tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5082929785652792749.post3096127998094475612..comments2023-06-16T10:52:52.408-04:00Comments on ethnografix (people + writing) = a blog by ryan anderson: Participant Observation of grad school, continuedRyan Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18008425994341539639noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5082929785652792749.post-92009159845962290802010-10-09T19:01:56.569-04:002010-10-09T19:01:56.569-04:00Hey Fran!
"I mean, stuff actually happens an...Hey Fran!<br /><br />"I mean, stuff actually happens and I think we shouldn't be afraid to hazard guesses at why people do the things they do that are not just about recognizing that we're all dupes hitching a ride on the psychoanalytical train to nowhere."<br /><br />Agreed. I especially like your phrase "psychoanalytical train to nowhere"! The thing that gets me about some of the conclusions of psychoanalysis is that they seem to be a little prone to a seriously opaque circularity that SEEMS to be saying something, but might not be. Ya, I get the idea that we can only explain so much through language, and that there are huge gaps in our knowledge and understandings of whatever reality is. But, for me, talking about how reality as some undefinable entity that exists beyond language is interesting, maybe, but a little ironic too (I mean, doesn't defining it as such already bring it within our symbolic system?).<br /><br />Ha! See what happens?<br /><br />Anyway, I agree with you that "stuff actually happens" and that we need to find a way to figure out what that means for certain people, in certain moments, dealing with particular issues.Ryan Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18008425994341539639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5082929785652792749.post-15982402204288168632010-10-09T18:38:42.004-04:002010-10-09T18:38:42.004-04:00@ Jeremy:
Thanks for the comment. Ya, these issu...@ Jeremy:<br /><br />Thanks for the comment. Ya, these issues are really interesting...and hopefully I didn't come across as simply blowing them off!<br /><br />"That said, we have to recognize our situatedness within reality (thus our limited perception) and the reality of the symbolic webs that we compose around us. I also believe that there is not just one reality, and so no "right version." Rather, realities are multiple and continually being created (by ourselves and by others). A lot of this comes from Latour and John Law in addition to the speculative realist crowd."<br /><br />I like where you're going with this, especially the idea that there isn't any one particular version of reality that happens to be correct (or, maybe, more real). I also like the idea of this being a series of processes that are active--as opposed to thinking of reality as some big monolithic 2001-esque black figure that we simply cannot fathom.<br /><br />Thanks again for the comment!Ryan Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18008425994341539639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5082929785652792749.post-18259451950489806422010-10-08T16:00:21.820-04:002010-10-08T16:00:21.820-04:00Ryan, I think that your statement: "Great. Bu...Ryan, I think that your statement: "Great. But how or why should I or anyone else assume that Lacan has THE right version of reality? Does it even matter?" indicates that you got the best out of the lesson. Symbolic approaches are tricky. Are they helpful or just a mind-boggling hindrance? I mean, stuff actually happens and I think we shouldn't be afraid to hazard guesses at why people do the things they do that are not just about recognizing that we're all dupes hitching a ride on the psychoanalytical train to nowhere. Now only a few weeks from PhD submission myself, I'm sorry to say that the issues you're grappling with (including methods) don't get any easier with time, but rest assured that your ability to maneuver them will!Fran Baronehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806944367760756885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5082929785652792749.post-33256897915935121222010-10-08T14:16:50.781-04:002010-10-08T14:16:50.781-04:00Great post, Ryan. I definitely know where you'...Great post, Ryan. I definitely know where you're coming from - in fact, I should be doing some work right now, but I need a little break.<br /><br />On Lacan and the Real - I've not read any of his work yet, so I can't speak to his concept of the Real, but I've been thinking about similar issues recently (as a result of reading Levi Bryant, Graham Harman, Adrian Ivakhiv, et. al.). <br /><br />In spite of the fact that we're stuck with limited perception of the world and locked into our symbolic webs, I believe we can and <b>must</b> talk about reality. <br /><br />The reason I say we can talk about reality is because the world and the other entities that compose it affect us, alter us and affect and alter one another. <br /><br />I say we must talk about reality because if we don't, then we deny the agency of those other entities. The world becomes a formless, shapeless lump passively waiting for us to impose meaning upon it. I don't think that squares with our experience of the world, and I don't think it's fair to those other entities. <br /><br />That said, we have to recognize our situatedness within reality (thus our limited perception) and the reality of the symbolic webs that we compose around us. I also believe that there is not just one reality, and so no "right version." Rather, realities are multiple and continually being created (by ourselves and by others). A lot of this comes from Latour and John Law in addition to the speculative realist crowd. <br /><br />Anyway, it's not something I've developed fully, but it's something to think about.Jeremy Trombleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16284129054396290336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5082929785652792749.post-8520031503558813422010-10-04T09:34:06.674-04:002010-10-04T09:34:06.674-04:00Hi Ryan,
Thanks for these notes, especially for th...Hi Ryan,<br />Thanks for these notes, especially for the dissertation proposal workshop.<br />About 10:10, I think the video illustrates one serious bias in this kind of individualist approach to environmental issues. IMO the problem should not be framed as one of individual ethics. Most emissions come from industry and agriculture, not households energy consumption.<br />Further, if one owns three cars, a huge mansion, plays golf, fly twice a week, etc, one's contributions to emissions is obviously far larger than if one has no car, takes the bus to work, never flies, etc. I don't think it's quite faire, nor even efficient to simply ask that everyone step down by 10%. To me, this kind of campaign looks like it is more about setting new moral norms (and new "good people") than about being serious about climate change.<br />And, by the way, would these people dare to (virtually) spill that much blood, it it was the blood of people whose decisions do really have great impacts, like politicians, CEO's, etc ? <br />Of course not, that would be (virtual) terrorism. But, for example, the people who threw the Tokyo protocol to the dustbin were neither young pupils nor tired employees.JMnoreply@blogger.com