This blog says what I’ve been trying to say about blogging, but says it better:
Larval subjects. Larvae are creatures in a process of becoming or development that have not yet actualized themselves in a specific form. This space is a space for the incubation of philosophical larvae that are yet without determinate positions or commitments but which are in a process of unfolding.
This captures the spirit of not knowing where you’re going when you set out, a kind of lostness. The other day a fellow blogger said to me that she didn’t know where her blog was going and I replied that it sounded like it was a success. (I don’t think I convinced her though.)
But there is something experimental to blogging, as a technology of the self. recall Foucault’s comments about the pointlessness of writing a book if you already know what you’re going to say.
Certainly this article could not be said to know where it’s going:
In reflecting and reading over the last couple of weeks, I’ve come to the conclusion that I am deeply confused. I am confused as to what is to be explained. I am confused as to what is to be changed. I am confused as to how change takes place. I am confused even as to the questions I am asking. I am confused about my confusion.
LS goes on to say in another post that theories should be like a kaleidoscope, turning this way and that as needed:
Along these lines, Appadurai has proposed that we think in terms of independent streams such as mediascapes, ethnoscapes, financescapes, technoscapes, and ideoscapes, where these various streams are woven together in various configurations, sometimes one dominating, sometimes others, where it is always a question of the relationship between the local and the global and of local configurations like a local weather pattern that is nonetheless dependent on global fluctuations.
LS reflects more on this in the first post quoted, playing with anarchistic ideas, finally suggesting:
The virtue of anarchistic approaches is that they allow for non-centralized forms of emergent self-regulation in relation to problems that emerge within the collective field, rather than top-down, authoritarian, hierarchical forms of regulation often removed from the field of engagement. The problem with the authoritarian models is that they often treat the map and territory as being identical, failing to recognizing differentials that appear as a function of the map, often locking us in bad solutions. The proximity to the territory in de-centralized collectives allows for a greater sensitivity to these differentials, allowing for less abstract solutions.
There’s more in the same vein and this is not meant to summarize it or represent it, just to throw a things out that seemed interesting. Since, I don’t know where I’m going with this!
Filed under: Technology of the self |