Comments on: Do You Believe in Me?

By: Roughtheory.org » Great(er) Scott!

Roughtheory.org » Great(er) Scott! — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:16:57 +0000

[...] best be illustrated by the extent Scott took to conceal this identity, when my own identity was called into question some months back. As “Scott”, Scott wrote: One student insists N. Pepperell’s [...]

By: Roughtheory.org » Habermas and Brandom, Facts and Norms

Roughtheory.org » Habermas and Brandom, Facts and Norms — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:37:54 +0000

[...] In spite of the obvious difficulties of joint-authoring a paper with a fictional collaborator, NP and I have decided to submit a presentation for the upcoming Australasian Society for Continental Philosophy conference entitled Dialogues in Place. [...]

By: Nate

Nate — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:41:25 +0000

I’m under the impression we have an implied contract for mutual belief, which obligates me to affirm the proposition “N. Pepperell is a real person” and to not have truck with any speculation to the contrary.

And I really like the thinking on the fly quality, it’s like an invitation “think through this with me, if you like.”

By: N Pepperell

N Pepperell — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:47:00 +0000

lol – yeah, see, but the problem is that I often write when I have so little time, that the text just kind of flows out the fingers without, if this makes sense, my “hearing” what I’m saying. Then I have to choose between holding back on the post until I have time to proof it properly (which, with my schedule this year, could be never…), or just letting it out into the world, and hoping for the best… For the moment, the second option seems to be winning out – but not without a certain measure of terror…

By: rob

rob — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:26:41 +0000

One student insists N. Pepperell’s fictional, and I’m inclined to agree. No actual person could write that much that quickly and remain sane.

I’ve always been particularly amused by the way you regularly preface a comment or post with something along the lines of “I unfortunately don’t have time today to go into detail” or “My head’s a mess today and so what I’m going to say will probably be incomprehensible”, before going on to write 2-3000 words of lucid, insightful prose.

By: N Pepperell

N Pepperell — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:18:54 +0000

Thanks for the comments on the Capital posts – I was telling someone the other day that I’m always vaguely terrified when I post one of those – something about thinking on the fly, about something I really need to understand well…

I’ve been watching the Fractal Ontology folks – fantastic stuff, and very nice project concept.

Your Ryan/Aless description has always stuck in my memory – this seemed like as good an excuse as I would ever get to mention it…

By: Ryan/Aless

Ryan/Aless — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:14:55 +0000

Ha! I couldn’t stop laughing out loud when I read you put the question in terms of how I’ve described my own “author function.” I guess the similarity (of what I imply, in “constructing” Ryan/Aless) and you posing the question of the “reality (materiality, historicity)” of “N. Pepperell” point to the fact (the referent? i.e. that it “actually” “exists”) of this somewhat “fictional” authorial function. But then that’s relying on a certain theory of signification . . .

Another blog that’s worth the look into this whole matter is, I think, Fractal Ontology. Just like you, of late they have been putting out unbelievably massive output (from guys who claim to be undergrads). I don’t get. How do you guys/girls do it?

‘Loving the posts on Capital, by the way . . .