2008/09/12

the rhizome




FelixFrannyFanny woke with a potatoe in her hand. her some was handy to its hetererogeneity was flex was to oui oui. yes this was glad grand night was its breath tobecome its wing throng. as book was assemblaged to her machine. she distinct was neighbor to her voisinage.
_____________________


The rhizome includes the best and the worst: potato and couchgrass,
or the weed. Animal and plant, couchgrass is crabgrass. We get the distinct
feeling that we will convince no one unless we enumerate certain approximate
characteristics of the rhizome.
1 and 2. Principles of connection and heterogeneity: any point of a rhizome
can be connected to anything other, and must be. This is very different
from the tree or root, which plots a point, fixes an order. The linguistic
tree on the Chomsky model still begins at a point S and proceeds by dichotomy.
On the contrary, not every trait in a rhizome is necessarily linked to a
linguistic feature: semiotic chains of every nature are connected to very
diverse modes of coding (biological, political, economic, etc.) that bring
into play not only different regimes of signs but also states of things of differing
status. Collective assemblages of enunciation function directly
within machinic assemblages; it is not impossible to make a radical break
between regimes of signs and their objects. Even when linguistics claims to
confine itself to what is explicit and to make no presuppositions about language,
it is still in the sphere of a discourse implying particular modes of
assemblage and types of social power.


Hail Mister Chomsky retire to side of branch tree.

Chomsky's grammaticality, the categorical
S symbol that dominates every sentence, is more fundamentally a
marker of power than a syntactic marker: you will construct grammatically
correct sentences, you will divide each statement into a noun phrase and a
verb phrase (first dichotomy. . .). Our criticism of these linguistic models
is not that they are too abstract but, on the contrary, that they are not
abstract enough, that they do not reach the abstract machine that connects
a language to the semantic and pragmatic contents of statements, to collective
assemblages of enunciation, to a whole micropolitics of the social
field. A rhizome ceaselessly establishes connections between semiotic
chains, organizations of power, and circumstances relative to the arts, sciences,
and social struggles. A semiotic chain is like a tuber agglomerating
very diverse acts, not only linguistic, but also perceptive, mimetic,
gestural, and cognitive: there is no language in itself, nor are there any linguistic
universals, only a throng of dialects, patois, slangs, and specialized
languages.

No one spoke to her nonlistening self. She was homogeneous sexual to her textual listens. her glisten to become a radiant pallor.


She had neither tongue nor playa. Nor pallor or pailer. Her sailor was the sea of her wave wig longish. At grave s by sedentary sea.



There is no ideal speaker-listener, any more than there is a

homogeneous linguistic community. Language is, in Weinreich's words,
"an essentially heterogeneous reality."1 There is no mother tongue, only a
power takeover by a dominant language within a political multiplicity.
Language stabilizes around a parish, a bishopric, a capital. It forms a bulb.
It evolves by subterranean stems and flows, along river valleys or train
tracks; it spreads like a patch of oil.2 It is always possible to break a language_________

we broke all languages like water._____A pathcy of oily word glimmered to her heart. this partial organed parish.