DOG - Deleuzians Of Grandeur
I've read some philosophical hermeticism calling for the extraction of language games from continental philosophy.
First, I think if that's all you read in continental philosophy that's not generous but let me go with the flow on this because it may bare poetic fruit.
One adjective of game I can recall is the word "ludic" and I think it was used by Huizinga
the remove the gaminess from language (gaminess is the wrong term, it connotes rich cuisine, and you think of French pheasant so it's a terrible non sequitur)
you'd want to #deludicise it
now, I'm not sure if that word actually exists or is referenced but I'm a poet and what I'm doing here is respectful and comical...more laughter amidst dour clericalist condescensions that one notes in the philosophy industry.
Deludicising the language of continental philosophy leads to a non-continentalist way of reading continental philosophy
continentalism being code for cliquey, extremely-willfully tangential as posture to point of how a new wave cinema director might sit in their chair on shoot.
What's being said is that this continentalism is a bit #wanky or very #wanky - a term you'd relish if you're Australian. This is how Aussies laugh at overweening and fashion-victim continentalism
In my work in street-level neuroscience practice I will though say that continental philosophy, esp Deleuze and Catherina Malabou have helped this work tremendously
I would hazard a guess though that Meillassoux's notion of hyperchaos though brilliant in its own field would be dismissed by scientists as bullshit - another term used with great facility in Australia. Even if you explained to them the incredible Kantian critique levied by Meillassoux
At the moment most scientists would say - fuck off you try-hard arts student. That's really the attitude still in science and I should know. Though with the philosophers I've mentioned scientists would take the time of day about it scientifically. In sociological terms science has absorbed much of the critical turn in humanities and the social sciences - especially medicine and medical science.
#Deludicise though - it really does sound like delusion.
So can I call that an imperfect homonym? If so is there a lit or grammatical term for imperfect homonyms or homonyms that diachronically (x-axis) sound like and therefore allude to by simile (as if) to another word. That would arguably be a metonymic homonym - is there a grammatical term for that?
These are clearly articulated and sensible questions if not possibly tinged with jest because if deludicising continental philosophy is meant to simplify and clarify discursively then to invoke the homonym group around an appositely contrary term for a poet, laughing, clown jester, infinite in out thrustings as opposed to a hermetical arelational differentiating continuum seriously singularising itself in a fine attempt to make an arch point, so singularly differentiating that it becomes wary of solipsism then the possibility of an arelational idiolect is on.
But that's not the same thing as being delusional. No more delusions, even sober ones? Mistakes we knew we were making ma hipsta-sis?
And poetic delusion is different to all other delusions, even philosophical delusions but the have similarities too.
Look for the similarities said Diogenes to the fractal-like hyper differentiator. If no-one's looking then you didn't ride the bike with no hands - #salopecism
First, I think if that's all you read in continental philosophy that's not generous but let me go with the flow on this because it may bare poetic fruit.
One adjective of game I can recall is the word "ludic" and I think it was used by Huizinga
the remove the gaminess from language (gaminess is the wrong term, it connotes rich cuisine, and you think of French pheasant so it's a terrible non sequitur)
you'd want to #deludicise it
now, I'm not sure if that word actually exists or is referenced but I'm a poet and what I'm doing here is respectful and comical...more laughter amidst dour clericalist condescensions that one notes in the philosophy industry.
Deludicising the language of continental philosophy leads to a non-continentalist way of reading continental philosophy
continentalism being code for cliquey, extremely-willfully tangential as posture to point of how a new wave cinema director might sit in their chair on shoot.
What's being said is that this continentalism is a bit #wanky or very #wanky - a term you'd relish if you're Australian. This is how Aussies laugh at overweening and fashion-victim continentalism
In my work in street-level neuroscience practice I will though say that continental philosophy, esp Deleuze and Catherina Malabou have helped this work tremendously
I would hazard a guess though that Meillassoux's notion of hyperchaos though brilliant in its own field would be dismissed by scientists as bullshit - another term used with great facility in Australia. Even if you explained to them the incredible Kantian critique levied by Meillassoux
At the moment most scientists would say - fuck off you try-hard arts student. That's really the attitude still in science and I should know. Though with the philosophers I've mentioned scientists would take the time of day about it scientifically. In sociological terms science has absorbed much of the critical turn in humanities and the social sciences - especially medicine and medical science.
#Deludicise though - it really does sound like delusion.
So can I call that an imperfect homonym? If so is there a lit or grammatical term for imperfect homonyms or homonyms that diachronically (x-axis) sound like and therefore allude to by simile (as if) to another word. That would arguably be a metonymic homonym - is there a grammatical term for that?
These are clearly articulated and sensible questions if not possibly tinged with jest because if deludicising continental philosophy is meant to simplify and clarify discursively then to invoke the homonym group around an appositely contrary term for a poet, laughing, clown jester, infinite in out thrustings as opposed to a hermetical arelational differentiating continuum seriously singularising itself in a fine attempt to make an arch point, so singularly differentiating that it becomes wary of solipsism then the possibility of an arelational idiolect is on.
But that's not the same thing as being delusional. No more delusions, even sober ones? Mistakes we knew we were making ma hipsta-sis?
And poetic delusion is different to all other delusions, even philosophical delusions but the have similarities too.
Look for the similarities said Diogenes to the fractal-like hyper differentiator. If no-one's looking then you didn't ride the bike with no hands - #salopecism
