Nate over at what in the hell… has just written a fantastic response to my conference talk from last week. He summarises the key points of my talk (which would have been much more interesting to hear, I think, if I had a similar skill with expression) and asks all sorts of questions that I have no time to answer today, but that I will try to pick up as soon as I can, because I’d far rather talk about those issues, than do what I need to do today. En route, he comes up with much more evocative terms for what I discuss than I do (my favourite has to be the “bigger-coathook” descriptor for how projects like Habermas’ approach immanent critique). And he acronymises me!! Into something that sounds like some new kind of internet relay chat!!
I’ll respond over here, unfortunately probably not until the weekend, given that I have a major deadline I absolutely must meet tomorrow. But go read Nate’s post first (and Nate, when I do answer, do you mind if I reproduce some of your post over here, and intersperse responses? As I suspect that’ll be easier to follow…).
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Rough Theory 
hi NP,
Oh yeah of course, do whatever you like. I’m glad my attempts at rhetorical flourish worked for you (you’re a philosophy person, though). I really like that kind of thing, like when Austin says something about letting his cats onto the table or when Russell makes a joke about Hegelians arguing the present king of France wheres a toupee. Those are lame jokes, but I like them. I also tried to be cute as compensation because I thought I wasn’t doing justice to your post, glad it worked for you and wasn’t annoying.
Re: the more substantive stuff, I look forward to hearing what you have to say. I’m going to be slow in replying probably (god I hope so, otherwise I really will miss a deadline if I blog instead of work – this is way funner than that work; stupid work).
take care,
Nate