Reply to comment

I am for the modes of communication which Alice and Anne are suggesting in different ways. If the group wants to pursue these modes of being together (exploring disappointment, expressing ourselves more evocatively, etc.) and see where we go in just being like that together, I am ok with that.

If we do that, I think we should be aware that we are purposely not going down a content driven path. Here is what I mean.

The appeal of Sontag and Feyeraband, as I see it, is that they are not advocating a general way of being in the world. Rather, they are focused on very specific topics: art for Sontag and science for Feyeraband. The depth of their essays comes (as I see it) from the fact that they give us novel ways of going on in engaging with art or doing science. The focus on these particular topics gives depth and power to their vision.

Suppose one read Sontag and said, “well, I won’t use interpretation anymore at all in life”, that doesn’t make sense. For one wants to know: interpretation in what context? For what purpose? Without specifying these things, it is unclear what one is against. Similarly, if one read Feyeraband and give up on method altogether, that doesn’t make sense. I can agree completely with Feyeraband about science and still think that there is a best method or methods for learning the piano, cooking, raising children and so on. This is a real difference with the Stallybrass paper, which was all about form and not any particular topic.

So here are two options for proceeding:

• the content approach (a la Sontag and Feyeraband): there is some topic or topics which we will consider, but we will not pursue it in a certain traditional way, but in a different way. So if someone asks us what we are doing, we would say, “well, we are considering X topic not in Y way but in Z way.”

• the form approach (a la Stallybrass): we will not act in certain traditional ways, but will act in such and such a different way. So if someone asks us what we are doing, we would say, “well, instead of being C way which is the norm for academics, we are being D way and seeing what will happen.”

Whichever approach we decide to take in the group, it seems to me that we shouldn’t mix together the two approachs.

As I say, I am happy with either approach. Though I would like to give a short argument for the content approach. The form approach might be too much like what I have elsewhere called the infinite stories model. If we follow the form approach and just try to be open to each other without focusing on any particular topic, what will bring us together enough to think critically about where the conversation is going? A real possibility is that the form approach might lead to a brittleness or fragility in the group where any thing passes because no one wants to seem like they are doing the “traditional” way of thinking and not allowing new modes of expression to arise. One way to avoid this would be think together about some topic and think about what view is true; and “true” here is not a buzz word for just the traditional way of thinking and is compatible with being open to any perspective one might bring to the conversation.

If the content approach seems appealing, one way for the group to proceed is to think about what topics or questions we would like to focus on to begin with. I wonder if others think that to follow the content approach is to already be too traditional in a bad way. I think not, though I am open to understanding alternative views.