Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 13:11:31 -0400 From: rowalsh2-AT-vt.edu (Robert Walsh) Subject: Re: Anti-Oedipus, inter alia In my original post, I was attempting to point out what I see as a problem in many discussions of D+G, the believed interchangibility of the terms system and structure in the context of their writing. hypathia suggested: >Perhaps Andrew's original reference to structure could be sustained in a >'rhizomatic' structure as opposed to the exclusive structuring inherent in >Oedipus. Robert try looking at the stuff in intro to ATP and Dialogues on >the difference between arborescent structures and rhizomatic structures. > >hypatia I did so, and am now even further convinced that this distinction between the terms is being downplayed. In the context of Anti-O and ATP, this distinction is more than one of semantics. hypathia was suggesting that the system of the unconscious and of desire is possibly an arborescent 'structure'. I disagree. This is based in the opinion that the difference between systems and structures is central to their writings. The rhizome can and must (be able to) connect to anything other, however within a structure a multiplicity's growth is limited 'by a reduction in its laws of combination' (ATP, Intro). Therefore, I would suggest that my original misgivings still hold. Rhizomes resist the segmentarity inherent in structures/capitalism, but this segmentarity is also inherent in the process of rhizomes. For me, this does not mean that rhizomes are limited and structured but that the process of the rhizomatic flow is dependent upon conflict with these structures. A conflict which is continous, simply because the system and flows can not be boxed up for long. Am I alone in believing that this distinction between system and strucyure is more than a game of word choice? Any other opinions would be greatly appreciated. -bob ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005