Rolling Philosophy

I don't think there's any way I could do this! will have to try later.

it's funny but the idea of this is essentially what my advisor tried to get me to do on the "dissertation" section of my cover letters. he said "try not to use any of the specialized words you use in the dissertation."

for research like that, the hardest part may be that even if you can give a good basic paraphrase of a more sophisticated idea, you can't even stipulate its name once you explain it, so you have to be able to repeatedly keep things in basic terms

yeah and it certainly shows how big fancy words are developed in many cases to make ease of communication greater between academics. (if certainly not for outsiders)

if it had "math" this'd be easy for me

I hate philosophical jargon

next time someone uses math in a conversation with me: "spare me the jargon!"

nah just the word "math"

nah just the word "math"

you mean "stuff with numbers and such."

numbers are so passé

anyway just pick a word in the 1000 yr not gonna use and say "let 'blah' be ..." And then you can use jargon

haha but there's no jargon for the jargon of 'let … be…'

this discussion between david m. berry and alexander galloway struck me as particularly "of the moment." I hope this link works:
http://cultureandcommunication.org/galloway/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Galloway-and-Berry-TCS-Interview-2015.pdf

crossing my fingers on the formatting here:

ARG: We must forget Deleuze. It’s troubling to admit, given how influential Deleuze has been on my own thinking. But it’s imperative today that we forget Deleuzianism in all its many guises. First, we must forget the Google Deleuzians, those who see the world as a vital assemblage, proffering untold bounties of knowledge – and riches. From clouds, to humans, to molluscs, to molecules, the world is nothing but systems. Lines of flight slice through assemblages, creating Berry and Galloway 7 Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 18, 2015 new living landscapes. Systems are open, dynamic, and robust. Networks produce value. These are some of the many mantras of the Google Deleuzians. We must also forget the Carl Sagan Deleuzians. Remember Carl Sagan and his awestruck odes to the ‘billions and billions of stars’? Carl Sagan Deleuzians are those who think that ontology is about producing a sense of sublime grandeur in the mind of the thinker. These kinds of Deleuzians assume that ‘nature’ and ‘human nature’ coincide, and that the world is there ‘for us’ or, more specifically, to ‘impress’ us. For the Carl Sagan Deleuzians ontology means awesome-ology. Finally, we must forget the Wet Diaper Deleuzians, or those who, in an endless restaging of the 1960s, think that being political means liberating one’s desires. (Let’s not forget that Facebook’s entire business plan is based on the liberation of desire.) For the Wet Diaper Deleuzians, everything is a desiring machine driven by an endless reserve of polymorphous perversity. They giggle and cry, suckle and shit, fall down and get back up. The world is a giant sandbox, filled with toys. Everyone they meet is a potential Father or Master that might threaten their desire, someone to be dethroned, debased, even killed. Each act becomes a doll house revolution – off with their heads!

lol

Lines of flight slice through assemblages, creating Berry and Galloway 7 Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 18, 2015 new living landscapes

ha! what's sad is that im pretty sure i read through that and didnt even notice.

in any case that's at the bottom of page 7.

im pretty bitter at the moment but if all of that interview doesn't strike me as a whole lot of nothing.

some dudes should tape record themselves

it reminds me of that portlandia skit: "networks are ovah!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlGqN3AKOsA

lol at the top comment on that video.

not-so-secret authoritarians have been trying the same line of attack on Deleuze since the 60s tbh

google deleuzian sounds pretty cool

degoogian

degoogzian even

degloogzian

Deleuze was a funnier metaphysics right

what a mistake to have ever said THE id

Id isn't a necessarily a mistake?

j. did you ever finish the critique of cynical reason? i read a bit about the whole "bubbles/spheres" project today and it sounds quite interesting.

Ugh the Critique of Pure Reason?

nah!

still goin, amid other reading - a bit over halfway through, will finish (unless end part about german political history is boring)

Shut up about your philosophy. Shut up emirate?

http://againstprofphil.org/

was stoked to see this until i realized that Z is r0b3rt h4nna : /

nice idea, but

philosophical work that is aggressively cosmopolitan and non-chauvinist, critically challenging and edgy, daringly generalist and original, fully humanly meaningful, slightly weird, and deemed “unpublishable” in mainstream venues.

that quote = aggressively interested in one's own boners imo

I mean, I'm a big fan of weird philosophy, much less so self-consciously weird philosophy. I like it when the weirdos think they are talking common sense.

"edgy essays"

daringly boner

i don't know much abt dude's work, i only really took any look at all once he started disseminating screeds in teh wake of the c0l0r4d0 mess, but it seemed excessively mainline and boring

which does make the backstory of his professional career that comes out in the site seem hella depressing - a lifetime of furious 'inner migration'

also makes the key note of criticism of professionalization as such seem more poignant somehow - like, he evidently wasn't out there deleuzein it up, just wanted to defend the rationality of boners etc

looks like positivism trying to pretend it isn't and failing

haha i was just coming here to post this essay from that site

http://againstprofphil.org/analytic-philosophy-vs-continental-philosophy-wtf-why-does-it-still-matter-so-much-an-edgy-essay-by-z-with-critical-discussion-by-x-and-w/

that is a pretty dumb article

it quotes someone as saying this: "It is bizarre indeed that the rest of the humanities (and in most philosophy departments around the world besides those in Britain and the US) seems to feel that the last place for philosophy is philosophy departments."

firstly, does that parse? is it saying that people in non-Anglo philo departments think the last place for philosophy is philosophy departments? then what do people in non-Anglo philosophy departments think of themselves? I think this sentence is garbled

also, as someone who will soon begin a new life in a non-Anglo philo department (with one of the people mentioned later in the essay as a new colleague), it seems like the quoted person at least doesn't understand non-Anglo philosophy departments very well. do Germans today care a lot about this alleged clash? I don't really know. but in cheeseland the preoccupation with this seems quite peculiar.

also I wish people who write essays about how philosophy should be done, would just do philosophy that way.

anyone know anything about this new marvelous clouds book?

so my book finally has an Amazon page with a cover, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0231171005/

the price is inexcusable and I'm not sure it will come down (they probably aren't printing a ton of copies if you know what I mean). but, uh, I have a pdf of the uncorrected proof, just saying.

I'm proud of some aspects, less so of others. it's been so long I feel almost objective about it!

they sorta mucked up the cover imo but the very cool underlying drawing is by none other than peirce himself. not sure why it couldn't have stood alone as the cover but i didn't get to control that.

wow that's awesome!
congrats ryan :)
i plan to read it

your funeral

jk!

and thanks!

That looks like an extremely cool book. Congrats!

yall are respectable and shit

pssshhh

back on topic: has anyone read Danielle Macbeth's "Realizing Reason"--sounds like a big ambitious thing.

missed it but she is real good so... stole that, check