Literary Critique and Neuropolitics
In this recuperated state of socialized health via neuroplasticity realizations blissfully blossom.
The uptake of reasoned language - the simplified tone, clarity, economy and the Hemingway toolset so admired as felicity of style. I'm happy with my facility with the prosaic. I celebrate it.
I have an entirety of engagements with this rapprochement with common sense language prescribed by 20th century English (Oxbridge) philosophy.
First is the fields one orients to. I talk now of government policy but not governmentality or governance. I talk of stability but not metastability. I appreciate architecture but I won't giggle at what nomadic architecture could really be in material construct and tensile terms - sure I could blather about fluidity as parametric motif but nomadic architecture with neither domination, basal orientalism or postmodern inversion where the margin is everything. Postmodernity's inclusivity of the margin could be a replication of the Frankfurt model of capitalism - it subsumes what approaches it. But just because the model is mechanistically similar is no fatal Zizekian chiasmic grunt of guilt by association.
Oxbridge common sense English applied to the plural, speculative, poststructural realms of rigour is appreciated because after reading Heidegger, Derrida and Deleuze and Guattari the leap to use stylised new languages or terms are not necessarily warranted.
That leap to neologism should also be examined if we are coders of the void.
The challenge is two ways - that continental tradition use common sense language (speculations, ooo and current realisms are thanked) AND that Oxbridge philosophy draw closer to speculation, pluralism, multiplicitous thought and thought images like Whitehead did and that contemporary logic intimates.
The schizo makes clear sense and the whitebread couch potato agrees that a lot of life is dream in an everyday no bells and whistles way.
Though I can appreciate the drifts and recall the spectrum of topologies that was the experience of a mental health condition. I even have an archive of passable written work that to some were impressive and to me just agog I had achieved that. Articulating this history and work is fulfilling too. The unmanageability and alienation though were very difficult to live in. One of the many continuities in my life was the notion of abundance and my suspicious ambiguity at survivalist and scarcity world views - something I'm keener to today.
The uptake of reasoned language - the simplified tone, clarity, economy and the Hemingway toolset so admired as felicity of style. I'm happy with my facility with the prosaic. I celebrate it.
I have an entirety of engagements with this rapprochement with common sense language prescribed by 20th century English (Oxbridge) philosophy.
First is the fields one orients to. I talk now of government policy but not governmentality or governance. I talk of stability but not metastability. I appreciate architecture but I won't giggle at what nomadic architecture could really be in material construct and tensile terms - sure I could blather about fluidity as parametric motif but nomadic architecture with neither domination, basal orientalism or postmodern inversion where the margin is everything. Postmodernity's inclusivity of the margin could be a replication of the Frankfurt model of capitalism - it subsumes what approaches it. But just because the model is mechanistically similar is no fatal Zizekian chiasmic grunt of guilt by association.
Oxbridge common sense English applied to the plural, speculative, poststructural realms of rigour is appreciated because after reading Heidegger, Derrida and Deleuze and Guattari the leap to use stylised new languages or terms are not necessarily warranted.
That leap to neologism should also be examined if we are coders of the void.
The challenge is two ways - that continental tradition use common sense language (speculations, ooo and current realisms are thanked) AND that Oxbridge philosophy draw closer to speculation, pluralism, multiplicitous thought and thought images like Whitehead did and that contemporary logic intimates.
The schizo makes clear sense and the whitebread couch potato agrees that a lot of life is dream in an everyday no bells and whistles way.
 |
| just joking unless if it's a rightwing Parisian administration |
