hi jeroen
thanks for your interest in my post. i wasn´t probably very politically correct in it... sorry to whoever might have been disturbed by it. i was somehow replying to a couple of articles / messages sent by f in the last months... as i am using rhizome myself as a tool as a central piece of my work, i am a bit susceptible about certain comments... and i guess within a certain boundaries there is need, sometimes, for a little agressiveness in this no contact chats.

of course, as structuralism does, rhizome has many limitations. as you well say, as soon as you find order in rhizome, - D+G would say, as soon as you over-codify it -, then it isn´t a rhizome anymore.

However, things that you find in rhizome, instead of "order", are strands, nodes, speeds - idoru?-, intensities, fugues, rhythms, assemblages, multiplicities, territorializations / reterritorializations, cartographies... that is, you find other things, that, who knows, might be interesting. and of course you don´t know how interesting or moving... they may be, until you find them and go through them... like friends or lovers or most of the things in life...

the failure of the plan is part of the plan...

i might go cook some spaguetti now...
easy... osfa

I live in Holland, I'm not worried by being political incorectness, and I did not seee any.

I was only thinking out loud about a certain tendency I percieve: the more revolutionary someone gets while making art, the more chaotic, rhizomatic the art becomes most of the time. And I took another position,

It was a creative opinion I gave. Nothing more. This is not an oposit opinion. This is a rhizomatic world, no oposites exist here.