defined in a fuckton of ways, and I just focused on a specific application.

[Anonymous No.18239807]

>>18239792
What I love about you is how you haven’t even read the book this idea comes from and you claim to be against it. You don’t even know what it is but somehow think you’re arguing against it.
I’m surprised you can also sort out how to post on the internet, for someone as functionally retarded as you that must have taken some time.

[Anonymous No.18239879]

>>18239769
Thanks! I am not very knowledgeable, though. Understanding your post is a bit hard for me and I might misinterpret parts of it.

So, I think the point is that meta-reasoning, reasoning about reasoning and about structure of knowledge, has to be rhizomatic. And in a certain sense... sort of? However, creation of levels at the base of knowledge, before empiricism, is a naturally arbitrary process. (This is exactly why analytical philosophy mostly dislikes the idea.) The only sources to give direction to this reasoning are minimization of complexity and inconsistencies. Which do not, at this level, have any justification at all, other than a practical desire to end up with a working system.
You can try defining your way out it and some told me that you can even succeed. Is this a rhizomatic process? I do not know.
I know that in a sense, all epistemologies are equally true, just as a perfect rhizome would have all nodes be equally true. But most of them result in a logical explosion. And the ones that don't all seem to rely on accepting some initial assumptions - if not as axioms, than at least as things that HAVE to be true if there is any hope for any information (even probabilistic) at all. (Again, modern analytical philosophy will try dispelling those assumptions as wording tricks.)
So my inclination is: you can model the modelling of the foundations of knowledge as a rhizome. But really, it is just inherently a mess.

The tree tells us that this is all a part of the lower branches of it that correspond to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18239894]

18239769 was an interesting post, why was it removed?

>>18239779
I agree with most of this, except for the very last line:
> I don't think the least bits of information that describes complexity is grounds for "fundamental"
Seems pretty damn fundamental to me. Bits that describe bits. Almost pulling itself by the bootstraps.

>>18239807
I am sorry I am so retarded.

[Anonymous No.18240066]

Is the rhizome explained in A thousand plateaus?

[Anonymous No.18240126]

>>18239894
I removed it because I didn't think it was really insightful.

[Anonymous No.18240145]

>>18240126
I see. I'd agree that it was phrased quite confusingly, and although I think I got to the bottom of it, I'm not at all sure.

[Anonymous No.18240182]

>>18240066
no one is quite sure if it was ever really explained anywhere to be totally honest, but yes

[Anonymous No.18240310]

>>18240145
It's basically that you can't forever add layers on top. Somewhere in my own idiosyncracy I come to some longwinded point that knowledge is accidental because of its structure and not the method; further, I claim that language is either physical or metaphysical, but that most language we use is metaphysical, but transcendent, which means that it is irrelevant from an empirical point to add things on top because you don't really add anything at all. It follows causally instead of just putting something on top.

The main point I wanted to make is that you look at a frame, a sheaf, this is from linguistics and maths, of the rhizome, so only part of it, when you try to examine anything posited by it. You never have to look at the all-probability of all possibilites but only those relevant to any critical investigation. That is an investigation which is as such - an investigation - and which aims to operate (critically) to attain at least truthful (but not necessarily true, because that is impossible) knowledge of what is object of our investigation. The same goes for observations and observing, I'd call those more general to a specific investigation, or even research, using a rhizomatic method as a concept.

What is really deciding, and you make a good point, is in which environment all this takes place and to which capacity we have the option for such a means to look at rhizomes. I would claim that looking only at part of it could be enabled through a library like compression or an assumption of self evidence of these notions not by what makes them a notion, notionings - if you will, but rather by the terms denote them by through the notion. We basically have these sheaves represented by a function or a simple sign that just says: well, we know this but it is not relevant, right now, so we won't have to care about it. Again, what means of perception you have for these perceptions/ings is deciding whether this is relevant or not.

This might all be, again depending on the perception / the environemnt we operate from, be a fallacy because of whether we take something basal and make it a given which we assume (to be) self evident, so create a tautology of: this is true because I say so. And not because it is necessarily utmost truthful considering our means for such a truth-investigation. Raising what is perceptible to be already known by virtue of perceiving it.

[Anonymous No.18240329]

>>18240310
but not transcendent* so not all this spirit ghost stuff or whacky leibnizean monads

[Anonymous No.18240596]

>>18240310
yes, as I've said, there is a bit of arbitrarity on top, it cannot be based on empiricism since it is over empiricism, even though paradoxically, everything is empiricism. the cleanest way to cut the knot is to reject anything above empiricism and probability. I am personally not satisfied with that entirely. My problem, I suppose.

Is the tree a part of the larger rhizome? Is that larger rhizome a part of a larger tree? That's kind of a hard question to even think about. EXCESSIVELY meta. But a larger rhizome has all of the problems I outlined. It either reduces to an even larger tree, or disappears. But from the point of the three inside a rhizome, it is irrelevant what lies beyond the trunk.
Or something like that anyway.

One other thought here is that true rhizome is supposed to be infinitely expansive and uniform in all directions, including "more meta" and "less meta" but memory is finite, and so are all justification chains we can come up with, so no luck...

I do not claim that anything at all is self-evident. I advocate universal doubt. I merely try to compress most of the universal doubt into a small list of fundamental assumptions (not axioms, assumptions) in the foundation, so that the amount of doubt inside the system of knowledge doesn't get out of hand and make us reject all knowledge. Without the foundation, infinte doubt is spread across the system, aimed at every node at once, incommeasurable.

[Anonymous No.18240673]

>>18240596
you know what, fuck this
this is way too meta and doesn't make any sense
my head hurts and I am almost sure those words don't have much meaning at all
even my deleuzian friend told me to slow down and he is right

[Anonymous No.18240789]

>>18240673
take it easy man, i still try to wrap my head around it. you dont have to understand everything. be honest and try and if you dont thats fine too

[Anonymous No.18240804]

>>18239499
Stfu retard

[Anonymous No.18240815]

>>18239807
What I love about Deleuzian sycophants like you is that you always retreat behind your master, much like the Hegelians you trash.
>woah dude the rhizome is like non-centralized it avoids definition, guess I don't have to engage with anyone who wants to know about it and use it like some sort of status symbol while also claiming determinate knowledge of it?!? Why yes I read deleuze through Twitter posts how can you tell?

[Anonymous No.18242253]

>>18240789
thanks, mate
this thread was a ride