Ryzomatyc-nomadic conceptual analysis grid Gilles Deleuze
Abstract
This article analyzes the rhizomes and nomadism as the main concepts of philosophy G. Deleuze and the opportunities opens to philosophy through this concepts. The symbol rhizomes, appears in the best perspective for philosophy and the history of philosophy in particular, because it deprives philosophy universalization, identifying and fixing the relationship in the form of heterogeneity, diversity, equality of different perspectives. Rhizomes as shaped mouthpiece of the movement of thought, there is in contrast to the image of the tree, the main feature of which is the «hierarchy»: the root, stem, crown. For him, no matter where the point of contact of one part to another. In philosophical space is manifested in the form of polyphony perspectives, different positions, еligible for equivalent coexist but are not intended to fundamental universalism with potentially only possible truth. Creating hierarchy in philosophical space - is an attempt installation power, using structural and systematic «canning» theoretical constructs of thinking, arising from representation and artificial, unconscious denial of free play that gives its centralized procedure. Nomadic philosophizing that is spreading like rhizomes, can deny the power of anything that destroys her plans. This «revolt», which is based on arbitrary, often similar to the artwork rules that make up the style of the existence or lifestyle. Violation of consistency can give «nomadism» («nomadic life rhizomes») must prove that there is not a normal structure, and its violation, not a system, but something exogenous
References
Baudrillard, J. (2004), Simulacres et Simulation [Symuliakry i symuliatsii], «Osnovy» Solomiya Pavlychko Publishing, Kharkiv, 230 p. [in Ukrainian]
Borges, J.L. (1989), Prose of different years [Proza raznykh let], Raduga, Moscow, pp.112. [in Russian]
Braidotti, R. (2001), “Nomadic Way”, Introduction to Gender Studies [“Putem nomadizma”, Vvedenie v gendernye issledovaniya], Aleteya, St. Petersburg, pp. 136-163. [in Russian]
Deleuze, G. (1993), Critique et clinique. Paris, 192 p.
Deleuze, G. (1998), Différence et repetition [Razlichie i povtorenie], Petropolis, St. Petersburg, 384 p. [in Russian]
Deleuze, G. (1969), Logique du sens. Ed. de Minuit, coll. «Critique», Paris, 392p.
Deleuze, G. (1998), “Platon et le simulacre”, Logique du sens [“Platon i simulyakr” Logika smysla], Delovaya Kniga, Ekaterinburg; Raritet, Moscow, pp. 329-346. [in Russian]
Deleuze, G. (1998), “Lucrèce et le simulacre”, Logique du sens [“Lukretsii i simulyakr” Logika smysla], Delovaya Kniga, Ekaterinburg; Raritet, Moscow, pp. 347-365. [in Russian]
Deleuze, G., Guattari, F. (1980), Capitalisme et schizophrenie. Mille Plateax. Paris, 647 p.
Derrida, J. (2000), L'Écriture et la différence [Pis'mo i razlichie], Academicheskii Proekt, St. Petersburg, 495 p. [in Russian]
Derrida, J. (1999), Difference [Difference], Vodolei, Tomsk, pp. 124-158. [in Russian]
Jencks, C. (1985), The Language of Post-Modern Architecture [Yazyk arkhitektury postmoderna], Stroiizdat, Moscow, 136 p. [in Russian]
Kroker, A., Cook, D. (1995), “The Postmodern Scene: Excremental Culture and Hyper-Aesthetics”, On the Ways of Postmodernism [“Postmodernistskaya stsena: eksperimental'naya kul'tura i giperestetika”, Na putyakh postmodernizma], Moscow, pp. 139-148. (187 p.) [in Russian]
Onfray, M. (2004), Traité d'athéologie. – Galilée: Le Monde Diplomatique, – [n. p.].
