{"title":"轨迹:绘制根茎","authors":"Michael Y. Bennett","doi":"10.5840/JPHILNEPAL201161528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Maps ... are superimposed in such a way that each map finds itself modified in the following map, rather than finding its origin in the preceding one: from one map to the next, it is not a matter of searching for an origin, but of evaluating displacements. Every map is a redistribution of impasses and breakthroughs, of thresholds and enclosures, which necessarily go from bottom to top. There is not only a reversal of directions, but also a difference in nature: the unconscious no longer deals with persons and objects, but with trajectories and becomings.... --Gilles Deleuze (1) Disclaimer experiment, n. The action of trying anything, or putting it to proof; a test, trial; (2) the following article. The beautiful thing about the hard sciences (e.g., chemistry, physic, etc., and I mean no disrespect to those fields that fall outside of the common designation \"hard sciences\"), is the experiment. Or rather, more wonderful than even the experiment is the inherent acknowledgement that the scientist begins with only a hypothesis and that the evidence gathered sculpts the hopefully-publishable paper. The scientist cares not what path the evidence takes him or her, or whether or not his or her hypothesis was right in the first place. A successful scientist gets paid to evaluate the differences in his or her findings with the scientist's hypothesis. Scientists must reconcile each turn within a rhizome. This is the Scientific Method, the dominant form of scientific inquiry for five hundred or so years. This paper is an experiment testing a two-fold hypothesis. The two hypotheses are as follows: 1) a modified Scientific Method can be used effectively to conduct research in the field of English Literature, Critical Theory (Cultural Studies) and Human Sciences (as well as, I presume, every other social science) 2) this paper, which is an inquiry on maps will, in fact, function as a map. The two hypotheses may, however, be in fact one. A paper which acts like a Deleuzean map has similar properties to that of the Scientific Method: observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. I, however, do not want to spend my time on this paper trying to employ the strict Scientific Method or trying to show similarities to it. I invoke the Scientific Method for the possibility it presents. Basically every paper in the field of English Literature has an observation, hypothesis (thesis), experiment (evidence) and a conclusion (they already resemble the Scientific Method). But how often does the writer prove his or her hypothesis incorrect? Never (or at least I have never encountered this). My aim in this paper is to 'experiment' with a new method of inquiry. This inquiry works like a Deleuzean map. Method of Inquiry I will describe this paper as a series of displacements. I am beginning the paper with the above quote from \"What Children Say.\" This is the observation (or Deleuze's observation). I will then hypothesize about this quote. It is the experiment that will seem extraordinary. Each piece of new evidence will take the paper in a different direction. After each piece of evidence is introduced, it will be my job to draw conclusions about the displacement. This conclusion is only meant to be a conclusion to one part of the whole rhizome (whose nature is infinite). Let me put it more simply, I am following one possible path this paper could take. This will be only one of the many possible papers produced. This paper may be continued ad infinitum, either from the 'end' of this paper, or from any point within it. I hope this will give you some idea as to how this paper will work, but I hesitate to explain any more, for I want to leave the possibilities as open as humanly possible. A becoming-rhizome is what is desired for this paper. Mapping Maps To begin this first section, I hesitate to copy the exact same quote that this paper started with, but I feel as though, even though these are the exact same words, when superimposed on the first, they will have a different ring to it because of the displacement that occurred from the start of the paper to this point: Maps . …","PeriodicalId":288505,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry","volume":"9 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trajectories: Mapping Rhizomes\",\"authors\":\"Michael Y. Bennett\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/JPHILNEPAL201161528\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Maps ... are superimposed in such a way that each map finds itself modified in the following map, rather than finding its origin in the preceding one: from one map to the next, it is not a matter of searching for an origin, but of evaluating displacements. Every map is a redistribution of impasses and breakthroughs, of thresholds and enclosures, which necessarily go from bottom to top. There is not only a reversal of directions, but also a difference in nature: the unconscious no longer deals with persons and objects, but with trajectories and becomings.... --Gilles Deleuze (1) Disclaimer experiment, n. The action of trying anything, or putting it to proof; a test, trial; (2) the following article. The beautiful thing about the hard sciences (e.g., chemistry, physic, etc., and I mean no disrespect to those fields that fall outside of the common designation \\\"hard sciences\\\"), is the experiment. Or rather, more wonderful than even the experiment is the inherent acknowledgement that the scientist begins with only a hypothesis and that the evidence gathered sculpts the hopefully-publishable paper. The scientist cares not what path the evidence takes him or her, or whether or not his or her hypothesis was right in the first place. A successful scientist gets paid to evaluate the differences in his or her findings with the scientist's hypothesis. Scientists must reconcile each turn within a rhizome. This is the Scientific Method, the dominant form of scientific inquiry for five hundred or so years. This paper is an experiment testing a two-fold hypothesis. The two hypotheses are as follows: 1) a modified Scientific Method can be used effectively to conduct research in the field of English Literature, Critical Theory (Cultural Studies) and Human Sciences (as well as, I presume, every other social science) 2) this paper, which is an inquiry on maps will, in fact, function as a map. The two hypotheses may, however, be in fact one. A paper which acts like a Deleuzean map has similar properties to that of the Scientific Method: observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. I, however, do not want to spend my time on this paper trying to employ the strict Scientific Method or trying to show similarities to it. I invoke the Scientific Method for the possibility it presents. Basically every paper in the field of English Literature has an observation, hypothesis (thesis), experiment (evidence) and a conclusion (they already resemble the Scientific Method). But how often does the writer prove his or her hypothesis incorrect? Never (or at least I have never encountered this). My aim in this paper is to 'experiment' with a new method of inquiry. This inquiry works like a Deleuzean map. Method of Inquiry I will describe this paper as a series of displacements. I am beginning the paper with the above quote from \\\"What Children Say.\\\" This is the observation (or Deleuze's observation). I will then hypothesize about this quote. It is the experiment that will seem extraordinary. Each piece of new evidence will take the paper in a different direction. After each piece of evidence is introduced, it will be my job to draw conclusions about the displacement. This conclusion is only meant to be a conclusion to one part of the whole rhizome (whose nature is infinite). Let me put it more simply, I am following one possible path this paper could take. This will be only one of the many possible papers produced. This paper may be continued ad infinitum, either from the 'end' of this paper, or from any point within it. I hope this will give you some idea as to how this paper will work, but I hesitate to explain any more, for I want to leave the possibilities as open as humanly possible. A becoming-rhizome is what is desired for this paper. Mapping Maps To begin this first section, I hesitate to copy the exact same quote that this paper started with, but I feel as though, even though these are the exact same words, when superimposed on the first, they will have a different ring to it because of the displacement that occurred from the start of the paper to this point: Maps . …\",\"PeriodicalId\":288505,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry\",\"volume\":\"9 3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPHILNEPAL201161528\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPHILNEPAL201161528","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Maps ... are superimposed in such a way that each map finds itself modified in the following map, rather than finding its origin in the preceding one: from one map to the next, it is not a matter of searching for an origin, but of evaluating displacements. Every map is a redistribution of impasses and breakthroughs, of thresholds and enclosures, which necessarily go from bottom to top. There is not only a reversal of directions, but also a difference in nature: the unconscious no longer deals with persons and objects, but with trajectories and becomings.... --Gilles Deleuze (1) Disclaimer experiment, n. The action of trying anything, or putting it to proof; a test, trial; (2) the following article. The beautiful thing about the hard sciences (e.g., chemistry, physic, etc., and I mean no disrespect to those fields that fall outside of the common designation "hard sciences"), is the experiment. Or rather, more wonderful than even the experiment is the inherent acknowledgement that the scientist begins with only a hypothesis and that the evidence gathered sculpts the hopefully-publishable paper. The scientist cares not what path the evidence takes him or her, or whether or not his or her hypothesis was right in the first place. A successful scientist gets paid to evaluate the differences in his or her findings with the scientist's hypothesis. Scientists must reconcile each turn within a rhizome. This is the Scientific Method, the dominant form of scientific inquiry for five hundred or so years. This paper is an experiment testing a two-fold hypothesis. The two hypotheses are as follows: 1) a modified Scientific Method can be used effectively to conduct research in the field of English Literature, Critical Theory (Cultural Studies) and Human Sciences (as well as, I presume, every other social science) 2) this paper, which is an inquiry on maps will, in fact, function as a map. The two hypotheses may, however, be in fact one. A paper which acts like a Deleuzean map has similar properties to that of the Scientific Method: observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. I, however, do not want to spend my time on this paper trying to employ the strict Scientific Method or trying to show similarities to it. I invoke the Scientific Method for the possibility it presents. Basically every paper in the field of English Literature has an observation, hypothesis (thesis), experiment (evidence) and a conclusion (they already resemble the Scientific Method). But how often does the writer prove his or her hypothesis incorrect? Never (or at least I have never encountered this). My aim in this paper is to 'experiment' with a new method of inquiry. This inquiry works like a Deleuzean map. Method of Inquiry I will describe this paper as a series of displacements. I am beginning the paper with the above quote from "What Children Say." This is the observation (or Deleuze's observation). I will then hypothesize about this quote. It is the experiment that will seem extraordinary. Each piece of new evidence will take the paper in a different direction. After each piece of evidence is introduced, it will be my job to draw conclusions about the displacement. This conclusion is only meant to be a conclusion to one part of the whole rhizome (whose nature is infinite). Let me put it more simply, I am following one possible path this paper could take. This will be only one of the many possible papers produced. This paper may be continued ad infinitum, either from the 'end' of this paper, or from any point within it. I hope this will give you some idea as to how this paper will work, but I hesitate to explain any more, for I want to leave the possibilities as open as humanly possible. A becoming-rhizome is what is desired for this paper. Mapping Maps To begin this first section, I hesitate to copy the exact same quote that this paper started with, but I feel as though, even though these are the exact same words, when superimposed on the first, they will have a different ring to it because of the displacement that occurred from the start of the paper to this point: Maps . …