Dave, I like the idea of many groups or maybe “denominations” of the Rhizomatic thought world. Feels like it has more potential though as an operative method of understanding that resists self-definition there might also be the reality of fluctuating consciousness that already resides everywhere?

Obvious problem one is as you say the language and norms are becoming fixed and this might chase new people away–even zombies must have preferences? Problem two is our already shameless self-regard could make us seem boring–or make us imagine we are not. Problem three resides in the claim to difference when nothing stays different–how do things change? How is change identified? Doesn’t change bring life to everything anyway and isn’t something that is done by us but by its very existence?

And to change the subject… Is rhizomatic learning something that could be applied with deliberation? I think that I think the rhizomatic quality escapes intentional application and emerges by randomness. In that case control would collapse it? Except this vulnerability to intervention of intent might indicate a kind of reflexivity where though we think the rhizome is independent, it thinks the same of us and we are dancing together without knowing it?

And puts me in a corner where I’ve called up a spiritual force to account for a relationship that is hard to see but there nonetheless. Like chaos exists and we exist at the same time so beneath this seeming contradiction is an agreement?