Rough Theory

On New Year’s Eve, I rudely jumped forward to discuss the section on “With What Must the Science Begin?” from Hegel’s Logic of Science. The first in-person reading group meeting on this work will take place Thursday the 10th, and will discuss that section – but also the Prefaces and Introduction. This suggests that perhaps a bit of backstepping is in order. Hopefully I (or someone else? someone currently writing on the history of logic, perhaps?) will write something on the Prefaces and Introduction before the in-person group actually meets.

For the moment, just an organisational note: as with last year’s discussion of Phenomenology of Spirit, this year’s reading group will spill over online. The parallell online discussion opens things out to a wider range of perspectives – and also makes it possible for people who miss sessions due to other commitments, to catch up and participate in other ways.

As with last year, the parallell online discussion may not lead to posts on all sections. Posts also won’t necessarily aim to move through sections in any step-by-step way, and they may or may not have an overarching argumentative “point”: this will depend on the interests and time of whoever writes them. Last year, we had a bit of everything, from jokes (including some very bad ones), to comments on isolated fragments of text, to duelling interpretations of pivotal sections, to more systematic readings. I wouldn’t expect contributions to be any narrower in format, interest and tone this time around.

Posts from me and, perhaps, other participants in the in-person group will go up here as the in-person discussion moves through the text. Mikhail Emelianov from Perverse Egalitarianism has hinted that he might allow himself to be strongarmed into contributing something on selected sections over there. If others who have blogs are perhaps interested in doing something similar, let me know – or just chime in and include a link back here, and I’ll post a pointer to the discussion at your blog. If I’m the only or the main person posting, chances are good that, as with last year’s discussion of Phenomenology of Spirit, you’ll still be seeing posts on the first third of the text, a year after the in-person reading group took place… Not that there’s anything wrong with that… ;-P But not having to wait on my idiosyncratic writing schedule – particularly during what will be a very intensive writing year for me – has its advantages.

As long as I’m organising: I’ve been meaning to collect into one place a list of all the posts generated (at whatever delay) by the Phenomenology of Spirit reading group last year. This seems as good a place as any to tuck them away below the fold…

Holding Our Thought in Time (notes on the Preface)

The Slow Hegelians (notes on the Introduction)

L Magee on “Lordship and Bondage”

Two Wrongs? Or the Opposite of an Opposite? (my reply to L Magee’s “Lordship and Bondage”)

Much Ado About Nothing (a fragment on Hegel’s concept of determinate negation)

Hegelian Fog (some notes on how starting points are immanently and reflexively “grounded” in this work, and on a few other aspects of methodology)

Abstract Gestures (on Sense-Certainty)

Perception

The Man Behind the Curtain (on Force and Understanding – part 1)

Full of Stars (on Force and Understanding – part 2)

Reading group trivia and jokes around Hegel (warning: nothing of substance here – I’m serious about this – nothing of substance… Hmmm…):

Hegel on the Beach (initial plans for last year’s Hegel summer reading)

This Is Not a Post (or: what happens when I read Hegel in coffee shops, part 1)

Sensual Uncertainty (or: what happens when I read Hegel in coffee shops, part 2 – related somewhat to Veni… Veni…, which explains why no one would find my marginal notes on Phenomenology of Spirit useful)

Coffee and Spirit (or: what happens when I read Hegel in coffee shops, part 3)

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (a case study in how easy it is to tempt me to blog on something)

Hegel and Marks (okay, maybe a little substance here – a few notes on immanent critique, but mostly a joke with LM)

Reading Group: the Gathering (on what really goes on in these reading group meetings)

Hegelian Poker (more on what really goes on in these reading group meetings, although the connection to Hegel is a bit tenuous, really…)

Unimpressed (on why at least one person thinks we shouldn’t have held this reading group at all)