Cross Pollinations:

Stakeout 7:

“Words for impossible objects may have no referent; we may argue that they therefore have no signification or alternatively that, since they include a contradiction, they have none such, but they do have a sense. So the “round square”, “immaterial matter” or “mountain without a valley” all have a sense.”  William James’ critical introduction and guide to Logic of Sense, pg. 57….

I would first connect this with Deleuzes univocity of being in that there are very real experiences we can have (events (without having any concrete thing we can attribute them to: impossible objects.

I would secondly note how this brings us closer to the suspect’s sense of sense. We can only grasp it in an oblique manner (traverse it even (while never looking it straight on. This is what makes it so seductive to philosophy and the suspect so criminal. I would note here the testimony of one equally suspect Frenchman, Layotard, who, in the appendix of The Postmodern Condition, points to the terroristic and authoritarian potential of the natural human gravitation towards the accessible and easily comprehended. I mean how many dumbfuck potentially fascist hicks think they have an exclusive access to the “Truth” because they happen to watch Fox News?

The suspect (via Williams (then goes on to say:

“The paradox is that though sense is related to the proposition, sense is immune to the law of non-contradiction (it is after all why the proposition matters rather than being an indifferent statement of a matter of fact): ‘for the principle of non-contradiction applies to the real, but not to the impossible: impossible are extra-existents, reduced to this minimum, and as such insist in the proposition’ (LoS 35,49 –“

This goes back to something I have heard about the suspect: that philosophers (if they are philosophers (work in the domain of paradox. Once again: Philosophy is not Science. And in order to prove its true worth, it needs to get over this inferiority complex it feels in the face of Science. If it has to create an I-pad in order to have worth, then all is lost: philosophy has succumbed to the tyranny of the functional  (state philosophy (that it should be fighting.

“The philosophy of Deleuze/Guattari is highly neurological, based on the structures of the brain, among others, a widely accepted point of view, nowadays, in neuroscience. Deleuze is philosophical, scientific and psychological, also in respect to ethical and other "applications" or effects of a much bigger impact  than the usual modern neuroscience based philosophers [Dennett, Searle, and, to some extent, Dawkins [who are engaging in a popular philosophy that is heavily influencing pedagogical  theory as applied to the university classroom.” –Harald

First of all, Harald , I took some risky stretches in this particular translation (that is based on what I thought you were getting at, especially at the end concerning your point on the relationship between popular philosophy and pedagogical policy –which I want you to feel free to correct if I happen to be flying too far off the rails you have laid out here.

That said, this all makes perfect sense in the context of the universities increasing dependence on corporate financing and philosophy’s, as well other liberal and fine arts, long standing struggle against the tyranny of the functional –the inferiority complex they have always felt aware of in being pursuits that most people have no interest in. So why wouldn’t today’s philosophy departments turn to teaching students an approach to philosophy that (like the work of Dennett, Searle, Dawkins, and Pinker (stand a chance of selling. It comes out of the increasing pressure on philosophy, the arts (poetry, visual art, as well as fiction (and the sciences to compete with more marketable media such as pop music, TV, and Cinema.

And I’m not so caught up in the Heideggerian esoteric elitism of wanting the payoff of status through my effort that I would consider all it bad. It has produced some good things like the graphic guides I broke my teeth on and the philosophy and popular culture series. And pardon me if I shamelessly gloat on the fact that (and may the wrath of Strunk rest in its grave (these efforts are generally dominated by more continental approaches to philosophy. For me, this seems heroic in the Promethean sense of bringing the fire of the gods to the people: pretty much what Rorty seems to be doing in every word he writes.

(One time, the introducing graphic guides series (http://www.introducingbooks.com/ (had a kind of contest in which they asked everyone to suggest a topic for one of their books. I suggested one on analytic philosophy so I could get a quick shot understanding of it. I didn’t win. But what did come out shortly after was a book on Continental philosophy. I still wonder if my suggestion had anything to do with that.)

The move towards marketability would also explain why philosophy, if you listen to a lot of the podcasts, seems to be moving towards an issue based approach as compared to the abstraction of philosophers like Deleuze or Derrida, etc..Take, for instance, Pete Seeger’s animal rights or Sam Harris’ war against organized religion.

Now getting back to your former point: it is as if Deleuze is always aware of (perhaps even drawn to (the meat of the brain. As a book my son gave me, Ronald Bogue’s Deleuze on Music, Painting, and the Arts, crystallized for me, Deleuze is clearly more drawn to the biological (the earthy even (than he is the “music of the spheres”. In hindsight, it seemed kind of hard not to see: the rhizomes which were based on the structures of the brain, the amorphous imagery of Dali-like folds of skin with spikes of hair poking out of them, the BwO (Body without Organs (the ground zero of all intensities to the nth power, and the fact (and may the wrath of Strunk rest in its grave (that the one book he wrote about an artist was on Francis Bacon.

Granted, Deleuze did utilize calculus which has the purity of “the music of the spheres”. But secondary text advices me not to take that too seriously since…. well, Deleuze never did. I’m guessing his relationship to mathematics was a little like mine: you got to love the feel of it: e=mc². Couldn’t tell you what it means. It just looks pretty.

"Again I hope it is clear and if not I am sorry. I was trying to be as direct and to the point as possible."

Unfortunately, my friend, you may be engaging in a noble but, ultimately, futile project. I'm thinking here of Lacan's point that language is like an attorney that represents us to the attorney (the language (of the other. Even though, as I would still argue, language is an agreement, it is not an homogeneous one. It is rather heterogeneous in the way a language can arrive at slight variations of agreements in the various circumstances it can find itself being practiced in (ex. Ebonics. And this can go down to the individual themselves in their own individual context. This is how two individuals can actually be in agreement yet can still find themselves in a debate –sometimes to the point of hostility.

As Voltaire put it: if you want to talk to me, you’ll have to define your terms.

And this aspect of it seems to get amplified when it comes to philosophy since every philosophical process involves an individual accumulation of terms and meanings and associations (via di̕fferrance (that aren’t always translatable to another process. For instance, I have read through your article about 5 times now, and there are still parts of it that seem impenetrable to me. And I do not blame this on you as much as I attribute it to my symbolic filter (as Hofstadter put it (as well as the terms (and their associative networks –once again: di̕fferrance (we have picked up along the way. And you are in good company. I find myself, for instance, experiencing the same thing with Joe Hughes’ reader guide to Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition. And that is secondary text.

And all this makes sense in the context of my recent excursion into Deleuze’s Logic of Sense in that communication is not so much a matter of the direct exchange of information as the rather oblique manner of working from the sense of what the other is communicating: the performance. This is why I should also preemptively apologize if I’m not directly addressing your points or if I seem to be going off on my own trajectory. If I seem to be doing so, it is only because your suspicion is likely true. But that would only be because I am often working from a sense of what you are saying. It’s the only process by which (through repetition and difference –that of playing what I’m doing and saying against what you are doing and saying (I can hope to get a clearer understanding of what you are doing.

On the uptake, though, your article has participated in a revision in my approach to my process. Up until now, I had thought the best approach to a difficult philosophy (once again: damn the French and their weird obscure philosophies anyway! (was to familiarize myself with the secondary text until I had enough information to delve into the actual text: to use it as a ladder until I was ready to climb into the thought of the actual philosopher. But my five readings of Joe Hughes’ book as well as the very short introduction to Derrida I’m reading now is starting to suggest how ineffective that approach is. Now I’m starting to see the secondary text as secondary to the “performance” of the actual text. I’m starting to see secondary text as supplemental to just diving into the original text and working from the sense I get from it.

“Right now, I don't need Derrida. Thanks anyway for providing a thought-provoking article. I hope others will continue the discussion...
Over to you d63:” Majoram Blues: http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=15253&start=30

First of all, brother: that’s a lot of pressure, especially given the caliber of intellect and training I’m dealing with here. But I will do my best.

That said, I think you bring up an important issue when you say:

“Right now, I don't need Derrida.”

:in that you suggest the import of use over interpretation (a point brought up in Rorty’s Philosophy and Social Hope. If I read you right, what you are basically saying is that, at this point, you are not seeing anything you can use in Derrida, therefore, you choose to move on to other things. And you should since the process we are engaged in is more about what we can use in any writer than it is exact interpretation of that writer. And this, I believe, is because no matter how well we come to know another writer, the process is always our own. Like a mechanic reading a repair manual, the act of reading other great writers can, at best, be supplementary to that process.

To give a personal and anecdotal example, I find that, as an American, I tend to turn more to the French propensity towards poetics and abstraction when there is a Democrat in the Whitehouse. This is because, being a committed progressive, having that allows me a kind of bourgeoisie complacency that having a Republican in the house doesn’t. In that situation, I find myself drawn to more concrete things like the social criticism of a Naomi Klein in order to undermine the popular dogma and hegemony at work in popular culture.

But even in times when I’m allowed that complacency, I still sometimes find myself wondering if I’m not a little too immersed in abstraction. I find myself wanting to get back to something a little more concrete and direct. This is why, for instance, this week’s experiment is committed to Ha Joon-Chang’s Economics: A User’s Guide. At the same time, to give you a sense of what it is about French abstraction and etherspeak that draws me and Yoni in, I do so with the same unease I would feel going back from the subtlety of a poet like Phillip Levine to the accessibility of Ginsberg’s Howl. This may seem strange, but the experience is always haunted by the feeling of it being given to me too easily and directly. I always liked Umberto Eco’s take on it (and I am paraphrasing here: the analytic approach works by a concrete step by step process based on its tradition while the continental works through saying the same old things in such a novel way that it seems like they’re saying something totally new. At the same time, I stand with Yoni when he says:

“First thing never give up and never surrender. If Derrida teaches anything is to not care and just insist of doing philosophy even if people don't really understand what you asking of them.”

This is because doing what we do is dependent on focusing on our process and letting what results result and not letting it interfere in that. But by the same token, you would be equally justified in walking away from it. You simply cannot use what you cannot use. And it is your process and yours alone.

For myself, it’s as I said: I’m drawn to French concepts while being equally drawn to the Anglo-American style of exposition. It is my hope that this will define my style of intellectual pursuit and process. I want to see the hybrids that form between the two gravitations. For instance, I see an overlap in Deleuze’s doctrine of the faculties (based on Kant (and Dennett’s multiple drafts model of consciousness.

It’s all fuel for the fire. And there is a lot of it: way more than any individual can capture in a lifetime or process. What else can we do but lay out our own path through it?

First of all, Andy, I want to return to a previous point you made:

“The reasons why most people don't socialize are quite simple:
1. It's expensive
2. in many places around the globe there is a huge over abundance of venues... 'few' attracting crowds big enough to make 'social events', instead lots of places with just a couple of friends/family and the occasional 'paying tourists'... rather than an under supply 'forcing people together' we have over supply spreading out people and preventing the social experience many people are craving occurring.
3. People are using the internet to gather and socialize.... and those who don't get the internet invite, or do and don't go.... (or when they do go they realize the pictures of the 'large/wild party' are actually staged photos of quite a 'small/dull party' - advertising). “

I think you are right in pointing out we have to be a little careful about assuming that the internet is the cause for changes in our real world social experience. All three propositions, especially 1 and 2, seem pretty sound to me. I would also add, as evidence, the observation that back in 90’s, before the internet really got going, there were already changes occurring. Back in the 70’s, when we went into a bar, it generally started out with everyone in their own little group. But as the night went on, and people loosened up, individuals from various groups began to interact. This, up into the 80’s, often ended up in after hours parties comprised of various members from various groups. But by the 90’s, all that seemed to change. By then, it was as if everyone started in their own little groups and stayed in them as the night went along. I would attribute this (in ways I hope to articulate later (to the narcissism and player mentality that took root in the 80’s with Reagan’s turn to the Neo-Con mentality and blossomed in the 90’s under Clinton’s economic boom. And the main contributor there would not be computer technology as much as MTV.

I would also note that your “if you build it, they will come” criticism seems loosely parallel to a criticism of Say’s Law I arrived at through my present reading of Ha Joon Chang’s Economics, a User’s Guide: the erroneous notion that supply will, by necessity, create demand. But that is something I prefer to reserve for further rhizomes and let incubate.

“That when hipsters party, it’s usually organized through social networking that works not in a 'small scene' but in one that can morph from a handful of people (organizers+friends) to anything up to thousands/10s of thousands of people within a matter of hours or days..... for events and flash mobs that emerge... there is also starting to be spontaneous events without any organizers... “

Okay. But it’s easy to see how this can be hijacked by the corporations that produce the technology that allows this to happen, that is while conveniently leaving out the distance that Hipsters, as you describe them, are trying to maintain between them and the corporate mentality.

Also, I’m interested in the flash mobs –especially since they were what inspired the Occupy Wall Street movement in America. For instance: were they mainly a reaction to austerity measures? Are they still going on? Any information would be useful. I mainly ask because I thought it would be cool to include one in a screenplay, one that is still in a stage of fancy since I’ve only written parts of it. I just think it would be cool to portray one in a movie.

“Trying to spot 'real hipsters' as opposed to 'true hipsters' is about how lightly they integrate technology into their/our lives, hipsters tend to tread lightly whilst showing off gadgets, whilst living actual lives in chunks.... “

Yes!!!! As compared to the highflyer barreling down the road in the 90’s with a cell phone planted to their ear (or speaking loudly on it in a crowded place so that everyone knew they had a cell phone. This type of thing was a subject of major criticism back in the day. Perhaps the hipsters are a response to this.

But before I finish here, I want to point out an uptake as concerns both hipsters and the image of the hipster. There was some recent research in which women from different countries were shown pics of different types of men and asked to rate them. What they found out was that women in countries that lacked universal healthcare (in other words, America or any other country that lacks a strong safety net (tended to pick the traditional thick necked man, while women in countries that had it tended to go for the more effeminate intellectual type.

To me, this is an evolutionary statement in that women being the genetic gatekeepers (as a peer of mine, Satyr, pointed out (we can see culture moving to the next evolutionary step beyond the old tight-fisted cowboy individualism: one we need to make if we are to avoid our enslavement to global Capitalism or our self destruction through man-made climate change. The hipster aesthetic may well be hope.