suspendedreason mentioned him. sounds cool but i can't be bothered reading theory to tell the truth. it's too difficult.
Wait really? That's so surprising. SR's so pragmatic, Barthes is so irrationally sensual.
Roland Barthes, The Pleasure of the Text is probably my favoritest
a joy to read, broken up in nice little aphoristic short sections, a mind rearranger for me aged whenever it was (21?)
The Lover's Discourse also by Roland is wonderful - similar style and structure - but less applicable to other things as so focused on romantic love
Thank you, well-worded, tying things together. Do we know of attempts to establish any such "protocol for translating frames of reference"?It often seems to happen that there are two superposed models each of which captures and explains some important properties of the system under consideration, but no synthesis or overarching meta-model seems to be available. The classic structure/agency dichotomy is actually a good example of this. You can take a strategic, agent-centred view of a situation - here are the agents, their interests, their strategies, and the resulting stand-offs and equilibria - or you can take a structural view in which agents simply fill out roles prescribed by structural positions, and both will to some degree enable you to navigate what’s going on, but attempts at synthesis tend to come up short simply because they’re fundamentally incompatible language games - there’s no overarching protocol for translating between frames of reference. So you can aim at a better version of either type of model, but the real of the situation - to be all Lacanian about it - is to be found in that impasse.