In very short: the question is if a node in a knowledge network/rhizome, like you and me, is more than a reacting powerless object of the network/rhizome. (this is too short an abstract of the discussion, you should read it yourself)
This discussion reminds me of the problem of the Collective Unconscious and the Self of Jung. This collective unconscious of Jung is much wider than the personal unconscious of Freud. The collective unconscious of Jung connects us to the history of mankind, the myths and stories of our ancestry.

Karl E. Weick and Sensemaking could shine a light on this subject of agency in a network.

George Siemens mentions the nature of connections. Wonder if we could say that some/all connections are sense-making-connections?
“…Understanding. Coherence. Sensemaking. Meaning. These elements are prominent in constructivism, to a lessor extent cognitivism, and not at all in behaviourism. But in connectivism, we argue that the rapid flow and abundance of information raises these elements to critical importance…” George Siemens.

In therapy Jung tried to make sense in the lives of his patients, it is a nice parallelism.

Image: In Franfurt am Main (Deutschland) you find this statue “Ich” of Hans Traxler. (Ich = I / me). The statue is empty.

===============
LS
in your scoop it you mention one of my blogposts, as follows:

connectiv.wordpress.com – Today, 4:30 PM
Mensbeeld (Imaginem Humana) in a connectivist world #change11
If we want to know more about Connectivism as a theory of learning or knowledge or teaching, we could look at the “view of man” (mensbeeld) that is implied or expressed in connectivist texts.

Name of person
================

I think it is very strange your name is under this text. I did write the text, and I am willing to share it but you must mention my name. (I have a creative commons mention on my blog where you can find the rules for copyright)

I do not write this blog to get as much followers or readers as possible. You do not do me a favor by scooping my texts. I would rather want to read your comments on my blog.
Using scoop-it, could you tell me why you do scoop blogs? Nobody can make comments to your scoop-it publication.

The scoop-it team has a solution:

Hi,
Just like on any blog platform, you can use the edit part of the post to enter any kind of free text, including the author’s name. Here’s an example: http://www.scoop.it/t/web-content-digital-curation/p/1234597561/content-and-the-new-marketing-equation-by-brian-solis
NB: the original Web site is always mentioned as a source at the top of the post.
The Scoop.it Team

in my drawing: E _n (a_n) :  Entity  has attributes.
aa _n: activated attributes.

1. Could we know all attributes of Entities?

2. Could we know which attributes will be activated?

3. Could we know the structure of the connections, and how this structure influences the activation of attributes?

4. If E ₁ is connected to E ₂ and to E ₃ lots of attributes do get activated. Can we know how the activated attributes influence Entities, structure of connections, other Attributes?

Can we know all attributes?

If Entity is a person, I do not know all attributes that influence learning. (health, drug use, personal history, earlier learning, motivation). I cannot know all attributes that do influence learning, and I cannot know how all these attributes do influence learning.
If Entity is information, attributes are name, value, authority of source, source, quality, minimum and maximum values, reliability, etc.
I cannot know all attributes because every attribute of Entity _information is another Entity_information

Information seems to be an infinite set.

Can we describe the knowledge network of a person or of a group?

Some networks have boundaries. the network of cells in a human body has boundaries. But do networks of knowledge have boundaries? Or maybe a better question, can we know the boundaries of the network of knowledge of a person or a group? Could we describe and make an inventory of all the knowledge and attributes and connections in a given network?
Could we make a difference between a network of knowledge and a rhizome in this regard? “…Rhizomatic learning is about embracing uncertainty. That’s the goal. Getting to the point in oneself, or helping someone else to get to the point where they are able to confront a particular system, challenge, situation whatever not knowing the answer and feeling like they can decide about it. I try to thinking of teaching, then, as mimicking the process of being confronted with uncertain situations, that develop the literacies required to deal with uncertainty…” [Dave Cormier]

Structure of connections in a learning knowledge network

Structure of connections could be: direction, one-way, two or more directions, capacity of connection, nature of connection, selectivity of connection, conscious or unconscious connection, etc.
Could I know what will be the structure of connections in a learning network?

Creativity

In a network of knowledge that is well known, mapped, described, creativity would be difficult, because creativity could be “connecting in a new way”. If creativity exists, than the network has some unknown corners.

I do not know if the differences between the metaphors of a network and a rhizome are that big.

I almost forget this: metaphors are not facts, metaphors are not theories.

“This implies a pedagogy that (a) seeks to describe ‘successful’ networks (as identified by their properties, which I have characterized as diversity, autonomy, openness, and connectivity) and (b) seeks to describe the practices that lead to such networks, both in the individual and in society (which I have characterized as modeling and demonstration (on the part of a teacher) and practice and reflection (on the part of a learner)).” [What Connectivism Is, Stephen Downes, 2007]
Is success an important goal of humans in a connectivist mensbeeld?
Are autonomy, openness and connectivity and diversity also part of the connectivist mensbeeld?
“Active MOOC participants are individuals high in the psychological trait of conscientiousness, geared toward duty and achievement” Individual experiences in MOOCs, part 3 diversity openness, Heli Nurmi
How does connectivism deal with uncertainty and questions with no known answer?

“Where structures of connections (ie., networks) differ from sets of observations or measurements is that there is in principle no external entity to which we can appeal in order to check our understanding. In a networked society, every person is a member of the network, and all things being equal, there is not some other networked society against which we can test our conclusions (prior to the days of global communications, societies did test themselves one against the other, but unfortunately though war and other conflict, a solution that was worse than the problem and which clouded their ability to interpret connections in a rational and dispassionate way).” An Introduction to Connective Knowledge, Stephen Downes, 2005
Is being a member of a network a major property of the mensbeeld?
Will humans improve and forget war?
Will there be a future of peace and justice for all mankind?
Is the mensbeeld rational and dispassionate?

” …Creatagogy? This would be based on a pedagogy for human being where learning is viewed as a growth of creativity and capability for people, with technology as affordance, together with digital pedagogy and netagogy. ” Sui Fai John Mak
Is creativity an important trait for the mensbeeld in Connectivism?

(to be continued)

Sui Fai John Mak: why do people leave the course (MOOC)? Could be a lack of motivation, due to the lack of connections, engagement and feedback when learning online.

In a MOOC are technical ways to connect. Howto connect to MOOC’ers.

Look at: http://www.fullcirc.com/2012/02/14/relating-community-activities-to-technologies/

Picture: I did enlarge the field “Global Elements”. This field is not connected to the other fields in the diagram. Why not? *)

How do “Learning Designers” manage to adapt to the diversity of learners (read comments!) and teachers?
How do Learning Designers design a rhizomatic learning course?
Do exist learning designers in a connectivist educational environment ?
When one is a learning designer and not a teacher how does one keep in touch with teachers and learners?
Is Learning Design still connected to behaviourism?
Do schools employ/use learning designers or do businesses?
Are teachers and students involved in Learning Design?
What are negative points in Learning Design? Does it really work? Do Learning Designers a better job than teachers who design their own course?
One could say I do Learning Design because I edit a teacher website with sources for teaching. http://softskills.kennisnet.nl, but I did not know this until now.
Is Learning Design Custom Made Education? Or is it one size fits all?
Does Learning Design need Testing and Assessments?
Is Learning complicated or complex or chaotic? Is Learning Design possible because of the complex or complicated nature of Learning?
According to Snowden, in the 21st century University we should be looking at more originality in undergraduate courses, as opposed to just teaching information. Is Learning Design able to originality in learning?
*) The question is how could distance/online learning address this context in the educational discourse, while designing curriculum to address the contexts of the global village?

Picture from Current Research in Learning Design, Rob Koper, Open University of the Netherlands, Educational Technology Expertise Centre changed by me.

When we want to translate information of a piece of stone in an artificial language in order to make use of the information in a collaborative collective way, we would have to know what part of the endless information would be useful. But that we cannot know that, because that would depend on the outcome of the process.

To connect knowledge you need to connect people.

The language target applications are ” collaborative semantic tagging (`balisage’) of any idea or concept available on the Web (blogs, images, software, documents, data in general) ” (source: http://www.ieml.org/spip.php?article152

I do not know the meaning of the “collaborative”. Is it the machine that does the tagging, or is it humans that do the tagging?
If it is the machine, to tag means to understand, do machines know what they say?
If it is the human, why this new language?

“.. collaborative semantic search, including comparison, merging and navigation … “

Again, this collaborative-word, Is IEML a way to Artificial Intelligence? Is IEML a kind of Esperanto for machines or for humans?

You write ” EML is more for the categorization of digital data than for direct expression ” (Facebook) How could a language make categorization easy? Is categorization a kind of abstract thinking, finding meaning?
The categories are not given to data in a automated way, categorization is a way to add meaning to data. How could a computer do that?

• Some music is composed  or “invented” by a composer and the sounds are produced by a (group of ) musician(s) and people are listening to the music. Handel ‘Largo’ – The London Symphony Orchestra
• Some music is invented and produced by a musician or a group of musicians, for listener(s). God bless the child Eric Dolphy
• Some music is made by the audience for the audience.
• Some music is not invented, not produced as music, but is heard by somebody.. Is this music?
• Some music is not perceived.

This list has a connection to teaching and learning. (Is teaching an Art or Applied science?)

Music is a selection of sounds, a choice from all possible sounds. John Cage’s 4’33 is an example of this.

What would happen if we made software (maybe it does exist somewhere) to select sounds in a clever way. The software selects sounds with help of some rules and clever heuristics.
If the sounds were played by a computer would that be music?

If we did the same trick with software to write a novel, with help of smart heuristics, analytics of masterpieces of literature. Would the result be literature? art? a story? Would the computer beat the ape / monkey?

Theodore Roszak (‘The cult of information, the folklore of computers and the true art of thinking’, New York, 1986) does not believe computers are thinking machines. Processing information is not thinking. Thinking, creativity, dreaming, fantasy, are humane processes, and Roszak expresses fear we will forget the differences between thinking and processing information.

image: Master of Female Half-Lengths [Dutch Northern Renaissance Painter, active ca.1530-1540]