Comments on: Whereof We Cannot Speak

By: Inter(esting)Net Elsewhere 6.24.07 « massthink

Inter(esting)Net Elsewhere 6.24.07 « massthink — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 05:14:25 +0000

[...] L. Magee’s outlining of N. Pepperell’s delineation of critical theory [...]

By: Roughtheory.org » Assembling an Abstraction

Roughtheory.org » Assembling an Abstraction — Wed, 16 May 2007 16:32:07 +0000

[...] Hegel, determinate negation (Sinthome probably thought I was never going to get back to this question…) involves this kind of immanent exposition of how a more adequate concept emerges through a [...]

By: Counter-Factuals and Critique « Larval Subjects .

Counter-Factuals and Critique « Larval Subjects . — Fri, 04 May 2007 07:50:03 +0000

[...] , Materialism , Emergence , Critique , History Mulling over the wizard L Magee’s systemization of N.Pepperell’s theoretical work over at Rough Theory, I’ve been particularly taking [...]

By: Clarifying Observations on Space-Time Processes « Larval Subjects

Clarifying Observations on Space-Time Processes « Larval Subjects — Thu, 03 May 2007 23:16:59 +0000

[...] that attends to time, space, and process. There are key issues here that converge nicely with N.Pepperell’s own luminiously emerging project, pertaining to questions of self-reflexivity and emergence. It is [...]

By: Roughtheory.org » Industrious Inaction

Roughtheory.org » Industrious Inaction — Thu, 03 May 2007 11:26:35 +0000

[...] We Cannot Speak (7) Sinthome, Sinthome, N Pepperell, Sinthome, Sinthome [...]

By: Sinthome

Sinthome — Tue, 01 May 2007 07:17:49 +0000

But honestly the degree of systematicity and clarity you’ve attained is really exciting here. I’m thinking I need to bit the bullet and just run with my individuation concept and develop all its implications and consequences, no matter how painful (I dropped the word as I was initially writing) might be.

By: Sinthome

Sinthome — Tue, 01 May 2007 07:16:19 +0000

Lacan talks about a certain signifier in a signifying organizing called a “master-signifier” that does not itself have meaning but that organizes all the other terms. It’s a sort of term that’s subtracted from the rest that can take on any other meaning without being able to be pinned down by any of these terms. For instance, “freedom” floats about without content and only takes on meaning by being attached to another signifier. Perhaps this is the way “determinate negation” is functioning for you. As a sort of organizing empty signifier.

By: N Pepperell

N Pepperell — Tue, 01 May 2007 06:32:20 +0000

I was actually thinking earlier today that your recent posts on Spinoza are both exciting and very beautiful – and was envious of them myself :-)

Just a placeholder for the moment, as today is what my friends locally have learned colloquially to call my “hell day” – I teach from first thing in the morning until late in the evening, don’t get home until 10 p.m. – and then generally spend the next day shattered and conceptually useless (which is quite handy, actually, for marking ;-P)… But I will respond – it just may take me a bit to recover first, before I’m worth listening to – for me, this is actually a particularly productive question, as I’m not really meaning to suggest that the term should be obvious – it’s just the latest attempt to communicate something that I really struggle to convey (or even to see…). I keep hoping that I’ll hit on a magic word or phrase that just does away with this problem – but it seems that I’m condemned to actually figuring out how to say what I mean…

Folks at my university keep warning me that if I post concepts on my blog, someone will come along and steal them. This tells me that they never read my blog – if they did, they would realise that my main worry is that I will never manage to be clear enough that anyone would be able to steal my ideas… ;-)

I’ll try to pick this up again, more substantively, when I’m recovered a bit…

By: Sinthome

Sinthome — Tue, 01 May 2007 01:59:10 +0000

I’m printing this post out for closer reading and obligatory marginalia, so I can steal your questions or telos, translate them into my own theoretical vocabulary, and spit them out as something that’s my own (a naturalized version mind you… I suspect I’m Schelling to Hegel here).

By: Sinthome

Sinthome — Tue, 01 May 2007 01:57:46 +0000

I’ll second Joseph’s remark and say that this is a remarkable post. It’s exciting to watch you working out your ideas with such rigor and systematic unity. I’m envious that I don’t have a similar clarity with regard to my questions or what I think about, well, just about anything. I don’t have much to add as I’m feeling battered, beaten, and abused and therefore full of exhaustion and even a little of despair, so perhaps I’ll just ask a question (not job related, that’s all good). I’m still extremely unclear on just what you mean by “determinate negation”. Throughout it seems as if the sense of this term is treated obvious, yet I’m left scratching my head whenever you evoke it. Perhaps you or L Magee (for some reason his/her name always makes me think of a magician… I imagine a guy in a blue robe with a wizard hat with stars and all) could give the “determinate negation” explanation for dummies.