Comments on: Credibility and Incredibility http://supervalentthought.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/credibility-and-incredibility/ On attachment, detaching, and ordinary life. Sun, 06 Jul 2008 02:43:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: supervalentthought http://supervalentthought.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/credibility-and-incredibility/#comment-87 supervalentthought Wed, 07 May 2008 13:15:16 +0000 http://supervalentthought.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/credibility-and-incredibility/#comment-87 Yes, of course you're right. At the same time, why. When I talk in department meetings, my aim is to provide phrases that manage something difficult, and to create precedent for future clarities even if I'm going to lose this time (which I usually do, sigh). As in all discussions, most of what gets said is noise, because new clarities come out of an emerging stream within the noise that becomes a line of thought. That's different than the imaginary problem-solving impact that an opinion column fancies that it could have. One hopes to be quoted, which is proof of the impact. Yet when I read political columns what often strikes me is the imbalance between analysis and performative desires. The execrable Maureen Dowd, for example: she sacrifices her actually existing analytic intelligence for a ticker registering who has the phallus now. She's like a one woman State of the American Phallus index. It makes me so angry that it dilutes my own belief in my own clarities, and makes me want to retreat into what the feeltank calls the "Slow Response Network" where I can sit awhile in the incoherent mess of political attachment. Eve Sedgwick said this great thing to me last week, that makes me laugh every time I think about it. I said something about "irrational attachment." She said, isn't that redundant? I've been thinking about this a lot. She's totally right. At the same time, I was pointing toward something related to the concept of supervalent thought itself. I'm going to have to work that out. Meanwhile, though, I have an irrational attachment to not becoming unfocused as a scholar, getting involved in lots of small opinion projects that don't help me develop the next phase of things. So that's what's worrying me about punditry. Yes, of course you’re right. At the same time, why. When I talk in department meetings, my aim is to provide phrases that manage something difficult, and to create precedent for future clarities even if I’m going to lose this time (which I usually do, sigh). As in all discussions, most of what gets said is noise, because new clarities come out of an emerging stream within the noise that becomes a line of thought. That’s different than the imaginary problem-solving impact that an opinion column fancies that it could have. One hopes to be quoted, which is proof of the impact. Yet when I read political columns what often strikes me is the imbalance between analysis and performative desires. The execrable Maureen Dowd, for example: she sacrifices her actually existing analytic intelligence for a ticker registering who has the phallus now. She’s like a one woman State of the American Phallus index. It makes me so angry that it dilutes my own belief in my own clarities, and makes me want to retreat into what the feeltank calls the “Slow Response Network” where I can sit awhile in the incoherent mess of political attachment.

Eve Sedgwick said this great thing to me last week, that makes me laugh every time I think about it. I said something about “irrational attachment.” She said, isn’t that redundant? I’ve been thinking about this a lot. She’s totally right. At the same time, I was pointing toward something related to the concept of supervalent thought itself. I’m going to have to work that out. Meanwhile, though, I have an irrational attachment to not becoming unfocused as a scholar, getting involved in lots of small opinion projects that don’t help me develop the next phase of things. So that’s what’s worrying me about punditry.

]]> By: Mandor http://supervalentthought.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/credibility-and-incredibility/#comment-82 Mandor Wed, 07 May 2008 00:28:27 +0000 http://supervalentthought.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/credibility-and-incredibility/#comment-82 We need more noise--always more noise--never less noise. The way you get to better noise is only through more noise. Pretty much how I think about hope too... We need more noise–always more noise–never less noise. The way you get to better noise is only through more noise. Pretty much how I think about hope too…

]]> By: supervalentthought http://supervalentthought.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/credibility-and-incredibility/#comment-81 supervalentthought Tue, 06 May 2008 17:20:59 +0000 http://supervalentthought.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/credibility-and-incredibility/#comment-81 Maybe! But I don't think that discovering the relation between my attachment to my concepts and to my phrases and my imaginary audience justifies adding noise to the wall of noise that constitutes the political in its own insane real time. I read a bunch of articles this morning originating from Joan Walsh on Salon about the ways people are talking about fucking during this election cycle. It made me sick not only because sex is so much more interesting than the metric it provides for people but because the ways we can imagine each other in public (MSM) are so ridiculous, and not in the good sense. As for the woman at the party, I wasn't surprised to discover I exist as a force in my students' minds, I was surprised (but this is a longer conversation) that she was so unprofessional. The violation of so many kinds of privacy was shocking to me, and on behalf of what? Some efficiently engineered faux intimacy? Or a moment of alpha activity where she showed me that she had my number? And that's just the start of it. Maybe! But I don’t think that discovering the relation between my attachment to my concepts and to my phrases and my imaginary audience justifies adding noise to the wall of noise that constitutes the political in its own insane real time. I read a bunch of articles this morning originating from Joan Walsh on Salon about the ways people are talking about fucking during this election cycle. It made me sick not only because sex is so much more interesting than the metric it provides for people but because the ways we can imagine each other in public (MSM) are so ridiculous, and not in the good sense.

As for the woman at the party, I wasn’t surprised to discover I exist as a force in my students’ minds, I was surprised (but this is a longer conversation) that she was so unprofessional. The violation of so many kinds of privacy was shocking to me, and on behalf of what? Some efficiently engineered faux intimacy? Or a moment of alpha activity where she showed me that she had my number? And that’s just the start of it.

]]> By: Mandor http://supervalentthought.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/credibility-and-incredibility/#comment-79 Mandor Tue, 06 May 2008 00:06:40 +0000 http://supervalentthought.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/credibility-and-incredibility/#comment-79 An additional coolness factor in your thinking about "political journalism" is that it's also a way to think about academic writing--in terms that might be much more generative than the ones produced by academic anti-intellectualism. Like, you will find out how you value various imaginations of audience, woo hoo! How cool is that! As for being the subject of someone's (plural), or some part of someone's (plural) therapy, why is it such a trip? You made something happen for someone, and they attached that something to you. I think that means you exist... An additional coolness factor in your thinking about “political journalism” is that it’s also a way to think about academic writing–in terms that might be much more generative than the ones produced by academic anti-intellectualism. Like, you will find out how you value various imaginations of audience, woo hoo! How cool is that!

As for being the subject of someone’s (plural), or some part of someone’s (plural) therapy, why is it such a trip? You made something happen for someone, and they attached that something to you. I think that means you exist…

]]>