Recent Posts
Archives
- July 2011
- June 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- December 2009
- September 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- June 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
Categories
- Abstraction
- Admin
- Analytic/Continental
- Blogging
- Book
- Capital v.1
- City Planning
- Coffee
- Cognitive Science
- Contradiction
- Conversations
- Courses
- Critical Theory
- Critique
- Current Events
- Dialogue
- Drafts
- Ecology
- Empiricism
- Events
- Family
- Fetish
- Fieldwork
- Grundrisse
- Intellectual Property
- Interdisciplinary
- Linguistics
- Links
- Logic
- Logic of Science
- Marxes
- Materialism
- Math and Science
- Metatheory
- Methodology
- Miscellaneous
- Negations
- Overheard
- Phenomenology of Spirit
- Philosophy of History
- Political Economy
- Politics
- Procrastination
- Professional Life
- Psychology
- Reading
- Reading Group
- Reification
- Religion
- Self-Reflexivity
- Social Movements
- Social Science
- Sociology of Knowledge
- Supervision
- Teaching
- Technology
- Thesis
- Transformation
- Writing
Advertisements
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 . . .
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… 😉
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.
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… 😉
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.”
Pingback: Roughtheory.org » Habermas and Brandom, Facts and Norms
Pingback: Roughtheory.org » Great(er) Scott!