I agree that intentionality emerges from more than just an individual ‘forming intentions’ and to some extent may be seen as a local network effect but my criticism of connectivism is that it tends to overplay the network effect and underplay human agency. That is why I find cartography as you present it her a useful concept in learning and how others may (or may not) support the learner. I have already made comparisons between connectivism’s and Actor Network Theory’s treatment of networks of human and non-human objects http://usir.salford.ac.uk/9270/ and I am beginning to see that rhizomatics (if there is such a thing) also deal with this subject. The question for me is how do they deal with connections between humans and non-human in understanding learning? Whilst I can recognise that the non-human has interests, agency, etc. I am much more concerned about maximising human fulfilment and happiness than putting the non-human centre stage. As a participant in and observer of the participatory web, I see old power relations played out in new networks eg recommender system and analytics but somehow denied in a context where the machine is seen as amoral and humans as ‘democratised’. Here endeth the rant.