call for papers: “Objects Across the Traditions”
Communication across the disciplines.
I feel that what we are finding today, which is really still within the postmodern dilemma, is that the institution, or the manner of methodological propriety, has defined a space of activity where the subject agent is supposed to recall and retain The products of their own intuition against the possibility of another’s. Post modernity has defined a space that is walled off, or as I say partitioned, From, as Badiou has said, difference as difference.
If you notice this is the second call for papers. I am not yet in academic circles to know what all this paper is and second and calling for papers and all that stuff really means, and I could be wrong but it seems to me that they’re having a second calling for papers because not enough people could come up with good ideas along this topic.
The crisis of academia, I feel, could be that the institutional methods applied over time has yielded a state of utter competition over cooperation; rather the cooperation is viewed through the contradiction of exclusive subjectivity being able to bridge a gap into universal objectivity. The institution and our society in general has a difficult time in figuring out how to be cooperative whilst in competition.
It seems to me that in the more rigorous theoretical disciplines, this is a severe problem. One of the reasons I feel is because within this end time methodological results people are resistant toward a common pedagogical framework. We find this levied against Harman and his object oriented ontology, As well as Bruno Latour’s An inquiry into modes of existence project; these two philosophers, amongst a few more that I know of, have attempted to lay down a general framework through which Disse plans may bridge their exclusive content. Hi see these in response to an ever increasing Lee closed subjectivity on one hand, and a subjectivity that is so open that it defies bridging anything. particularly with philosophy, or the more philosophically grounded disciplines, The results of the method has made it ultra skeptical, meta-deconstructionist and generally antagonistic towards any sort of unitive frame work that might be able to accomplish a platform of cooperation. It’s as if the acid test of deconstructive modes is supposed at some point to yield a bridge into some other domain. It seems obvious to me that this particular modeyields nothing but itself, and more of it.
What I see is a paradigm of thinkers that are more concerned with the trees than they are with the forest. If I may overgeneralize most probably, they are in capable of reading in a manner of the sort that Derrida talks about through his work, or Barthes.
Difference as difference means to me that I have to take a risk, to give up what I think is true for the sake of understanding what I see through that truth as false.
But I’m not sure that career academia allows this. Or at least this is something of a subjectivity that academics need to work out for themselves.
I am glad that I will be able to be a part of this community soon. But for now, I am not educated or skilled in the proper manner of submitting papers, or I would probably write one up just because they’re calling for papers again. Lol. And I wonder if due to the fact that I’m lacking an extension of letters after my name if they would even consider it as a viable candidate to print. Who knows ?