I've been loving Jill Lepore's takedown of the new business snakeoil, disruptive innovation and the responses to it. I especially love how Slate's Will Oremus replied. This is a man who has inherited the humorous stylings of Mickey Kaus and the ignorance of subject matter of Will Saletan. Those are big shoes to fill - in fact, I think size 24s - the bozo class. Of course, he trips all over himself trying to find an angle. His angle is, wait for it, that this being the internet, he, Oremus, is able to paraphrase Lepore's article, which is apparently behind a pay wall, and thus you, the reader, get it for free. Sakes alive! Lepore has been disrupted. Why is it like this is 1996 - or maybe 1936, since Readers Digest did the same thing.
But the freebie you get from Oremus is worth what you pay for it. He evidently never met an argument with more than one variable in it that he could understand, and he severely misunderstands, and thus misparaphrases, Lepore's article. In the toady style that Slate has perfected, he didn't seem to high himself to one book or article to write his refutation - why should he? I mean, when you are a genius, anything you draw out of your ass must be high class. This was always Will Saletan's motto - used especially when he embraced white supremecy as science in an infamous series in 2007 - so Oremus is following in the footsteps of the masters. Oremus might be interested in the fact that I can go to the library here in Santa Monica and read the whole issue for free - I mean, isn't that a portent of the singularity!
Frankly, save for their book and movie reviews, Slate has been a must-laugh-at ever since they put a stick in Bush and saw he was done in 2000. For years, their schtick has been to find clever ways to wrap rightwing conventional wisdom in neo-liberal wrapping and claim that the resulting product is some brand new thing nobody had ever thought of before, rather than yesterday's dog poop. It is like the monster child of the New Republic and the Third Way.
So I was happy to see them smarm attack Lepore's article. It shows that she must have tapped a vein.
“I’m so bored. I hate my life.” - Britney Spears
Das Langweilige ist interessant geworden, weil das Interessante angefangen hat langweilig zu werden. – Thomas Mann
"Never for money/always for love" - The Talking Heads
Friday, June 20, 2014
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Absence one
Anyone who reads continental philosophy or the philosophical
essayists will soon be impressed by the almost obsessive mooning over the
concept of absence.
This has no parallel in Anglophone philosophy – absence is
at most treated as a simple description of a physical phenomenon. Jack doesn’t
show up for the exam – he is absent.
There is nothing here for the
analytics (or post-analytics) to get moony about.
Nevertheless, there is something strange about the absence
of absence in Anglophone philosophy. The unexamined master-trope of that
philosophy is substitution. Surely it if
were examined, understanding substitution should encourage us to look at absence
more closely.
Substitution implies that a place is preserved – in logical
or physical or social space – that is filled with one or another variable. In a
sense, the presence of the variable isn’t total, since it isn’t identical to
the place. One can find another variable to put in that place.
The latest metaphor in the analytic tradition to designate this
is “candidate”. A candidate – whether as an explanation or as a particular – is
always being considered as the solution to some problem. Whether it is
materialist accounts of cognitive states, theories of the reduction of the
biological to the physical, etc., etc., the papers I edit in philosophy are
built upon comparing one ‘candidate’ with another.
Although analytic philosophers go about closely peering at
language with the fervor of a myopic seamstress threading a needle, they are
curiously indifferent to their own use of language – so I have not read any
account of how suddenly the candidate metaphor appeared in all the right
journals. It is easy to see, though, that it is a metaphor that tells us
something about how absence is thought of here. The implication is that the
“place” where substitution takes or can take place is like an office. It is a
position created by a political system. The politics may only be bureaucratic –
it may be a position in a firm, in which the candidates compete against each
other without seeing each other, before a hiring person or board. Or it may be
a political system in which they compete against each other consciously, before
a voting constituency. The main thing is that the competition is about filling the position. The binary in
place is between the filled place and the empty place – or potentially empty
place. These are pre-eminently relative states – the dialectic between them is
deflected onto the system which determines them, and which has the power to
simply get rid of the place – or multiply it.
Monday, June 16, 2014
the material life
We call it a
sucette. Our babysitter calls it a binky, and a couple of days ago the clerk at
the grocery store, teasing Adam by asking for it, called it a nuk-nuk – I think.
Nuk nuk sounded vaguely disturbing to me, and the surprisingly popular game of
leaning over Adam and asking for something – can you give me your shoe? Your fruitpack?
Or whatever, which many people seem to think is just the way to tease a baby,
was played by that clerk just a tiny bit too roughly. This went with nuk nuk, I
thought.
Such are the various
titles of what is more neutrally called a pacifier. It is an article that, for
the last year and a half, has been essential in our house. When Adam was very
young – around three months, I believe – we bought our first one and he
rejected it, and I thought that we wouldn’t need a pacifier. However, it turned
out that this rejection was more in the nature of a misunderstanding. Or
rather, it was more in the nature of how a sucette is used – for the calm that
comes with putting it in his mouth and shifting it around and laying back and
playing with its little handle (that handle that has a certain unpleasant
visual association for me – I am always reminded of the ring they put on a bull’s
nose, and I sometimes think it gives Adam too painfully the air of an animal we
have domesticated, even if that is, really, the truth), it also seems to be
comforting to throw it away. There’s some ceremony in it – in the same way that
a baseball player tears his cap from his head and throws it down and stomps on
it to theatricalize some fault in the umpire’s judgment, Adam likes to definitively
toss the pacifier to signify that he’s about to run around yelling or play
chase or hide. He also likes to lay it aside, with a graceful, judgmental
gesture when he has decided to eat. This is always interesting to watch,
because it means that he is going to be serious, now, about his turkey, or his
yoghurt, or his bread. And just as taking the sucette out of his mouth prefaces
his decision to grab the little strips of turkey and stuff as many of them as
possible in his mouth, or take the plastic spoon and see how much Nature’s Own
Turkey and Rice glop he can get on it and then, in a perilous trajectory
towards his face, in his mouth (the glop often leaving a trail of drops on his
pants and shirt on the way to its slide down the digestive tract.), so, too,
the resumption of the pacifier is a final punctuation, a full stop that means
this meal is over. Surely, this is manners on the infant scale.
The sucette is slowly
losing its necessity as Adam pressses onward to that magic 2 year old mark. It
used to be part of the standard kit for going out. I’d make sure I had water,
crackers, maybe a fruit or a fruit pack, and the sucette before I lifted our
boy up and strapped him into his stroller. The stroller did pose the problem
that, often, Adam would decide that it was time to toss the sucette, and if I
wasn’t paying attention, we’d lose it. Even if I was paying attention, I hesitated
about taking a pacifier that had been tossed onto a sidewalk traversed by man
and beast and tucking it back into Adam’s mouth. In truth, one loses a lot of
squeamishness when raising a baby, but I had some left. Besides of course the
mortification of somebody seeing me giving a pacifier to my baby after I’d
picked it off the sidewalk or grass or floor. We found our solution one day in
Atlanta in a Walmart, where they sold these handy ribbon clips, which allowed
us to clip the band to Adam’s shirt and attach the sucette to the band. This
didn’t entirely solve the problem, however, as Adam developed a way of
unclipping the pacifier and tossing it, with the ribbon attached. Also, in the pandaemonium
that takes the place of housekeeping when you have a baby, those ribbons would
crawl under beds or dressers or insinuate themselve among the socks or somehow
get in the bathtub – which meant that, added to the hunt for the pacifier was
the hunt for the ribbon so that the pacifier wouldn’t get lost. Such is the
treadmill of consumerism, ladies and gents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The query letter gag: an American tale
The “sell your novel tool-kit.” The “How to write Irresistable Query Letters”. The “50 Successful Query Letters”. The flourishing subgen...
-
You can skip this boring part ... LI has not been able to keep up with Chabert in her multi-entry assault on Derrida. As in a proper duel, t...
-
The most dangerous man the world has ever known was not Attila the Hun or Mao Zedong. He was not Adolf Hitler. In fact, the most dangerous m...
-
In messing around in the vaults – the vaults under the surface of history and literature, as per the posts of last week - LI recently came...