Dave and e,

This may not help.

Beyond a definition of Rhizomatic learning as a curiosity I believe we are looking at how it may be brought forth and understood and for that it might be better to speak of models rather than definitions. I’d go for a description of how it operates at a gross level at this stage over having a finely tuned body of definitions describing its parts.

In “Simulation and its Discontents” edited by Sherry Turkle, Natasha Myers speaks of models as envisioned by scientific historians David Kaiser and Maria Trumpler as

>>>’not just representations or results: they are “enactments” and they are “built to be engaged, inhabited [and] lived.” Scientists do not just hold their models in their minds; they carry their models within their bodies. The engaging and laborious experience of building and working with models is the means through researchers incorporate knowledge of the form and structure of their models. In this process, scientists’ bodies become instruments for learning and communicating their knowledge to others.’ <<<

Maybe we should learn to dance the Rhizomatic before we freeze it into a series of fixed locations of where we should put our feet?