Rolling Philosophy

That sounds like a really cool topic. Systems theory and cybernetics are pretty interesting fields of thought ... like if philosophy actually dealt with the real world.

oh, cool! I know someone working on Peirce and erm computation theory and things like that?, it sounds like a really interesting connection even if I don't quite know enough about either side to see exactly what's going on with it.

That sounds pretty amazing. Feel like there's a lot of untapped potential in Peirce (and lots of new stuff by him still seeing the light of day). I was frequently astonished by his simultaneous total weirdness and prescience.

It was actually a really fun topic for me and I certainly learned a lot writing it. Got to second base with a press so far but we'll see how that goes. In any case I feel lucky. How many people get to read this stuff, let alone write about it?

keep us updated on the press status, would purchase said book.

Will do. That's very kind!

pretty good critchley interview on his new work on love & otherwise

http://www.full-stop.net/2012/04/02/interviews/tyler-malone/simon-critchley/

Tree of Life I couldn’t even get to the position of wanting to like it. It seems to feed that Emersonian, American desire for authenticity, which just fills me with nausea. I’ll go with Lars von Trier and Melancholia. Nature is Satan’s church.

That's kinda funny (also surprising given Critchley's admiration for Stanley Cavell--he should know Emerson better than that). Almost get the sense Critchley finds himself in a weird position, with some vestigial loyalty to some euro-skeptic-hermeneutics-of-suspicion way of thought that seems at odds with the "religious" turn of his work. I'd argue Emerson represents a more rigorous turn away from that stuff than Critchley's own recent work.

on another topic: has anyone read Brian Massumi's "A User's Guide to Capitalism Schizophrena"?

http://www.amazon.com/Users-Guide-Capitalism-Schizophrenia-Deviations/dp/0262631431/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_T1?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3A7S5CTE1D9AK&colid=336N6EL0R3GGA

Capitalism AND Schizophrenia obviously.

no, though it sounds extraordinarily useful

curious about yr reading of emerson ryan! that bit of the interview made me laugh.

didnt malick study under cavell?

y, they know each other

What's implicitly at issue, I think, is Cavell's readings of Emerson under the rubric of post-Kantian skepticism. (Emerson as a disappointed Romantic, if you will. See in particular "Experience"--which is absolutely extraordinary and one of the best things written by anyone ever.) So Emerson's big project becomes about "mourning the loss of the world" and that sort of thing. I think there's a better take on Emerson that can do without bringing in the bogeyman of skepticism, but Cavell's readings are pretty indispensable.

And Critchley has written about this! Which is why the idea of "Emersonian authenticity" must be an intentional straw-man version of Emerson.

idk as a nonphilosophe i just read it as a halfassed skein on 'lol americans and their residual calvinism'

yes def that too!

please let this be as hilarious to someone else here as it is to me

So even with two stage review, journal editors are tempted to publish papers with weak methods but positive results. And why not – unless important customers insisted, why would a journal handicap itself by committing itself to not publish such papers, which bring more fame and prestige to the journal.

Journal customers include universities who tenure professors who publish in prestigious journals, and grant givers who prefer grantees who publish similarly. But why should these customers handicap themselves – they also win by affiliating with those who publish papers with weak methods but positive results.

I’ve suggested that academia functions primarily to credential people as impressive and interesting in certain ways, so outsiders, like students and patron, can gain prestige by affiliating with them. If so, and if those who publish weak-method positive-results are in fact more impressive and interesting than those who publish stronger-method negative-results, there is little prospect to get rid of this publication bias.

What is possible is to augment publications with betting market prices estimating the chance each result will be upheld by future research. This would let readers get unbiased estimates on the reliability of research results. Alas, it seems there is no customer willing to pay extra to get such reliability estimates. Most everyone involved in the process mainly cares about signals of impressiveness; few care much about which research results are actually true.

i'll cut directly to the best part: "What is possible is to augment publications with betting market prices estimating the chance each result will be upheld by future research. This would let readers get unbiased estimates on the reliability of research results. Alas, it seems there is no customer willing to pay extra to get such reliability estimates. Most everyone involved in the process mainly cares about signals of impressiveness; few care much about which research results are actually true."

I struggled for a while to think of a point of reference through which to relate Badiou's philosophy. I hope that you will not think I take lightly the topic of dubstep to which I adapt Badiou's theory of the subject and event in music. What I intend to present is precisely an attack on ironic appreciation of art as much as the key terms and rationale behind Badiou's works.

lolz

http://pastebin.com/tfHN2Ah5

thread for random crit theory bloggers discussing pop music

has anyone picked up the Zizek yet? it's a monster. i was looking at it at the bookstore but can't really justify spending 60 dollars on it. hopefully it'll start to turn up cheap somewhere soon.

I'm watching a newish Cavell Q&A:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9z-LyUuDes

I got to meet him a few years ago. Nice old man.

the new Zizek has turned up 'cheap' 'somewhere' already, if you can be bothered figuring out how to convert from a .mobi file...

ROLLING HARDMAN THREAD 2009

ha, hardmannery was not my intention, it's just that verso are the kind of marxists who really object to poor students eating into their profit margins for the sake of learning things for free.

inadvertent hardmannery is the best

but yeah it's cool how the amount of ebooks available via transpecuniary methods has exploded in the last couple years, ppl finally bothered to use their scanners huh

i've been pleasantly surprised to discover how much radical philosophy is available in formats that need to be converted

oh wait it's probably ppl just downloading the ebooks from amazon &c and then converting them isn't it

still all

-of hegel and kant and spinoza is on gutenberg and that never got me to read it

i think most of it is still scans, disproportionate anger can be redirected from publishers who want to stay in business to the idiots who don't ocr their pdfs for easy searchability.

actually i think a lot of it is now pre-publication pdfs straight from somewhere in the editing/publication process.

yeah i've seen both in the last few months

while trial downloading books to evaluate the current state of book piracy, obviously

"The Pete Townshend Defence"

talkin bout deterritorialization

The most interesting part of the Cavell thing is a discussion starting at 1:16:00 of "tact, morality, and the everyday" - interesting because I don't think "tact" elsewhere arises as a topic in Cavell's books, though it could easily have been made to.

the new Zizek has turned up 'cheap' 'somewhere' already, if you can be bothered figuring out how to convert from a .mobi file...

that's true of cours, but i want the BOOK.

I only got halfway thru the Cavell thing but it was enjoyable, will finish later--some of the questions reminded me why i tend to avoid those kinds of things, however.

found this for freebies online. heard good things about it:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Radical-Enlightenment-Solomon-Maimon/dp/0804751366

Not really sure what other thread to mention this in, so--I'm reading "The Coming Insurrection," it's alternately constructively provocative and bullshit.

oh man, i remember reading that. it's kinda ridiculous

anyone UK-based should take advantage of an Amazon error and pre-order the collection 'Laruelle and Non-philosophy' for just £4.99: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Laruelle-Non-philosophy-Critical-Connections-Mullarkey/dp/0748645349/ref=zg_bs_276315_1 currently at #83 in the amazon.co.uk sales ranks, we can get it to #1!

lol

pretty sure there are legal get outs maybe amazon will be a mensch and 'low it

nonlaruelle

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OD10wcOkTpU/Tgna0f9iSRI/AAAAAAAAAgM/8lxd_wHfsIk/s1600/05001Ag.jpg

I am sorry if anyone is annoyed if i continue to bring up stuff that isn't strictly "philosophy" but has anyone read any Anthony Wilden? I've just started "System and Structure" (1980 edition) and find it pretty amazing in its interweaving of Bateson, Lacan, and Marx.

here's his wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Wilden

http://80000hours.org/blog/46-how-to-be-a-high-impact-philosopher

hmmm this is why ethics isn't very interesting to me

Studies show professors of ethics don't behave any more ethically than other people.
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/EthSelfRep.htm

I think it would be great if philosophy were more practical, but aside from kicking aside any religious figure ever trying to talk about ethics on current affairs shows or ethics committees (whatever they are) i don't know how it would be possible.

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2012/07/syllabus-idea-making-difference.html