Frances, intentionality is a wonderful angle from which to approach this discussion as it provides another point of entry into the rhizome. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that intentionality is a feature of an individual, or in the terms of connectivism: a single node within a network. Our conventional notions of intention are based on a reductionist assumption that individuals are … well, individuals—discrete entities capable of entirely self-sponsored, self-motivated, self-generated behavior. But it is only the point of view from our social scale that makes any individual appear to be a single node.
Even if we individuals are capable of this kind of independent action, this intentionality, it still emerges from the most complex, rhizomatic structure that I know about: the human mind. And I for one strongly doubt that our intentions do emerge wholly from our minds alone, as rich a muck as they are. Rather, I think our intentions are much more like the intersections of myriad lines of thought and action, perhaps mostly from ourselves, but also from our environments.
For example, I have formed intentions about this conversation we are now having—intentions that for convenience—strictly for convenience—I call mine, but I really can’t isolate my intentions from Dave’s original intentions to write this post, George’s comments months ago, or yours and Mary Ann’s comments a few days ago (and thanks for the compliments—I’m flattered by you both). If I am to be brutally honest with myself and you, my intention to respond emerges as much from the compliments as the intellectual engagement. I want to think of my intentions as pure and purely intellectual, but if I did, I’d be lying. I think most of our intentions are just this complex, just this rhizomatic.
Or did I misunderstand you? I’m just rhizomatic enough to have an asignifying rupture.