So, I've gained ~500 followers since New Year, and I'm glad so many of you have decided to join me on this journey exploring the limits of Twitter as a philosophical medium. I didn't really realise what I was doing when I came back here, and it's evolving in ways I didn't expect.
What started as a way to just get myself thinking again as I regained functionality after a long convalescence has unexpectedly turned into something strange and worth pursuing in a more systematic and rigorously experimental fashion. I've got ideas, but I'll air them in time.
For now it's worth admitting that I'm accidentally writing a small book on Laruelle in response to a twitter poll and that I should probably approach it as such. I still don't know quite what it will be, as I only let myself think about it in short bursts, but I'm excited to see.
When I say I didn't want to do this, I'm being completely sincere. This is the option I didn't want, because in my head it was the one that required the most work. If you haven't noticed I write in a very defensive way, which carefully circles a topic (at length) before pouncing.
This defensiveness is one of the things that has made it hard for me to generate publications. Though I can be extremely productive under the right circumstances, this involves a conversational orientation that I find impossible when writing for anonymous peer reviewers.
I'm optimised for dialogue, and I can simulate it monologically, but not when I don't have a mental model of the adversarial filter I need to get past. I've talked about this at some length and my related problems with mental health elsewhere (deontologistics.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/tra…).
Twitter fits the shape of my brain, because it's dialogue all the way down, even when it's largely dialogue with myself. People might wonder why my threads go on for so long, or why they loop back on themselves in such maddening ways, and the answer is it's for me, not for you.
I'm absolutely delighted that people can follow some of the twisty process whereby I interactively unravel the integrated philosophical system I've been building in my mind for the last decade, but I know it can be a bit much, and I really don't expect everyone to keep track.
For me, this is a writing machine, that gets the thoughts out of my brain in a really pleasantly structured fashion, but the outputs will be sifted, compiled, refactored, and revised eventually and outputted in other ways. This is philosophy in process, not in product.
The interactive nature of this process is important to me, but it's also important that I do it in a way that doesn't overload people or otherwise inconvenience them. If you've got suggestions for how I can do this better, or just need to tune me out now and again, that's fine.
You guys are an important part of the process, and I take that quite seriously, because I'm using you to discover what I think about different topics, how these thoughts hang together, and to experimentally compress them into tighter and tighter expressive outbursts.
Anyway, if you're wondering what's going on with the Laruelle thread, there's a meta-thread pinned to my account that functions as a 'contents page' that I'm updating as the object-thread expands. There are two new sections that haven't been added yet, but they'll be up soon.
I know have a bit of a rough idea of the whole thing, where it's going, and what it needs to encompass, but I'm really trying to plan it out as little as possible, because the disinhibition involved in picking up where I left off and rolling on is very useful for me.
So, it'll be done when it's done, which will take as long as it takes, but I'll let you know when it's finished, and then maybe it'll get reformatted and refactored into another form? @charloselsenor2's valiant attempt to read the thread over on instagram has given me some ideas.
There'll be time to talk about those later. For now, just know that I keep getting sucked into the Twitterscape because I'm having an inordinate amount of fun, and I really just want you guys to have fun too. If I ever fuck up that dynamic, let me know, and I'll try to unfuck it.
Till then: 🖖 to you all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Conceivably Manchester’s ambitious building programme, which includes for example the Alliance Manchester Business School with attached 19-storey hotel, reduced their ability to absorb the shock of the virus."
To be completely clear, universities were one of the last sectors to be fully infected by the mind-virus of general purpose management, a slow motion crash in which the worst of public and private sectors collided and destroyed the economic base of centuries old institutions.
Everything thats happening to UK universities are delayed consequences of choices made by New Labour in the 90s. Not just fees, but the whole metrics based approach to maximising student enrolment. It's so obvious that one feels a bit strange when it's said out loud in the media.
Here’s the way in which I’ve begun to parse Badiou’s definition of evil: it is complicity against complicity against complicity.
1. Primal complicity is the state of nature, in which complex systems of interacting processes evolve in ways analogous to rational agents without yet realising autonomous agency.
2. Autonomous agency, be it individual/collective, epistemic, pragmatic, or aesthetic, is causal complicity turning on itself and bootstrapping networks of control systems that tighten analogies into homologies, elevating self-control to the level of genuine self-legislation.
So, here’s a way of reframing this question: which societies enabled coexistence and collaboration between people with divergent social styles, rather than imposing a dominant social style? Such social pluralism is very important indeed.
I suspect that the vast majority of the answers to the original question will fall foul of the tendency to project ideal social arrangements that reflect our own style of social understanding and engagement, and that this will lead them to talk past one another.
Consider the perspective of someone far away from you on in the neurological map, who doesn’t overlap with your socially calibrated genetic resources for social intelligence: the social heaven of an autist introvert may be the social hell of a bipolar extrovert, and vice versa.
This is what happens when you train neural networks largely on tone and its stylistic relics. They pick up formal features of arguments (not so much fallacies as tics) that have almost nothing to do with semantic content (focus on connotation over implication).
This is a secular problem in the discipline. It's got nothing to do with the Analytic/Continental split in the anglophone world. They've both got the same ramifying signal/noise problem, it's just that the styles (tics and connotations) are different in each pedagogical context.
And this is before we start talking about tone policing and topic policing, which are both rife and essentially make the peer review journal system completely unfit for purpose, populated as it is by a random sampling of pedants selecting for syntactic noise over semantic signal.
It's hard to believe it's been four years since Mark left. What a day to talk about the meaninglessness of death. If there's one thing Meillassoux is right about, it's that nothing less than the complete and total resurrection of the restless dead could make death meaningful.
Who wouldn't want to hear what he had to say about the absolute fucking state of this place (Earth)? That excuse to hear his insights might be a reason to hate this state just a little less. But we can't, and so it doesn't. How I wish it were otherwise.
Mark's death wasn't uniquely his own. There was nothing authentic about it. It was the same desperately sad story that you will hear over and over again throughout your life as unquenchable misery pulls meaningful people into an indifferent void.
I know I'm being pretty harsh on Agamben, but I actually agree with him that we need a critique of healthcare provision (both physical and mental), because the systems established to gate access to diagnosis/treatment often diminish autonomy as much as they enable it.
But we need to be able to look at the concrete details of these institutions without giving ourselves a free pass to ignore the discourses of medicine, psychology, and psychiatry whenever we want. Bad critique is epistemically capricious where good critique is responsible.
This is as good at time as any to repost some unrolled threads from 2019 in which I talk about expanding Mark Fisher's work on the politics of mental health to healthcare more generally (threadreaderapp.com/thread/1181998…) and discuss bipolar disorder specifically (threadreaderapp.com/thread/1173211…).