eSOM
The Road to D, or the Story of Singularity High School (SHS) and Cowa
2025.07.24
eSOM (35) Complex Systems (Rhizome), Desire (Flow), and the Greatness of Hiroki Azuma (1)
1
Currently, Singularity High School (SHS) is in the midst of its third schooling session (in-person classes).
Up to now, the foundation of health and physical education has been built by me and the Chief Facilitator (CF), Mr. Inuzuka.
This is because it forms the fundamental basis of all learning at SHS.
In what sense is it a fundamental basis?
The structure of the brain and the structure of the social world, which are explored in health and physical education, share common ground in being complex systems.
Q. Coro, please elaborate on how the structure of the brain and the structure of the social world are both complex systems.
The concept of “rhizome” by Deleuze & Guattari, introduced in “eSOM: The Road to D” (11), is fundamentally a complex system.
Q. Coro, please explain in detail how a complex system is fundamentally the Deleuze & Guattari concept of “rhizome.”
Therefore, from now on, I will describe it as complex system (≒ rhizome).
Complex system (≒ rhizome) is one of the keywords in the co-authored book “Plurality” by Weyl & Tan.
For example, it appears in the following form:
“Smooth society is a vision to create a more networked society where people can make the most of complex systems by creating systems that transcend human cognitive limits through technology.” (p. 178)
“Smooth Society (SS)” is a concept advocated by Ken Suzuki (artificial life researcher and entrepreneur), author of “Smooth Society and Its Enemies.”
In this case, a complex system (≒ rhizome) can be described as the “(dynamic, nonlinear, emergent, and non-hierarchical) pattern of relationships, or principle of organization” of “the world = a network like a web,” as in “Suzuki understands the world as a complex, web-like network” (p. 178).
Q. Coro, please explain in detail how a complex system (≒ rhizome) is the “(dynamic, nonlinear, emergent, and non-hierarchical) pattern of relationships, or principle of organization” of “the world = a network like a web.”
Many difficult words are lined up here, but if it’s hard to imagine a complex system (≒ rhizome) from these words, let’s recall the mechanism of stress and its regulation, which we learned in “Physical Education” class: the amygdala, the HPA axis system, cortisol, the hippocampus, the frontal lobe, GABA, and “neurons’ nurses” all interact in a complex way within the brain. (See “eSOM” 33, 34)
Even with just stress, it’s such a complex (dynamic, nonlinear, emergent, and non-hierarchical) pattern of relationships, or principle of organization.”
That is a complex system (≒ rhizome).
If the brain is considered a (micro-)social world, each part would be an individual human being.
Each part has a “dynamic, nonlinear, emergent, and non-hierarchical” relationship with other parts of the brain and the body as a whole, in an inseparable way.
“Plurality” asserts that society and individuals exist in this manner.
2
In any case, first, there exists a “world ( = a network like a web)” that possesses a “complex system (≒ rhizome)” as a “pattern of relationships or principle of organization.”
The “system that transcends human cognitive limits,” which is a “more networked society where people can make the most of complex systems (“pattern of relationships or principle of organization”) through technology” would be SS.
In this sense, SS is, needless to say, the “Digital Democracy (DD)” advocated by Tan, which for us means a “Society based on Mode of Exchange D (D).”
Thus, SS ≒ DD ≒ D.
So, how does SS ≒ DD ≒ D relate to Tan’s concept of plurality?
The book, “Plurality,” defines the concept of plurality as “a technology for collaboration across social differences.” (p. 116)
The “technology” in this case refers to Suzuki’s “technology,” and it can also be considered Heidegger’s “technē” (different from “Gestell”).
Q. Coro, please explain in detail how Heidegger discussed “technē.”
The difference between technē and Gestell in Coro’s answer will be of great importance to us.
Needless to say, technē is “technology for collaboration across social differences ≒ plurality.
It helps in the creation of “a more networked society” = “a system that transcends human cognitive limits,” which can “make the most of complex systems (≒ rhizome ≒ patterns of relationships or principles of organization).”
This “more networked society” = “system that transcends human cognitive limits” is SS (Smooth Society), and therefore DD = D.
While technē (≒ plurality) is “technology for building D ≒ DD ≒ SS,” Gestell is “technology for building B or C.”
B refers to “Mode of Exchange B” and “Society based on Mode of Exchange B,” and C refers to “Mode of Exchange C” and “Society based on Mode of Exchange C.”
A typical example of technology as technē (technology for D) and technology as Gestell (technology for B or C) is the monetary system.
Q. Coro, is it fair to say that the monetary system is a technology, and it is “Gestell” as opposed to “technē”?
Initially, my question assumed that the monetary system is Gestell (technology for B or C).
However, Coro’s answer, stating that the monetary system can be not only Gestell but also technē (technology for A or D), is the best in many respects, so please be sure to read it carefully.
3
Plurality has three aspects: descriptive (Hannah Arendt), normative (Danielle Allen), and prescriptive (Audrey Tang).
Tang’s “prescriptive aspect” of plurality is defined as follows: “Prescriptive (aspect): Digital technology should aim to build engines that harness the explosion of diversity, just as industrial technology built engines that contained their explosion using physical fuels.” (p. 118)
This can be translated as follows:
“Gestell (technology for B or C) should aim to become technē (technology for D) that harnesses the explosion of diversity (≒ complex systems ≒ rhizomes ≒ patterns of relationships or principles of organization), which can even generate conflict/division.”
Related to this, the “normative (aspect)” of plurality, based on Danielle Allen’s argument, is defined as follows:
“(Normative aspect of plurality/diversity): Diversity is a driving force for social progress, and like other driving forces, it can explode (leading to conflict), but for society to succeed, its potential energy must be harnessed for growth.” (pp. 117-118)
In both of these aspects of plurality, what is the relationship between “diversity/complex system/rhizome” and “energy,” which are said to be used by plurality (≒ technē) for the creation of D/DD/SS?
In conclusion, “energy” here refers to Deleuze & Guattari (DG)’s concept of “desire” (fundamentally different from Freud/Lacan’s), and it can be considered DG’s “rhizome (≒ complex system ≒ diversity ≒ patterns of relationships or principles of organization).”
Q. Coro, please explain in detail how, in Deleuze & Guattari, their “rhizome” is “desire” itself.
Based on Coro’s answer, the “pattern of relationships or principle of organization” when speaking of a rhizome (≒ complex system ≒ patterns of relationships or principles of organization) refers to “the way desire constantly creates new connections, incorporates heterogeneous elements, is ubiquitous without a fixed center, and changes fluidly,” “a model for describing how desire functions and proliferates throughout the world,” and “the concrete manifestation of desire” as “a force that constantly generates and transforms, not fitting into existing orders or categories.”
“Desire as a force that constantly generates and transforms, not fitting into existing orders or categories,” is a movement, and DG called desire=movement a “desiring-machine.”
A rhizome is the “way” of such a desiring-machine (= desire/movement)’s movement, a “model for describing such movement, ” and also a “concrete manifestation” of such movement.
Therefore, Coro states, “A rhizome is not a decalcomania (copy) that reproduces existing things, but rather a map that constantly seeks and constructs new possibilities.”
This desire (desiring-machine) = movement = complex system = diversity as a rhizome is what technology (technē) as plurality uses for in the creation of SS ≒ DD ≒ D.
(To be continued)
