<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: experimentation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://slightly.net/improv/?feed=rss2&#038;p=206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://slightly.net/improv/?p=206</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:52:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.41</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: kristian</title>
		<link>http://slightly.net/improv/?p=206#comment-108</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[kristian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://slightly.net/improv/?p=206#comment-108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#039;s a nice confluence some of of D&amp;G&#039;s greatest hits in this piece of writing. Frustratingly enough (for me) the rhizome is implicated but not explicitly stated. The main reason its frustrating is that it happens to be the key idea I relate to to ground improvisation as conscious action and thought. 
That said however the text does seem to point in the direction of an ontology of improvisation. From my point of view (and that point of view is that improvisation is inherently epistemic or knowledge producing in nature)this tract of text does a nice job of indicating key conditions for improvisation to be implicated  as a way of seeing, and a way of knowing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s a nice confluence some of of D&#038;G&#8217;s greatest hits in this piece of writing. Frustratingly enough (for me) the rhizome is implicated but not explicitly stated. The main reason its frustrating is that it happens to be the key idea I relate to to ground improvisation as conscious action and thought.<br />
That said however the text does seem to point in the direction of an ontology of improvisation. From my point of view (and that point of view is that improvisation is inherently epistemic or knowledge producing in nature)this tract of text does a nice job of indicating key conditions for improvisation to be implicated  as a way of seeing, and a way of knowing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
