I. In Outwards we have the seminal (if “more badly-written” than the average AH text) essay on what we’ll keep calling physics — to the dismay of I-fucking-love-science fans and maybe even some scientists. There’s something to the dynamics of theory-making (and not just AH, but philosophy, continental and analytic alike,
Brazil’s relatively large (if well under-proportional) weight in international affairs notwithstanding, you may still not be informed that Jair Bolsonaro dun goofed. His anomalous character — his glitch — had been chipping away in small pieces in the last baker’s dozen of weeks. But this is something different now. It
I. asemic horizon continuously hesitates to comment on salient, event-like anomalies because it cultivates a particular conceit called “theory”. The intellectual import of this conceit is that, in theoretical work, an all-consuming effort is placed on making sense of salient structure-like anomalies. The philosophical import of this all-consuming effort is that systems thinking
I. Praxis is at once the agitating mechanism and the key site of misosophy, the hatred of wisdom. Philosophy teaches, on the contrary, ambivalence and detachment. Contrary to philosophy, theory-in-the-world is of-praxis, specifically the praxis of deferral. Taking a loan is the theory of being able to pay it back at a later
Recitativo We have aimed (or, at the very least, repeatedly claimed) to sidestep philosophy. All along, our main directives — if one’s able to motion-blur the proliferation of so-called technical content — have been GENERALITY and GENERICITY; but in our theoretical mood that eschews argument for bald and torrential assertion,
I wrote this for a friend. This overview of asemic horizon’s technical terminology (known as “space opera” to earlier readers) follows an order that’s specific (such that it supports a series of contrasts and comparisons) but not special (in that no particular concept or term is anterior to others).
I. We introduced the notion of larger and smaller axiologies in ….Prince Kropotkin and made it tidy in The Wave, from which (breaking with tradition) I quote: 2.3 An axiology A is larger than an axiology A’ if it contains a theory of the valuable means of producing values in A’.
This is a blog, right? A web log. I have a few drafts lying around that both have something to them but can neither grow into a full essay or coalesce into a text that either/or advances the cause of theory/fulfills the promise of touching base with concrete examples for
I. Does the theory of general axiology have axiological implications? In the generic sense we have sketched an eschatology (the “switcharoo”) out of a pedagogical scenario of what “getting to general axiology” look like. This pedagogy was illustrated with delirant heavenlike visions meant to convey both its infinite worthwhileness and its boundless
I. I heard the other day there were no deaths that could be reliably attributed either to merciless sea bandit Edward Teach, the Blackbeard, or to his crew. His key weapons were instead his fearsome countenance and aura, the nauseating smells and the trembling death-flag of the ship, the noise
I. A hidden consequence of this intense focus on axiology as a prime sequentiating thread is that what theory exposition teases at is a world that is “whyness all the way down”. It leaves nothing to explain except systemic settings and proximal reasons. But note “whyness” and not “meaningness” as