Talk:Rhizome (philosophy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Not just sociology?
Isn't this misnamed as Rhizome (sociology)? Should it be something like Rhizome (metaphors) instead? Jung's usage of the term rhizome as metaphor doesn't seem to be sociological, although Deleuze and Guattari's usage probably is. Mikkalai's insistence on splitting up the original unitary Rhizome article seems quite problematic. -- JimR 11:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Moved to a better title. Nothing problematic: totally different areas. That's why we have thousands of disambiguation pages. `'mikka (t) 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Metaphor? or Concept?
Is it really appropriate to label 'rhizome' in this usage as a metaphor, given Deleuze and Guattari's hostility to the notion that their appropriation of terms is metaphorical? I appreciate that the article makes a point of their concept of rhizome being non-metaphorical, but both the disambiguation page and the opening line say otherwise. I am not familiar with Jung's usage, but whether or not it is metaphorical, a more neutral description should discuss it as a concept, not as a metaphor. Philosophy does not work exclusively with metaphor - its work is done primarily with concepts, which may or may not have metaphorical elements or forms. Therefore, the philosophical usage of 'rhizome' should be primarily described as 'conceptual' rather than 'metaphorical'. --Rhizomachine 01:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
"Rhizome" means rhizome. The rest is metaphorical usage, like it Deleuze or not, period. The term was selected exactly because "rhizome" is an analogy to something different "arborescent". `'mikka (t) 03:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for Mikka's common sense, but it is obviously a misunderstanding to qualify it as a metaphor, as Rhizomachine has noted. But why bother arguing the case against such "evidence"? Lapaz 04:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I changed the introduction accordingly. A concept is not a metaphor. Lapaz 04:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Self-promotion?
There are two references in this article to the work of one "Jeff Vail". Mr. Vail is a blogger with a self-edited book at iUniverse press. He does not seem relevant enough to the article to justify his presence there. I would propose deletion. --Amador 22:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- The original reference to Jeff Vail was added at this diff by an anonymous poster with no other contributions. An external link was added here, from a different anonymous IP address with one other edit (to Hubbert peak theory, apparently not related to Jeff Vail). I changed this to the more precise link to the inline version of the book here, because I thought it did have some relevance. I don't know anything more about Jeff Vail than this, or have any connection with him. I'll leave it up to others to decide whether the references should remain. -- JimR 07:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I would probably leave Jeff Vail in there as a reference. I've been working on rhizomatic theory for the last couple of months, and he still seems to be the most relevant person on the subject working online. --Davecormier 16:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed them until there is evidence of this person's notability and authority on the topic (ie, he gets his own article). --ZimZalaBim talk 02:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Link to "Critical mass" seems to be incorrect
83.19.131.243 21:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
