The very first chapter of Deleuzes Thousand Plateaus contains the following as an example of a Rhizome:
Principles of connection and heterogeneity: any point of a Rhizome can be connected to any other point; and must be. This is very different from the tree or root, which plots a point and fixes an order. The linguistic tree on the Chomskyan Model still begins at point S and proceeds by dichotomy. On the contrary, not every trait in a Rhizome is linked to a linguistic feature...our criticism of these linguistic machines is not that they are abstract, but that they are not abstract enough.
This, to my eye isn't a million miles away from a question I asked much earlier:
and which was very quickly closed.
Of course the word evolution, in one sense, describes progress in the large and small; but I recall the thought behind it; and which wasn't expressible properly in language that I was using; and which points to the utility of the enigma of concepts wrapped in the mystery of words; and this thought is closer to Deleuze than mine; still the similarities, at least textually, are clear.
This then recalls for me the dialogue by Theatatus, in which he is questioned by Socrates about the nature of knowledge; and to which three answers are given:
a. Knowledge is nothing but perception
b. Knowledge is truth
c. knowledge is truth with an account
It occurs to me that my original question is b) (but not the whole of it) and that this is justified by the quote above, and which itself is an example of c); and that it's closure is a) (but unsound, being simply perception)
The question is this: am I correct in my assessment above?