Erisology

sus

Well-known member
Pithy aphoristic style is an interesting thought in terms of style. John's blogging is pretty far separate from mine, I'd call mine more just tinkering, I think it's an interesting project. But I'll have to think about it myself, it's a good suggestion. I do like his longer debate analyses, but it's obviously not an either/or situation
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Haven't read anything of Sontag's actually, but now I've got my reading for tomorrow.

And I like the idea of scaffolding, because it is temporary. Could that still suffice? If you lean on something long enough, you do depend on it, even if you know/understand that it is temporary, no? If it proves to be reliable/sturdy ground, then you take liberties accordingly - in this sense, we all take things for granted that, if removed, may let us fall down a peg, or far worse.

But I would agree, that something solid is needed in order to really do anything (and I would lovingly welcome evidence otherwise, evidence that would support a day-to-day schizo-praxis). How much control do we have over the collateral damage, that is, whatever price we pay for taking a position, making a decision? You mentioned that false dichotomies can do damage - do we have control over this damage, its ramifications? Or does it inevitably spread back out into infinite contingency? That is, can we appreciate enough the consequences of providing and accepting a single answer (an answer that takes a position and privileges certain values/valuations over others, rather than the kind of sustain ambivalence I have in mind, the voice of which is silence) - can we appreciate the consequences enough to pick such an answer, one whose damage can be accounted for and managed?

Damn it, this is difficult.

Aside: is there a thread here that covers Alfred Jarry? I wonder if Deleuze gets into Jarry at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus

constant escape

winter withered, warm
And another thing I would appreciate your thoughts on, which somewhat relates to the topic of disagreement, only internal disagreement, rather than disagreement between two people.

Specifically, a mode of writing that involves constantly breaking from your own line of reasoning, in the interest of exploring parallel theses, theses that inevitably collide or contradict. Instead of basing a text around a central, and consistent, set of axioms, you constantly redefine these axioms, such that you are effectively arguing against your previous assertions. Thing is, each time you recapitulate the thesis, you are still holding true to whatever it is you are trying to express, but unburdening yourself from the pressures of consistency and cohesiveness. @luka hit this vein either yesterday or today, in the talk of wearing multiple masks in poetry.

The point of this kind of parallel thesis approach would be "parafiguration", which amounts to the superposition of different theses about a topic, in the interest of revealing what lies between the given subjectivities at play in each thesis. It wouldn't be clean or crisp. By constantly uprooting and replanting yourself in terms of values and positions, one may be able to break the invisible habit of searching for the one (the one answer, the optimal synthesis, etc.).

I had tried to write this out as a series of "strings" that each sought to recapitulate a thesis on a given chapter. I sort of visualized it as a decision tree, wherein our deeply learned method has us search for the best answer, and then discount all other answers. That is, any honest and substantial backtracking of logic if forbidden, forcing us to persist, linearly.

The approach I have in mind would consist of forking probes into comparative theses - without subordinating them, as speculations, to a central/master thesis. In other words, it would be a radically noncommital expression of a sort of meta-thesis, an expression that risks dawdling into oblivion in the interest of illuminating something in the crossfire of conflicting theses. The intersection of this crossfire would be the point of disagreement, but disagreement between theses issued from the same author.

By attempting to hold a consistent position throughout the text, you see things from that one position, that point (or some narrow margin around that point). The method I'm describing would consist of moving the position you take, which would entail both contradiction and redundancy, seeing as you would be reporting on largely the same topics just from a different angle. Well, seeing the same thing from different angles lets you see more than one side of it, no?

I had considered "strings" as durations of consistency of thesis, the string "ending" when the thesis is transvaluated. Potentially, one could mobilize a variety of strings and form/weave a "fabric" of collisions, a lattice of disagreement points.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
I can only partially see how its repulsive. Thing is, I don't exactly have people I can discuss this sort of stuff with, so I readily take the opportunity, despite the stomachs it may turn. And it arguably should turn stomachs, at least until a clearer language is used.
 

RWY

Well-known member
Maybe try summarising some of your big, wordy posts - possibly when you've reached a certain conjuncture of thought? - in a clearer language for us philistines
 

sus

Well-known member
here ya go @Rudewhy

"signal and correctives": both sides are in a tug of war. each side thinks it has to tug hard because the other side is tugging hard. because both sides are tugging they're exerting a lot of energy but in the same place where they started (stalemate). but if they both just stopped tugging they could just hang out n be chill and it would also be a stalemate

"decoupling": hold yr damn variables constant asshole! don't be a shithead; let people entertain hypotheticals

"chinese whispers": people are unreliable transmission points of information
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
I can only partially see how its repulsive
you're best off ignoring that kinda thing tbh, even if it's (presumably) good-natured

who are any of us to tell @constant escape how or much to write?

(mind I gave the exact same advice when they first turned but hey, if that's how they prefer to write, great)

anyone who don't like big wordy posts is free to not read em, as I ignore everything around here that doesn't interest me

or you can look something up when you don't know what it is, which is what I do, it don't take much effort
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Maybe try summarising some of your big, wordy posts - possibly when you've reached a certain conjuncture of thought? - in a clearer language for us philistines
A greater effort can always be made - I just wanted to say that your reaction is perfectly justified, for whatever my opinion is worth.

Much of my posts above consist of throwing everything at a wall to see what sticks, which is hardly an effective method in terms of getting messages across clearly. In that way, I'm catering more to myself than to others, because I hardly have a grasp myself.

I also just get excited when I see folks like @suspendedreason elaborating new theory, and I get the chance to engage with them.

@luka I can put in a special order to the poesy department, to see what can be cooked up. Admittedly, their budget has been slashed significantly, leaving them near-defunct and pining.
 

RWY

Well-known member
anyone who don't like big wordy posts is free to not read em, as I ignore everything around here that doesn't interest me

The topic of this discussion does interest me - my issue is that the vocabulary of crit-theory and academic marxism (i.e. "praxis") isn't particularly useful with regards to thinking through these ideas and that there are other ways of approaching this kind of stuff

or you can look something up when you don't know what it is, which is what I do, it don't take much effort

I do look words I don't understand up - unfortunately it doesn't stop me from thinking it's all intellectual grandstanding
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
what can all this tell us about erisology?
I'm not sure

perhaps a refinement of the idea of socially contingent response, that discord is driven as much by the speaker's own investments - in particular social or cultural capital (especially if it's a public argument), or emotional investment in one's own rightness - as by counterbalancing a signal. a fancy way of saying people are interested in being right - winning arguments - as end in itself as means of self-validation etc, but jives with how online argument seems to actually work much of time.

is there a way to avoid new expression of cultural energy hardening into entrenched dogmatism? is it possible to carve out new cultural space without it closing off potential forward paths? what are some potential ways to disincentivize victory as a means of self-validation? idk, I'm just spitballing

maybe ask your friend to stop by and tell us what he thinks if he does that kind of thing
 
  • Love
Reactions: sus

sus

Well-known member
A great introduction to our next erisological idea: Are big words grandstanding? Why this failure to communicate?

As Bourdieu remarks, the habitus reflexively, in concord with the disposition and space of possibles of its host, the lifehistory of the...

I guess one alternative frame is that if you read writing with big words, and spend the time understanding the big words, pretty soon you have a hole in your head shaped like that big word, it's somehow become a Thing, a presence, a real object just like a book or dog

So it actually would take significant work sometimes to try to explain that Thing just like it would anything else, a book, a dog...
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
unfortunately it doesn't stop me from thinking it's all intellectual grandstanding
well, you're welcome to your thoughts

in a similar vein, I think your posts - and the related ones here - are in the unfortunate vein of anti-intellectualism often prized by the Dissensus of now

but there you go, erisology in action. perhaps both of us are correct, and we can resolve this dialectic.

though whether we can or not, no one's obliged to not use fancy vocabulary just as you're not obliged to use it

if you think there are other ways of approach, why not enlighten us? I'm sure we'd be glad to hear your thoughts.

something more constructive than "repulsive stuff", i.e. basically anything
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
this thread doesn't even have a real excess of fancy academic vocabulary tho? it's mostly self-invented neologisms

I don't use much myself because I don't know enough to use it properly
 
Top