Comments on: Cold Reading

By: Wittgenstein at War « Praxis

Wittgenstein at War « Praxis — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:19:28 +0000

[...] 3. Find the fifth sentence. 4. Post the next three sentences. 5. Tag five people. In response to N. Pepperell Nominees: Flashboy, Comte, Roger, IT, Robert Vienneau. (There’s no obligation to play the [...]

By: Roughtheory.org » Reflections on Elson’s “Value Theory of Labour”, part 1

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:07:56 +0000

[...] So, by popular demand, a follow up to the book-meme post [...]

By: Alexei

Alexei — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:57:00 +0000

I too had been looking forward to the prospect of meeting you N, but I guess it will have to wait for some other time. Anyway, I want to look at your abstract and see if I can’t offer my two cents. Cheers!

By: Page 123 « Now-Times

Page 123 « Now-Times — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:01:45 +0000

[...] February 23, 2008 — Alexei A couple of days ago, NP tagged me with this [...]

By: Ryan/Aless

Ryan/Aless — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:26:26 +0000

Hey NP,

Thanks for the tag. I’m doing some traveling in France and Spain right now, so I’ a little out of the loop. But before the trip, I was reading David Harvey’s account of the labor theory of value in his book Limits to Capital, which he criticizes. It was complicated and difficult to understand, though. I’ll get back to it when I get the chance. And yeah, some comments on the reading of ideology would be nice.

By: N Pepperell

N Pepperell — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:18:32 +0000

Ack! To be honest, although my paper proposal was on the conference theme (it’s basically an exploration – however much I can cram into 30 minutes ;-P – of the difference between Lukacs’ argument about reification, and the argument I’ve been developing here about the fetish – the draft will go up here at some point), I thought your proposal was more consonant with, if this makes sense, the tone and the history of the event. Looking at past conferences, I had thought my piece would be too sociological, but I would have expected yours to have been accepted. It may be worth seeing if everyone who has a paper accepted actually agrees to present – I’ve been asked to confirm, for example (and… er… should do that soon, I suppose…) – the implication was that they would invite others if people declined…

I had been looking forward to perhaps being able to meet up at the conference – great disappointment. :-( I’m of course still not completely sure I’ll be going, either: the conference is inconveniently scheduled for two weeks prior to the end of our term, and I’d rather not just go for the conference and then whisk back to Australia – it would be nice to see if something else is happening that would be worth exploring as long as I’ve made the trip. But of course that makes it harder to get away… I also want something damned close to a full draft of the thesis before I go… Lots of things to juggle…

Although I feel like I’ve been writing endlessly on the Logic, that’s all been for the thesis or the conference, so I haven’t put anything substantive up here in some time. I’m also hoping to get back to it soon.

Take care…

By: Alexei

Alexei — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:06:03 +0000

Congratulations N, on having your paper accepted! That’s great news — even if it adds yet another task to your already busy schedule! I wasn’t so lucky though :-( Can’t say as I disagree with their decision though, my paper was a little off topic, and perhaps not as clearly focused on reification as it could have been.

But anyway, I look forward to picking up the Logic with you again. I’m just so short on time at the moment (more German courses, more applications, plus stuff of my own to write, which for some reason I’ve been hesitant to post back home). Hopefully, I can clear some space/time to get back into the groove.

Cheers for now, and a big congratulations! Going to Rome would be loads of fun!

By: N Pepperell

N Pepperell — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:47:03 +0000

Mike had actually recommended Elson to me some time back (and I think I had read her some time ago) – I picked up the book when he mentioned it. I’ll try to write something on it tonight or tomorrow night, as it’s an interesting piece, with some similarities to what I do, and some complex divergences as well.

And while I’m talking about things I need to write: Alexei, I’m hoping to get back to Hegel very very very soon – I’ve just been exhausted with this local Hegel event… And now I also have a paper to write for the reification conference, on Lukacs and the difference between his concept of reification, and what I take Marx to be doing with his argument about the fetish (I proposed to write on this because people locally seem to keep confusing my argument with Lukacs’ – I don’t see enormous similarities myself, but I figured a conference on reification is as good an excuse as any to write some of why I don’t see the arguments as similar… ;-P). It’s still not absolutely certain that I can attend – there’s a lot of local stuff I need to sort out – but I’ll write the paper anyway, and hope for the best ;-P

By: Alexei

Alexei — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:43:49 +0000

Oh dear, NP, you’ve forced me to write something back home, just as I was getting used to being non-verbal!

I’ll have something up soon; I just need to translate….

By: Nate

Nate — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:53:55 +0000

What a funny coincidence. I just now glanced at an interview w/ Michael Hardt that I was part of in 2005, he cites Elson. Then a second later I click here and you and Mike are citing her as well. I’ll have to read the essay, I suspect there’s a secret message there just for me. ;)