Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wayside" data-source="post: 2279793" data-attributes="member: 8394">Haha yeah, my copy of Being and Time is well worn <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. Don't let Akrasia hear about that though. I mentioned I think it was Deleuze in a thread a while ago, and he said something to the effect that anything south of Oxbridge was a waste of time. Actually, I have been following Heidegger back and reading Parmenides and Heraclitus, which is a very interesting way to get into haecceity if you have any Greek (or even not, the Phoenix Pre-Socratics series is quite good in terms of literalness). But in any case after Heidegger's "Identity and Difference" I think Deleuze's Difference and Repetition is monumental in terms of the sameness/difference dynamic that controls the West's way of organizing information in, for example, genres (too many people in America got their first taste of Deleuze through the Guattari collaborations, which are admittedly intentionally anti-academic, but he's really starting to be recognized for the epochal thinker he was now). Actually, a really great "introductory" essay to the academic side of this debate is either the Preface or the Introduction (I forget which) to Foucault's The Order of Things, which is at its heart a history of the conditions under which our various ways of organizing information came about and then were abandoned in favor of other, sometimes totally contradictory ways.Oh I meant that in a complementary way. Earlier when he criticized Celebrim's reading of a book he said something to the effect that Celebrim had had his interpretation in mind before reading and had forced the reading to correspond to the interpretation instead of vice versa. Strictly speaking, of course, most of us no longer believe in anything like an "aesthetic distance," as it used to be called, so it isn't possible to build genre totally from text anymore than it is to build text totally from genre; each is always to some extent fore-given to the other, as Dr. Strangemonkey argued early in his GnG thread. But I still heard an echo in Joshua's argument that reminded me of this (pg. 267 of Truth and Method if you have a copy):That's why I was surprised by his disdain for criticism, since here and in many other places he's already doing, in a loose messageboard way, what critics do. My guess is that he's just got a bad taste in his mouth from reading some Cleanth Brookes or something  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />.I actually get the feeling Joshua would really like Searle's work on social reality, if he isn't already familiar with it. Searle's an accessible writer and an analytic thinker, so I think he would satisfy Joshua's scientific mind (and he also has done a lot of work in A.I. and cog. sci.), and at the same time the whole "act" approach, whether to language or things like genre, is consosnant with Joshua's view that all interpretations are opinions with no absolute fact of the matter to be right or wrong about, so really we can only satisfactorily define fantasy or science fiction by agreeing on definitions for them; like any other word, there is no underlying metaphysical fact, only an interpretive strategy.You too. Always nice to find people with similar interests. Beyond gaming and all that, I mean  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> .</blockquote>

Verification