Rough Theory

Theory In The Rough

Category Archives: Links

Monkey See…

In a post about why he doesn’t want to discuss candidate preferences in the US Presidential race, Tyler Cowen from Marginal Revolution has managed to write the most depressing sentence I’ve seen in while:

Chimps will give up bananas, just to be able to gaze at photos of high-status other chimps.

Sinthome over at Larval Subjects also appears to have chimps on the brain – although (particularly in light of Tyler Cowen’s comments) it may be important to point out that too much ground may have been conceded here on origins:

Just because a human comes from chimpanzees it doesn’t follow that a human is a chimpanzee. A thing is not identical with its origins.

Blogopalypse Now

Mostly Harmless is at it again – gathering together the various conversational strands of the cross-blog discussion of contemporary apocalypticism from a few months back, and adding some new voices. I had intended to try to write something new for the event, but find myself strangely too busy at the moment for the end of the world – if only they could schedule these cataclysms further in advance… Anyone missing substantive content around here lately might be interested in my original intervention into this discussion – which, like most of my interventions into cross-blog discussions, was a tangent, in this case avoiding the topic of apocalypticism altogether, but exploring a few themes relating to the connections between sociology and psychology in Adorno’s (and Sinthome’s!) versions of critical theory. Mostly Harmless provides many more links (including some to summary posts here) to earlier and later rounds of the discussion: note that, unlike me, most of the people who originally contributed to this discussion actually said something about apocalypticism in contemporary culture… Enjoy!

Ontology Interests [Updated x2]

For those who have been curious about L Magee’s project, particularly if you’ve had a look and are still wondering what it is all about, I note that an introduction has been now posted over at schematique. Armed with the new information this introduction provides, I logged in to have a play, and am currently contemplating what to enter into my profile. Like the (sorely missed) “destroy” button, the profile screen offers all kinds of outlets for my anarchic impulses. There is a very large free response space, for example, where I can list my “ontology interests”. I’m wondering whether the appropriate answer for someone like me should be (with a nod to rob) “that there be none” or “prefer epistemology, myself”…

I also love the help information on this page: it’s not every day you see help for a profile that explains:

Only the username and password fields are obligatory. Other fields are used to add metadata to your ontology

But what if my ontology interest is “avoiding metadata”? What if I like my ontologies neat?

Also, although this seems somehow oddly appropriate, given my interest in self-reflexivity, should I have been able to do this: Read more of this post

Huis Clos

orange. continues to hold this blog’s methodology slam title, offering a new interpretation of what’s really going on, for all who have been confused by L Magee’s ontology-matching experiment: orange. suggests that it’s later than we think. What LM has been calling a “pre-alpha” software development phase is no such thing: in reality, the software is fully developed, and the experiment’s on us!!! The cat’s out of the bag now, LM: admit it – you’re just studying what academics do when you throw them out of their comfort zone, and place them in a state of confusion: do we bluff, nod sagely, and pretend that we know what’s going on? Do we lash out and start tossing citations? How confusing does the environment actually have to be, before we fess up and admit we have no idea what’s going on?

Beta Blocker

I know that L Magee has been working very hard recently on the development and debugging of the ontology matching software that will provide the empirical data for a dissertation on the Semantic Web. Being the kind, considerate friend that I am, and wanting to ensure that LM stays always in a state of good cheer through this intensive work period, I must draw LM’s (and everyone else’s) attention to how the beta is already garnering scholarly repute. From orange.’s interference: yes, LM, you have now been immortalised as:

LMagee, contributor to Rough Theory and author of the strangest beta I ve ever seen

I Do

This may be just about the funniest thing I’ve ever seen (it helps if you’re somewhat familiar with L Magee’s site and the topics discussed over there):

“HI! I’ve have similar topic at my blog! Please check it..
Thanks.”

To the hundreds of fastidious commentators out there – I would love to “check it”. But the link always goes to some site which sells pharmaceuticals or other products I have no interest in. I really appreciate the sincere effort to connect on an intellectual level with my various interests: social theory, philosophy, computer science, the Semantic Web – but I’m not sure how your “blog” is “similar”? Did I miss the link to biological ontologies on your site?

Anyway, would love to discuss this further. Great blog by the way.
Thanks.

It does raise an interesting question, though: what kinds of spam would be relevant to your interests, LM? Perhaps you should engage in a bit of ontology-matching with some representative spammers to see whether your worldviews have more in common than you currently imagine. Perhaps there’s even some commercial potential here – a scale, perhaps, of the likelihood of spammers reaching intersubjective consensus with particular kinds of websites…

Don’t Begrudge Me

L Magee has rolled out the beta of the software for the PhD project profiled over at schematique.org – thanking me “begrudgingly” for my support, by which I take it LM means the methodology slam to which I contributed last week – offline, alas, so no records of the slamming remain, but if any of you were wondering why I haven’t written on the reading group lately, that would be because last week’s meeting was given over to slamming, at the expense of discussing Mannheim.

LM is currently seeking volunteers to break – er… I mean test – the software, which aims to create an environment for collaborative ontology matching. Don’t know what this means? Go over and have a look! Still don’t know what this means? Go into the environment and have a play! Still don’t know what this means? Well, that’s LM’s problem – go ask over at schematique… Although my understanding is that it has something to do with a bit of applied philosophical research within a controlled experimental environment, oriented to uncovering the potentials and the limits of commensurability. So bring along your inner Kuhn or Davidson, and assist with the development of the software that will make or break LM’s dissertation research… ;-P

P.S. I’ve just gone over to have a play myself and, can I just say: once you’ve logged in, you’re offered a set of options that includes one called “destroy”. This option just seems so much more… appealing than the others. I mean, why do milquetoasty things like “copy” or “share”, when that bright, might-as-well-be-blinking “destroy” option looms so tantalisingly. What is it meant to be – some kind of collaborative “nuclear option”?

Ghostwriter

I’m seeing a few things on the web today that I identify with… a bit too much. First, even before I read the post, I felt a shudder of recognition (or was that someone walking over my grave?) when I saw the title of Sarapen’s “Today’s Paragraph”… I have to string together far more paragraphs than Sarapen does – and feel the same dismay when I perseverate over one of them…

Then, from is there no sin in it, A White Bear mentions a novel technique for carving time out for writing your thesis:

Back while I was writing my MA thesis, which was bad, I would often get so stressed by my lack of productivity and the social demands made of me that I would walk into my friends offices and declare, “If you need me, I’m dead.” Dead people don’t have deadlines, and they don’t have friends. We can all recall them with fondness, and then be really impressed when they come back from the grave with a few more pages written and time for a night at the bar.

My version of death allowed for five-minute phone conversations, during which I would reiterate the fact of my death and the instability of my undead spirit, which must return shortly to the grave. I could also occasionally be seen drinking coffee and eating lunch, but I assured those who saw me that I was, in fact, dead, and that they must be dreaming.

Being dead, I could ignore the news, the phone, the doorbell, my parents, my roommates, our cat, and the television. I could attend a party and not speak to a single soul. It is not within my current abilities to talk to you, you see. I’m dead. It was awesome.

This is awesome. I am so doing this. My version of death, I suspect, might include the odd seance with my reading group, and a bit of haunting of favoured websites – my coffeeshop alreadys sits on the boundaries of the nether realms, so I’m certain to be found lurking there. But I’m happy to surrender phone conversations entirely, and I suspect I won’t be material enough to answer knocks on my office door or to respond to invitations for social events. My goal will be to return from the grave having left a number of pages behind, as my writing struggle of the moment is to figure out how to focus and distill a mass of content that I had not originally intended to include in my dissertation, and that I had therefore written situationally, without the intention of tying it together into a linear argument that could be read and understood by people not embedded in the context in which the writing was done… Those people who tell you just to write – that it’s always easier to revise, than to start from scratch: I don’t think they’ve encountered writing quite like mine…

Dissolutions…

I was looking for a bit of illustrative material for the quant methods course, and ran across a number of illustrations of (purported… ;-P) exam responses – not quite what I was after, but I couldn’t resist reproducing a couple of them here.

Via Evolving Thoughts:

A math problem to die for...

And via fullhyd.com (which offers a number of others I haven’t reproduced here):

X marks the spot.

The Goldie Locks Strategy

Okay, I’m reading too many blogs this morning… (I have to kill some time before a meeting…) But I wanted to pass along this quote, in which Omar Lizardo characterises a very common academic argumentative strategy almost too precisely for comfort:

The model of theoretical analysis is what one could call the “Goldie-Locks strategy.” This theory is too individualist; this theory is too collectivist; this theory is just right. This theory ignores agency; this theory ignores structure; this theory is just right; this theory ignores power; this theory reduces everything to power relations; this theory is just right…and so on, and so on.

There is a more rigorous argumentative approach that has a superficially similar structure, of course: one that involves demonstrating the common assumptions that underlie superficial oppositions – and then attempts to show how it’s possible to redefine the problem more productively, overcoming an argumentative impasse by displacing the debate onto a new terrain. But eclectic middle roadism is a different kind of beast…

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started