Feeds:
Posts
Comments

homecoming

A friend of mine inadvertently reminded me of one of my favorite passages from Mikhail Bakhtin, written, apparently, in his last notebook entry before his death (and published subsequently in Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences):

There is neither a first nor a last word and there are no limits to the dialogic context (it extends into the boundless past and the boundless future). Even past meanings, that is, those born in the dialogue of the past centuries, can never be stable (finalized, ended once and for all)–they will always change (be renewed) in the process of subsequent, future development of the dialogue. At any moment in the development of the dialogue there are immense, boundless masses of forgotten contextual meanings, but at certain moments of the dialogue’s subsequent development along the way they are recalled and invigorated in renewed form (in a next context). Nothing is absolutely dead: every meaning will have its homecoming festival. The problem of great time.” [non-italicized emphasis in original; bold added]

The context of our conversation was an attempt to remember the name of the pub where we shared drinks and lively conversation several years ago. I suspect that Bakhtin would agree that every drink and every worthy conversation will have its homecoming festival.

found object

I’ve had more than my share of occasions to write and speak about faith, but it’s generally been about others’ faiths, not my own. Summarizing one’s own can be tricky, at least if one prefers to deal with substance and not with labels. The term itself is slippery: is it intended to cover beliefs about the universe (metaphysics, cosmology), principles and guidelines for action (ethics), or the practices by which those beliefs and principles are inculcated into daily life, either collectively (religion) or individually (spirituality)? Is it some combination of all of these?

Some years ago, inspired by the This I Believe public radio series, I decided to sit down and write up a creed I could sign my name to. Having come across it again recently, I’m happy to see that it still seems sensible to me, so I thought I would share it here. The analyst in me feels like treating it as a found object, unpacking it for the ‘isms’ and ‘ologies’ it covers, even speculating about the person who wrote it. But the point of the exercise is really quite different: it’s to express in everyday terms, pithily and pointedly, the orienting concepts that guide you, without reference to schools of thought or faith traditions or other kinds of things that divide us and pose barriers to dialogue.

Here they are, a few years old but more or less congruent with what I still believe.

Continue Reading »

archive fire

Michael at the wonderfully named Archive Fire blog has been posting about a lot of the same topics that I try to cover here. (The top five categories in his tag cloud are Ecology, Power, Praxis, Sentience, and Theory.) In his words, Archive Fire explores issues “from critical theory, fringe politics and ecological science to popular culture, world history, social justice and human evolution,” and its discourse and tactics “emerge out of a hybrid matrix of anthropology, critical theory, philosophy and activist strategies” and “a manifest commitment to creative praxis.” The blog regularly links to the work of some of the same names that come up there, from Latour and DeLanda to Zizek, Jeremy Rifkin, Antonio Damasio, and others. (And he’s been all too kind in his recent post about me.)

For an indication of why I’m interested in the “more” that object-oriented philosophers grapple with, the “remainder” beyond what can be accounted for of an object or phenomenon through relational accounts, I thought it would be appropriate to share a few paragraphs from my 2001 book Claiming Sacred Ground.

Continue Reading »

Graham Harman replies here and here to my last contribution, and Paul Reid-Bowen joins in with an interesting and original take on the debate at Pagan Metaphysics. I’ll try to keep my reply to both of them fairly brief in what follows.

Graham writes that “You can’t find the cane toad by summing up all the effects it currently has and receives from all other entities.” I agree. To find the cane toad you would have to interact with it, and even then you would only find what you were capable of finding. If, theoretically, you could interact with it in such a way that you would be able to observe and summarize all its effects on and from all other entities, including the effects that manifested over the time of your observations (since these take time and, to some extent, always affect what is being observed) and all of its internal relations (which include its potentials or virtualities carried over from the past), then I suspect you would have come as close as possible to “finding the cane toad.”

Continue Reading »

JCS%20Armillaria%20ostoyae%2013062.jpg

A glimpse of Armillaria ostoyae, said to be the world’s largest organism (whatever that means)

Replying to me here, Graham Harman explains his objections to relational ontologies, arguing that they fail to make a distinction between the “two sorts of relations” in which an entity is involved. These are not “the famous ‘internal’ and ‘external’ relations,” but are what he “somewhat whimsically” calles the “domestic” and “foreign” relations of an object. (I like this distinction, though I’m not sure how it’s different from internal and external relations.)

GH: “Surely Adrian doesn’t want to claim that the cane toad is a set of all its relations? If Mars were five inches further along in its course than it currently is, would the cane toad be a different cane toad than it is now?”

Continue Reading »

Levi Bryant’s detailed and generous replies to my critical queries, both in the comments section of this post and at Larval Subjects, and Graham Harman’s replies here (and in an e-mail exchange) have helped me get a much clearer sense of where the main differences lie between their respective “object-oriented” positions and my relational view. In the process, I’ve been once again impressed with both of these philosophers’ willingness to engage with those who disagree with them, and to do that publicly, and practically at the speed of (digital) light. Here I just want to summarize what I see as the main difference between an object-oriented account of the world and a process-relational account.

Continue Reading »

advice

Graham Harman has been posting some very useful advice for graduate students (and aspiring academic writers) here and here. The five “lessons” at the end of the first piece are especially useful.

To the third – “Write for the specific occasions that called for the writing” – I would add: and create those occasions when necessary, but don’t create too many of them. (I used to try to attend too many conferences, which is a temptation when one is doing the kind of interdisciplinary work that has no obvious home but many potential homes-away-from-home.) And to the fifth – “Keep reading new things, and write about them after you read about them” – this is very good practice, a kind of mental/intellectual hygiene, and it’s part of the reason why I started this blog. (On the other hand, getting free books in exchange for book reviews can be more expensive, in time spent, than it’s worth, since book reviews don’t get you far.) The point is to keep reading, keep thinking, keep talking, and make connections between your teaching and your reading/writing whenever possible.

One piece that could be expanded on: How much time should you spend editing, rewriting, and refining what you write? There’s an art to this, and my tendency has usually been to overdo it. But there’s a place for the definitive article or book (which takes a lot of time and work), and a place for the quickie. The dissertation, for instance, could become the first kind of thing (which is why it’s best to write it with a book in mind). But the same material can often be turned into different formats, and it’s all continual work in progress. So usually it’s better to err on the side of getting something done and off, getting it “in the pipeline” for publication, and moving on to something else while you wait to hear whether it’ll need more work or not.

For what it’s worth (and probably of interest only to folks at the University of Vermont): According to the SmartViper web data analyzer, this blog’s home page is now the fifth most popular on the University of Vermont (blog.uvm.edu) server, and first among personal blogs.

The top four are Blogging@UVM, UVM Admissions, the Agricultural Risk Management office blog, and the Common Ground Student Run Educational Farm blog. Only the third of those is very active now, so I’m guessing the data for the others is historical. The second most popular personal blog is my Canadian studies colleague Paul Martin’s, As Canadian as possible… under the circumstances. The whole top ten list can be found here.

Colleagues, why so slow in using new media?

Jeff Carrera’s Philosophy is Not a Luxury has been posting some pithy articulations of the process-relational philosophies of James, Dewey, Peirce, and others in the American pragmatist tradition. It’s too bad that the word “pragmatism” in its everyday sense doesn’t do justice to these thinkers — rather like the terms “stoicism” and “epicureanism” don’t do justice to the philosophies of Seneca, Epicurus, Epictetus, Lucretius, Marcus Aurelius, et al. As Pierre Hadot pointed out years ago, philosophy was a way of life for the ancients. The pragmatists came as close as any American philosophers to continuing that tradition. To anyone familiar with Whitehead, Bergson, or Deleuze, the resonances with these descriptions of experience should be obvious. Theirs is a philosophy of the present moment, but when the present moment, in its radical openness, is all there is, that’s the best (and only) place to start.

Here’s a quick reply to Levi Bryant’s reply to my post from this morning on objects and relations:

Continue Reading »

cinema poetry

I just discovered the video blog Cinema Poetry, which has collected twenty (so far) of the most remarkable scenes in the history of cinema.

The first of the two ride films below, the Lumiere brothers’ rickshaw film from an Indochinese village, is beautiful (watch it in full screen with the sound turned all the way up):

This makes good viewing alongside Sean Cubitt’s description of cinematic firstness, which he calls “the pixel” in The Cinema Effect.

Kvond’s “great scenes” suggestion of a wonderful clip from “Andrei Rublev” (starting at 3’24”) reminded me of Yuri Illienko’s brilliant camerawork in one of my favorite films, Sergei Paradjanov’s “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors.” Cinema Poetry includes a scene from that, but here’s another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL1vkMvDS2c&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0

There are moments like this in the film where the camera swirls around as if it were the eye of a tornado, or alternatively as if it were the tornado circling around the eye. What would Deleuze call this? The spiral-image? It’s not quite Michael Snow’s La région centrale”, but it’s heading in that direction. (Snow’s specially constructed camera swings, swirls, twists, and circles around for a couple of hours, like Emerson’s transparent eyeball gone wild in the subarctic tundra of northern Quebec…)

Illienko’s “A Forest Song” (Lisova Pisnia: Mavka) is full of that kind of delirious camerawork (unlike Snow, integrated into the narrative). Unfortunately all I can find of it online is a poor copy of what appears to be the whole thing chopped into segments, dubbed into Russian with no subtitles. See also his Eve of Ivan Kupalo, perhaps the peak of Ukrainian magic realism.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Skip to toolbar