Hello, my name is Lancek4.
I have participated in this forum on and off for a little while and I decided it might be good to be more hospitable and do one of these 'intro to me' bits.
I live; it is wonderful. I play music; that too is great. I think ( I think ) and write and listen; that is fabulous. I'm not much of a great speaker ( maybe one day ).
The interactions I've had, and I'm sure will have, on this forum have been invaluable to me.
They have contributed greatly to my writing and my comfort level in 'techno-land'. In this motion I have developed a blog that I call "Constructive Undoing" that began as a critique and extended commenting of Francois Laruelle's Non-philosophy, but is now more an occasion to align what I have to say.
I would absolutely appreciate, enjoy and welcome every sort of input and comment people may have upon it. The site is 'lancek4.wordpress.com'.
Thank you all for your thought, that have been and are to come.
To the thinkers...
To the thinkers...
Last edited by lancek4 on Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: To the thinkers...
You spelled the site-name wrong. There should be no "@" in the name, just a ".", when people click it now they'll get a pop-up for sending an email.
First thing I note with your blog is that you should take more time situating things and bring them up to world of real things instead of making sequences of claims for then to turn unnaturally so towards introspection. Situate by bringing the reader about an issue you want to resolve and let that be the first thing you write about instead of starting, as your last post (with the insanely long name: DIRECT TANGENT 6.9: A WORD ON FAITH: AN APPROPRIATE RENDITION OF LARUELLE’S ‘SUFFICIENT PHILOSOPHY’; THE TRUE OBJECT, A MOMENT WITH PIERRE BOURDIEU, THE PRACTICE OF PROCESS AND THE CONVENTIONAL BIAS.) with definition play.
Do not treat the reader like a retard either, you are talking as if to a kid, and I don't see the likelihood of any kid reading it for a bedtime story. If the reader does not know basic facts about the matter for which you speak they are not likely to be interested to begin with. Try to avoid talking about yourself (and never talk to yourself) unless it matters for the product of thought you are delivering, in the world of philosophy I can't say that anything makes me care so little as to the opinions of people, what is really interesting is if you can make a proof by reference to some intuition, real world fact or anything that can equally appeal to the reader as to yourself.
It's worth mentioning I only read a paragraph or so, I personally am not very interested in non-philosophy.
As a side-note: what does "techno-land" mean? There is not much technology here ^^
First thing I note with your blog is that you should take more time situating things and bring them up to world of real things instead of making sequences of claims for then to turn unnaturally so towards introspection. Situate by bringing the reader about an issue you want to resolve and let that be the first thing you write about instead of starting, as your last post (with the insanely long name: DIRECT TANGENT 6.9: A WORD ON FAITH: AN APPROPRIATE RENDITION OF LARUELLE’S ‘SUFFICIENT PHILOSOPHY’; THE TRUE OBJECT, A MOMENT WITH PIERRE BOURDIEU, THE PRACTICE OF PROCESS AND THE CONVENTIONAL BIAS.) with definition play.
Do not treat the reader like a retard either, you are talking as if to a kid, and I don't see the likelihood of any kid reading it for a bedtime story. If the reader does not know basic facts about the matter for which you speak they are not likely to be interested to begin with. Try to avoid talking about yourself (and never talk to yourself) unless it matters for the product of thought you are delivering, in the world of philosophy I can't say that anything makes me care so little as to the opinions of people, what is really interesting is if you can make a proof by reference to some intuition, real world fact or anything that can equally appeal to the reader as to yourself.
It's worth mentioning I only read a paragraph or so, I personally am not very interested in non-philosophy.
As a side-note: what does "techno-land" mean? There is not much technology here ^^
Re: To the thinkers...
ThanksVoT.
I changed the @ to .
What I mean by "techno-land" is the Internet and web stuff. I am a hard learner with all this stuff. So even the "." thing I didn't realize. I see other blogs and widgets and this and that and I usually don't have the patience to figure it out. So my learning is slow. So thank you for whatever web-stuff info you have to offer.
The blog is a bit unconventional, I think. It represents a process. So I suppose it does require a 'readership' so to speak. But it is a 'working out' space, so your advice is taken well.
The title of the latest I mimicked the old type essays where they have huge sentences that tell what the piece is about as a title. So it does have a certain silliness to it.
Yes; one of my issues there is: is complicated jargon really necessary to convey the meaning. Despite the actual 'non-philosophy' as an arena of thought, I take NP as an occasion to speak to the apparent complexity of philosophical presentation. Thus I do try to speak plainly, leaving as little required foreknowledge as possible. For example, there, the possibilities of the object. The latest is what I see as a simple stating of 'series' where other authors have developed the same ideas through extensive 'premises'.
One needs start at the beginning; part of the problem I address is found in the assumption of meaning granted by historical ideas, as if we can start 'in the middle' and get anywhere.
I changed the @ to .
What I mean by "techno-land" is the Internet and web stuff. I am a hard learner with all this stuff. So even the "." thing I didn't realize. I see other blogs and widgets and this and that and I usually don't have the patience to figure it out. So my learning is slow. So thank you for whatever web-stuff info you have to offer.
The blog is a bit unconventional, I think. It represents a process. So I suppose it does require a 'readership' so to speak. But it is a 'working out' space, so your advice is taken well.
The title of the latest I mimicked the old type essays where they have huge sentences that tell what the piece is about as a title. So it does have a certain silliness to it.
Yes; one of my issues there is: is complicated jargon really necessary to convey the meaning. Despite the actual 'non-philosophy' as an arena of thought, I take NP as an occasion to speak to the apparent complexity of philosophical presentation. Thus I do try to speak plainly, leaving as little required foreknowledge as possible. For example, there, the possibilities of the object. The latest is what I see as a simple stating of 'series' where other authors have developed the same ideas through extensive 'premises'.
One needs start at the beginning; part of the problem I address is found in the assumption of meaning granted by historical ideas, as if we can start 'in the middle' and get anywhere.
Re: To the thinkers...
The Voice of Time wrote:You spelled the site-name wrong. There should be no "@" in the name, just a ".", when people click it now they'll get a pop-up for sending an email.
First thing I note with your blog is that you should take more time situating things and bring them up to world of real things instead of making sequences of claims for then to turn unnaturally so towards introspection. I am of sure where or what part you read that indicated to you 'introspection'
Situate by bringing the reader about an issue you want to resolve and let that be the first thing you write about instead of starting, as your last post (with the insanely long name: DIRECT TANGENT 6.9: A WORD ON FAITH: AN APPROPRIATE RENDITION OF LARUELLE’S ‘SUFFICIENT PHILOSOPHY’; THE TRUE OBJECT, A MOMENT WITH PIERRE BOURDIEU, THE PRACTICE OF PROCESS AND THE CONVENTIONAL BIAS.) with definition play. i thought this title shows the issue I am resolving in the piece.
Do not treat the reader like a retard either, you are talking as if to a kid, and I don't see the likelihood of any kid reading it for a bedtime story. If the reader does not know basic facts about the matter for which you speak they are not likely to be interested to begin withyou have a point here.
. Try to avoid talking about yourself (and never talk to yourself) unless it matters for the product of thought you are delivering, in the world of philosophy I can't say that anything makes me care so little as to the opinions of people, what is really interesting is if you can make a proof by reference to some intuition, real world fact or anything that can equally appeal to the reader as to yourself. im not sure where I was talking about myself. Do you mean how I began with "I have.." Or however I delivered it. Do you mean because I make it sound like "by the way, in my life I came accross ..." ? That I should begin with a more declarative statement .
It's worth mentioning I only read a paragraph or so, I personally am not very interested in non-philosophy.
i would have to say that such a non-interest is very conventional.
As a side-note: what does "techno-land" mean? There is not much technology here ^^
-
The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: To the thinkers...
I presume you meant "not sure"?I am of sure where or what part you read that indicated to you 'introspection'
Answer: "as if i were then jealous or offended, against which i would then argue"
It's brief, but it's only positive to scrap it. Not likely to make a positive difference to the reader to have the likes there.
In a very blunt manner yes, but you don't want to be blunt. I'd say you'd want to tell the reader in a direct conversation manner "this is my problem"... "this is my solution"... and then jump to the more extensive tackling of the problem. You should also try to make the title smaller and more appealing, reading it to me it seems you are dealing with multiple issues in one post, and if that's true you should consider making several posts instead of just one really long one.i thought this title shows the issue I am resolving in the piece.
Answer: "If i am stating my position by my opinion, i can call it an argument, and I can start anywhere I please as long as I develop sufficient premises. Yet, because, here, we deal in truth, I do not approach it as if I am speaking within a conversation already developed. I start at the beginning, not in the middle. I do not ‘disguise’ my target through addressing what then appears to be particular arenas of discourse, though I may use such discursive objects as an occasion for what I have to propose. "im not sure where I was talking about myself. Do you mean how I began with "I have.." Or however I delivered it. Do you mean because I make it sound like "by the way, in my life I came across ..." ? That I should begin with a more declarative statement .
There's an awful lot of "I" and "my" there (in fact 11 times "I" and 3 times "my", that's 14 references to yourself), and it starts resembling a conversation with yourself because of it. To a reader it might alienate them from the conversation, appearing as if you momentarily has stopped talking to them.
Re: To the thinkers...
Hello Lancek4, what music do you play, and what instrument?
Re: To the thinkers...
What does the 'K4' reference to?
Re: To the thinkers...
I play guitar and sing. The 'k4' I don't remember. Lol.thedoc wrote:Hello Lancek4, what music do you play, and what instrument?