There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically)

Re:There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) by lukeasrodgers on Thursday March 09, 2023 @11:31AM (#35083101)

What do you mean their general systems theory is unmatched? Unmatched for what? I have read a bunch of D&G (as well as D on his own) and generally enjoy their writing, but I find it basically useless in my every day life and work (software engineering), my attempts to understand science and the world, etc. For example the "body without organs" is a cool idea that unites a lot of seemingly disparate phenomena, but other than that it kind of useless. It does not lend itself to making predictions, drawing causal connections between things. I don't think it's even a good intuition pump, in Dennett's sense. Most of the "use" of D&G's philosophy that I'm familiar with boils down to "oh hey this thing is kind of rhizomatic and look at how it antagonizes capitalist structures". Would love to be proven wrong, since I spent hundreds of hours and thousands dollars getting an education with a strong emphasis on this kind of stuff.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) by uoaei on Thursday March 09, 2023 @02:13PM (#35085307)

> unites a lot of seemingly disparate phenomena

I think this is basically the point. Understand the world around you, and especially the connections and influences between different components of a system (broadly defined), to form and verify more holistic, nth-order models rather than disconnected, first-order-only analyses.

I think it goes beyond "cool idea" and really strikes at the same kinds of intuitions that many on HN appreciate as regards simple models that explain complex phenomena. In this sense, then, D&G's work is a sort of "meta-model" for guiding intuitions when building specific models about specific systems.

It is not a predictive framework. I guess I would call it an "ontological/architectural" framework.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) by lukeasrodgers on Thursday March 09, 2023 @05:21PM (#35087645)

For me, the sense in which it "unites a lot of seemingly disparate phenomena" is not that different than the sense in which "purple" unites a lot of purple things. It is true that they are all purple, but ultimately not very interesting or useful. Of course as a concept it is more complex and richer than "purple" hence why academics are able to write so many books and articles using it. I just don't recall ever having read anything that used these concepts to describe phenomena X and then felt like I better understood phenomena X, other than that I know realized it was sort of rhizomey.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) by eternalban on Thursday March 09, 2023 @04:53PM (#35087273)

> I spent hundreds of hours and thousands dollars getting an education with a strong emphasis on this kind of stuff.

(I laughed)

> I find it basically useless in my every day life and work

D&G is of utility in architecture, for one. You need to have some philosophical decoration for your doodle. The art is in mapping bs to doodle. In general, useless philosophy is a faithful companion in bullshit fields. Where in software we could use D&G then? I suggest crypto space.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) by LesZedCB on Thursday March 09, 2023 @06:52PM (#35088572)

desiring machines, body without organs and AI basically are destined to become philosophical friends

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There’s no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically) by googl-free on Monday March 13, 2023 @04:28PM (#35142023)

In software engineering, monkey patching and use-after-free are some examples of lines of flight. Broadly though, an ossified and financialized academy is never going to embody a rhizome. Check out the interview with the IDF commander who "use"s deterritorialization. If you want predictions, Nick Land was full of them

[ Parent | on HN ]