I'm sorry, what?

It would have been fantastic if some sort of chart or diagram had been included in every chapter. Being a visual/kinesthetic learner, I had heck of a time trying to figure out what D&G meant when they explained how "the rhizone connects any point to any other point" (21). From what I understand, a rhizome is basically a demonstration of data and meaning about things that are connected directly. Of course, since a rhizome can be connected to any other point, it can be the connection between two things. Right? Maybe? Why weren't there lovely illustrations to see how maybe a bug connects to a tree and also a cat for some reason?
I think the example from "10,000 B.C.: The Geology of Morals" helps to clarify this.

The proof that there is isomorphism is that you can always get from one for on the organic stratum to another, however different they may be, by means of "folding" . . . There are irreducible axes, types, branches. There are resemblances between organs and analogies between forms. (46)

Okay, so any two things can be connected somehow by "folding." We're getting somewhere now. And even though the second guy is trying to argue with the first guy, I think this helps to make more sense of rhizomes. The relationship between two things can be demonstrated and interpreted, even if that relationship is that there isn't really a relationship. The point is the connection between the two things can always be described somehow.

So let's talk about how this opens us to new ideas and thoughts. (First, let me make a disclaimer: this is going to over-simplify the concept of a rhizome and its potential use in my field.) Everything is connected in a complicated web of relationships. The strip of paper on my desk is connected with the tablet PC in my bag in several different way. By being aware of their rhizomic state, I instinctively begin to look for connections and see the greater One-ness of everything. I see how the actions of one thing affect all others, and now the pen sitting next to me has much more significance.

That's kind of an "I Heart Huckabees" soft-existentialist type philosophy, though, and not very useful to me as a tech writer. In relation to me as a writer and instructor, I am now aware I need to be aware of connections and relationships I had previously taken for granted or overlooked. Thesis statements relate to level of detail and also what sources are used; a student's thesis statement will also relate to their personal life and values as well. I need to be aware of these things to see how I can properly identify and interpret what a student is really trying to say and why so I can coach them properly. If I were writing an instruction manual, I'd need to be aware of how the different parts of instruction, pieces involved, etc. all related to each other in order to communicate them in the most effective, logical way possible.

Really, though, at the end of all this, I think D&G are really playing some sort of prank on intellectuals and philosophers in the same vein as Ern Malley.

Don't be chicken to change

“During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity's entire mode of existence. The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by historical circumstances as well.” (Benjamin 222)

My academic interests being focused on internet culture and the viral spread of information through online methods of communication, I can't help but think about how that quote applies to the modern internet age. Historically, we're in an interesting place. Just about the whole world is networked together, and instantaneous global communication has never been so accessible. This means that something popular from Africa (say, South Africa) can suddenly become a pop video hit all over the world even without the marketing machine that powered such global pop stars like Michael Jackson or some other one (there's more than one global pop star, right?).

This creates an interesting set of circumstances to consider when it comes to shared internet content. First, the original version of something (meaning the original upload) can be shared with anyone who wants to view it. Second, if the original cannot be shared, a perfect reproduction may be produced and shared in its place.

The increase in saturation for internet technology means more and more people are going to be sharing original content all over the globe.  “Just as lithography virtually implied the illustrated newspaper,” Horkheimer and Adorno write, “so did photography foreshadow the sound film” (219). If we are to apply this to modern communication, the advent of the internet implied the mass reproduction of video and audio even in its early infant stages when it was simply a cluster of networked computers sharing text based information.

However, there are some circumstances where viewing the original has been limited by the superstructure. One of the reasons I’m hesitant to follow any sort of inclination to move abroad is that the technological services I’ve become accustomed to using (see: Netflix and Hulu) are restricted by region due to licensing rights. Even if a service is a great idea and sure to be a hit, navigating the laws and procedures of the superstructure means companies will spend months or years negotiating deals with record companies and movie labels before they can expand into a new national market.

The recently-released-in-the-US Spotify is a great example of this. Available in the UK for more than two years, Spotify was only released in the US this last summer. It’s basically the Netflix for music: almost any song you’d want to listen to can be found on the service, and you can stream them over the internet to your computer or mobile device. On my recent drive to and from LA, I used the Spotify app on my phone to listen to all sorts of music I hadn’t been willing to pay for individually but was willing to enjoy as part of a package deal. (Who knew Tom Petty had so many hits?)