Reapproaching Bryant’s “Onto-cartography”.

City taught me is that the signi er, meaning, belief, and so on are not the sole agencies structuring social relations. Whether or not a commercial district grows as a function of the amount of energy available to that zone from the power plant is not a signifying or cultural difference. Whether or not people begin to die or move away as a result of pollution produced by garbage, coal-burning power plants, and industrial waste is not a signifying difference. Whether or not people vote you out of of ce because they’re angry about traf c congestion is not the result of a signi er. To be sure, there are social relations here insofar as it is people that produce all these things and people that are ocking to this city, moving away, or voting you out of of ce, but the point is that the form the city takes is not, in these instances, the result of a signi er, a text, a belief, or narrative alone. It is the result of the real properties of roads, power lines, pollution, and so on.

from “Onto-cartography”, by Levi Bryant.

I hold a certain place for Bryant; i’m not sure why. He has reacted too many of my comments on his post In a, shall I say not so welcoming manner.

There is some sort of tension, it seems, no matter how i try to set it aside in my own insecurity, between a successful philosopher professor and what he has to say, and the philosopher who doesn’t make his/ her living off of his her productions.  I guess it goes all the way back to the Greeks; I read somewhere I think it was Hickman’s blog talking about Stigler maybe —  I don’t think we are to off the mark by saying that our current career philosophers are really just sophists in modern guise. 

So I take this paragraph from Bryants book. In the introduction here he talks about how he used to be all dialectical discursive dude and then he played the Sims video game. And we have his description part of which is posted in the quote above.

Know what is sad to me, but really just indicates the polemic that I talk about at my work, of two routes, is that his transformation his conversion that he explicitly describes the reasons for in this introduction, really just shows how he is totally had misunderstood as well as missed construed the situation that he abandoned. 

I will not go into all the aspects here; perhaps a lot of them will be noted in my upcoming book. But, on one hand, it really makes me question just what criterion philosophers must meet in order to become well-known for some particular philosophical subject.

But on the other hand it really goes to the necessity of cleaning up philosophy. Because it is obvious that he changed over into this new realism materialism speak from a misunderstanding of the situation to begin with. His philosophical position, though academically substantiated in letters and time and effort, is founded in the very legitimacy that he abandoned as a theoretical space. Again, the agumentative proof will occur elsewhere.

But it wont really matter.

The general point is that in order to have any ‘change of heart’, in order for a transformation to occur such as that Bryant talks about, One must necessarily be viewing ‘surfaces’. But then the issue isn’t so much about argumentative proves how one might be viewing surfaces or not; The issue concerns the very substance of the human being itself and it’s inherent ability. It is the obviousness involved. For one has to ask how it is possible that a person can have such a transformation; because then we have to ask ourselves the question of how it was possible that he was understanding something in one way before hand such that something made sense in a certain way that he has a different understanding subsequently. The point is is that while he may have had such a transformation to say that oh what I thought before was incorrect or somehow not accounting for all the facts, and now I see this new way — The very situation that he transformed from was because he misunderstood the situation: it is not that it is been discounted or disapprove in or is incorrect, rather, it is that it is totally correct. So it is his explanation of why such a transformation for him occurred Evidences his mistaken appropriation of the matter; The transformation does not occur because what was before was wrong; it occurs because it is totally correct and has exhausted itself and its possibilities. If thereby is not discounted but actually there by establishes the ground by which we may move on to something else. It is not that there are ‘roads, voting, city’ that are beyond signification; it is not that the discursive paradigm is only talking about words or something like that, such that cultural and subjective relations fails somehow; it is more a particular orientation upon reading discourses that talk about this situation that is incorrect, that would bring about such disillusionment. It is the reinstatment  of magical thinking, of revolting from the offense of one’s faith two there by reestablish it by withdrawing from the lack presented, back into the lack. This is what is meant by the transcendental cluase. Realism is the attempt to reinstate a glorious past, of actual material real empirical objects yet founded in a speculative capacity of human free agency — and this regardless of what is argued, because of ones orientation upon objects. 

It is from this distinction that we can read his onto cartography and see something just slightly off, this series and structure of argument just a touch skewed, such that we hope it had the substance that it seems to want to deliver. 

I only offer my critique and efforts of helping people, as I hope people do for me. But it seems that some people are insecure in their position, and intuitivelyknow that their position somehow off, Who will only take certain criticism, Who will except only certain arguments as valid because really they have no defense against the ones that they are automatically putting aside, albeit because they have the force of an institution of letters behind them.

I have a certain sympathy and that bothers me when talking about philosophy. We should be hitting each other hard and expecting that the other person expects to be hit hard. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s