Rhizome 1/8/15: Here I’m going to attempt the tough negotiation of tying together the responses of three partners in crime I have gathered throughout the rhizomes. I am playing this by ear. So it could go anyway throughout the spectrum of really good to really bad. But I would start with a discourse initiated by my son over rhizome 1/3/15 and his response concerning a book I gave him, Terrence McKenna’s The Food of the Gods, and to which I responded with rhizome 1/5/2015. (Reference: https://facebook/groups/675745095875295/687392274710577/?comment_id=687520451364426¬if_t=group_comment ( Now one of things I didn’t have time to point to (concerning McKenna’s theory that psychedelics may be nature’s way of communicating to human’s (was an episode of the radio program To the Best of Our Knowledge (ttbook.org/book/secret-language-plants (that pointed out in several different articles that plants may be more capable of communication than we realize they are. This, in turn, suggests a consciousness in plants that we don’t normally ascribe to them. And this goes to the Bergsian milieu (like that term? Just stole it from Ronald Bogues book on Deleuze and Art (that I and Ginkgo find ourselves working in: “I have been thinking about you posts on Bergson, Darwin and natural selection. I thought I might throw in the Cambrian explosion just for good measure. It would seem the theory of natural selection is at a loss to explain the sudden (in geological terms) proliferation and diversity of life during this period. We suddenly find a huge variety of creatures inventing nervous systems, legs, fins, claws, and eyes in a bewildering array of experimentation with appendages. On this basis it is not the environment doing the selecting, rather it is the organism experimenting to see what works best in the environment. It would appear the way to be successful in the Cambrian sea is to become the best possible athlete. A primitive organism, inventing and then growing appendages increases the likelihood of survival so long as you can develop the embodied cognition to exploit these novel additions.” Like many things I talk about, I tend to defer to the safety of agnosticism on issues like this. And as cowardly as that might seem, it is also a practical choice in that it allows me to play around with the different possibilities. But what you are describing, Ginkgo, could be as ascribed to chance (what Bergson was arguing against (as towards creative evolution or the anthropic position we are considering here. Still, I agree with your rather Deleuzian point: “On this basis it is not the environment doing the selecting, rather it is the organism experimenting to see what works best in the environment.” I would only add to this (referring back to my discourse with my son concerning McKenna’s assertion that psychedelics may be nature’s way of communicating with us (that it almost seems as if evolution is always working towards the external: that it is always reaching beyond itself and its immediate environment. And I will try to push into this deeper. But this particular Rhizome has decided to be a setup for deeper articulation and I have to get in a point made by Deborah Gibson. Thanks for playing/jamming with me, brother! Anyway: “A quick response: Darwins assertion of the survival of the fitter allows for simplicity as well as complexity, depending on the circumstantial context(s). As life and thought appears to be increasingly complex so, perhaps, re Eric Mathews, the organisms are more complex and therefore more suited to survival. I wonder, just as a different perspective, if the organisms are still fundamentally simple, and are but organized in more complex ways. I am interested in the idea of collectivity and the power of many which requires a degree of connectivity and willingness towards empathy and compassion. In organismic terms, this can be seen in the ways in which cells divide and accrete to create something greater (more complex?) than the single cell. In humans this could be seen in a socialist way of being (Stalin notwithstanding). I realize there are universe-sized holes in this so, in order to plug them, please negotiate a time and relative dimensions in space craft through them.” Okay, Deborah, but we’re still dealing with complexity after the fact of complexity. Why, for instance, did the environment have to become complex which, in turn, forced organisms to become complex? What strange attractor caused this to happen? I have my own thoughts on this which I have to reserve for some future rhizome. But there are clearly questions. But the cool thing about it (William, Deborah, Ginkgo (is that we are workshopping it together. And what better function could the boards serve to our individual processes? I love what I’m doing. So I gotta love you. I gotta love your process.
Posted on: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:28:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015