I am unsettled by having watched The Big Lebowski for the first time last night--in which Kenny croons his psychedelic anthem as we watch one of the Coen brothers' patented irrelevant-yet-hilarious dream sequences. Far out!
Now I must whap the side of my head until the Inner Jukebox resets.
Truly enlightening. I was about to say that it was also neessary to remember certain things about bears, and what on some days they do to you, and on other days, George Washington does to them, but then again, I think it's probably unneessary to mention that. Have it your way, dude.
So last night, one of my roommates, who doesn't have a philosophy background (or insofar as he does, has one from reading Christian Apologetics outside of organized study) but is a smart guy said that his cousin, who he claimed is very smart, loved the book A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History. I've never heard of it, and have a huge backlog of books to read, but if it's good that won't stop me from adding it to said backlog. The wikipedia entry does not make it sound appealing. Advice, either on reading it or where I can find good reviews of it, which I didn't notice in the first 40 Google hits?
"The book chooses an arbitrary starting date, 1000CE, and plots the fluctuations, bifurcations and extinctions of various heterogenous or homogenous aggregates of 'matter' (the author uses the word 'matter' to describe the elements of any accumulation of geological, economic and linguistic content) from this point until 2000CE. One of the central points of ATYNH is that the patterns of behaviour inherent in the study of complex systems (eg. strange attractors, emergent properties) are found in all these domains of 'matter', informing a view of the world as a dynamic, highly interconnected bricolage of self-adaptive, amorphous systems composed of morphogenetically potent matter."
OMFG, that Wikipedia entry makes it sound like either a Sokal-esque parody, or an analysis so painfully obvious and unenlightening (history through the lens of evolution and complex systems? really?) that it's a waste of the paper it's printed on.
"Specifically, ATYNH offers a novel neo-Deleuzian reading of history which sees the evolution and interplay of complex systems (geological, economic and linguistic) as primary, and opposes naive teleological notions of anthropocentric progress, to paraphrase the author."
Sorry. This is my bewildered by Leo Strauss week. If I let the personal into the political I fear I will be both my friend and enemy in a state of exception and the mirror will look back into me. With fear and trembling.
I almost bought the book A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History last weekend. It has an excellent cover and purple typefaces in different font sizes. It didn't look hard to read, but I was held back by the "may be complete bullshit" problem.
Steven Johnson says good things about "A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History" at the end of "Everything Bad is Good for You". I liked "Everything Bad is Good for You" very much.
Whenever I read lines like: "a view of the world as a dynamic, highly interconnected bricolage of self-adaptive, amorphous systems composed of morphogenetically potent matter." my bullshitmeter red-lines.
I liked ATYNH, but it's been a few years and I'm having trouble remembering it. The emphasis on self-ordering matter was really neat. There's an outline of the intro, here.
I dislike jargon, but the thinking is something like this: matter (animal, vegetable, or mineral) moves in systematic ways; one can find similarities between the organization of social structures and of rock. This is real Leftist stuff - pretty much the antithesis of the Great Man theory of history. It follows Marx, "Great men make history, but they do not make the conditions on which they make history." So this stuff is interested in what's contingent and what's not, and how to explain why. Doing that, it talks in systems, and accross registers (e.g. social, biological (somatic), mineral...) looking for self-organizing properties (attractors), and points at which radical change occurs(bifurcation points).
Is it BS or just trivially true? Dunno. It was fun when I read it.
The other problem with this stuff is it's conceptually difficult, which can allow for a lot of interpretation, most of it bad, and a chance to spew out jargon 90-miles-an-hour. The fans of this stuff can really put you off it.
My experience of this sort of stuff -- and I haven't read this particular book so may be off-base about this particular example -- is that it tends to be conceptually banal.
The jargon often serves to obfuscate this fact and seems to lead to fanatical 'followers' claiming the status of novel insights of collosal magnitude for claims that are in fact boring and widely accepted, or well-known but comprehensively refuted, in the more mainstream literature that these followers are often unaware of.
I'm sure that's not universally true but past experience with stuff that's been pressed on me enthusiastically by students or friends has led me to be deeply sceptical of stuff written in that sort of jargon.
Matt, I'd say your attitude strikes me as pretty much right-on. De Landa is a big Deleuzian, and I'll say that I love Deleuze for similar reasons that I love Proust - just some great insights into the ordinary. Plus Deleuze was funny.
I am unsettled by having watched The Big Lebowski for the first time last night--in which Kenny croons his psychedelic anthem as we watch one of the Coen brothers' patented irrelevant-yet-hilarious dream sequences. Far out!
Now I must whap the side of my head until the Inner Jukebox resets.
Posted by Rah | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:29 AM
Truly enlightening. I was about to say that it was also neessary to remember certain things about bears, and what on some days they do to you, and on other days, George Washington does to them, but then again, I think it's probably unneessary to mention that. Have it your way, dude.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:31 AM
So last night, one of my roommates, who doesn't have a philosophy background (or insofar as he does, has one from reading Christian Apologetics outside of organized study) but is a smart guy said that his cousin, who he claimed is very smart, loved the book A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History. I've never heard of it, and have a huge backlog of books to read, but if it's good that won't stop me from adding it to said backlog. The wikipedia entry does not make it sound appealing. Advice, either on reading it or where I can find good reviews of it, which I didn't notice in the first 40 Google hits?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 12:16 PM
I am especially fond of the part where Hussein gives Kierkegaard bowling shoes.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 12:44 PM
"The book chooses an arbitrary starting date, 1000CE, and plots the fluctuations, bifurcations and extinctions of various heterogenous or homogenous aggregates of 'matter' (the author uses the word 'matter' to describe the elements of any accumulation of geological, economic and linguistic content) from this point until 2000CE. One of the central points of ATYNH is that the patterns of behaviour inherent in the study of complex systems (eg. strange attractors, emergent properties) are found in all these domains of 'matter', informing a view of the world as a dynamic, highly interconnected bricolage of self-adaptive, amorphous systems composed of morphogenetically potent matter."
OMFG, that Wikipedia entry makes it sound like either a Sokal-esque parody, or an analysis so painfully obvious and unenlightening (history through the lens of evolution and complex systems? really?) that it's a waste of the paper it's printed on.
"Specifically, ATYNH offers a novel neo-Deleuzian reading of history which sees the evolution and interplay of complex systems (geological, economic and linguistic) as primary, and opposes naive teleological notions of anthropocentric progress, to paraphrase the author."
What a misuse of the word, "specifically."
Posted by arthegall | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:18 PM
Sorry. This is my bewildered by Leo Strauss week. If I let the personal into the political I fear I will be both my friend and enemy in a state of exception and the mirror will look back into me. With fear and trembling.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:26 PM
5: That's exactly how I saw it, I'm hoping to find a more positive take elsewhere.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:30 PM
good luck...
Posted by arthegall | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:35 PM
I almost bought the book A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History last weekend. It has an excellent cover and purple typefaces in different font sizes. It didn't look hard to read, but I was held back by the "may be complete bullshit" problem.
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:34 PM
Steven Johnson says good things about "A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History" at the end of "Everything Bad is Good for You". I liked "Everything Bad is Good for You" very much.
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:42 PM
Whenever I read lines like: "a view of the world as a dynamic, highly interconnected bricolage of self-adaptive, amorphous systems composed of morphogenetically potent matter." my bullshitmeter red-lines.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:11 PM
I liked ATYNH, but it's been a few years and I'm having trouble remembering it. The emphasis on self-ordering matter was really neat. There's an outline of the intro, here.
I dislike jargon, but the thinking is something like this: matter (animal, vegetable, or mineral) moves in systematic ways; one can find similarities between the organization of social structures and of rock. This is real Leftist stuff - pretty much the antithesis of the Great Man theory of history. It follows Marx, "Great men make history, but they do not make the conditions on which they make history." So this stuff is interested in what's contingent and what's not, and how to explain why. Doing that, it talks in systems, and accross registers (e.g. social, biological (somatic), mineral...) looking for self-organizing properties (attractors), and points at which radical change occurs(bifurcation points).
Is it BS or just trivially true? Dunno. It was fun when I read it.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:15 PM
The other problem with this stuff is it's conceptually difficult, which can allow for a lot of interpretation, most of it bad, and a chance to spew out jargon 90-miles-an-hour. The fans of this stuff can really put you off it.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:18 PM
My experience of this sort of stuff -- and I haven't read this particular book so may be off-base about this particular example -- is that it tends to be conceptually banal.
The jargon often serves to obfuscate this fact and seems to lead to fanatical 'followers' claiming the status of novel insights of collosal magnitude for claims that are in fact boring and widely accepted, or well-known but comprehensively refuted, in the more mainstream literature that these followers are often unaware of.
I'm sure that's not universally true but past experience with stuff that's been pressed on me enthusiastically by students or friends has led me to be deeply sceptical of stuff written in that sort of jargon.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:21 PM
Matt, I'd say your attitude strikes me as pretty much right-on. De Landa is a big Deleuzian, and I'll say that I love Deleuze for similar reasons that I love Proust - just some great insights into the ordinary. Plus Deleuze was funny.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:26 PM
ha, I really shouldn't say, "Deleuzian". Make that "fan of Deleuze."
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:27 PM