Monday, August 10, 2020 - 6:41pm
- Do you have more trouble articulating your frame (social theoretical questions) or object? Definitely frame. I typically have a good 'feel' for objects that prove rich for thinking through frames, but it takes time and effort for me to tease out their articulation [sometimes a lot of time to translate my 'feel' into language].
- Do you tend to project-hop or to stick to a project, and what explains this? Interesting question...both: I feel like I have an 'uber project' which finds many different expressions in different objects. I enjoy doing many diverse explorations into these. That said, thus far I've only had one 'all consuming' project, which very luckily is my dissertation project. But I find myself exploring it through many different lenses [chronologically].
- Do you tend to be more interested in internal dynamics, or external determinations? In the terms laid out by Keller, do you tend to focus so intently on the object of your concern that context falls away (i.e. are you obsessive compulsive, rather than paranoid)? Is your desire to name, specify and control your object? Is your desire is for figure, its ground your annoyance? Or are you paranoid, context being your focus and obsession? All is signal. Only begrudgingly will you admit that something is noise, outside the scope of your project? Figure is hard to come by. Its ground has captured your attention. Definitly more paranoid, but realistically I'm dysfunctional in both ways. Incresingly, I can't seperate the object from it's context, and generally think it's less productive to do so. That said, my architecture background is very 'figure' dominant, and I've been consciously unlearning some of that training.
- What do you do with unusual or counter examples? Are you drawn to “the deviant,” or rather repulsed by it? Definitely drawn to the deviant. I enjoy, and find it very productive to imagine, and think through, possibilities...particularly those that are more subversive.
- Do you tend to over-impose logics on the world, or to resist the construction of coherent narratives? Intellectually, I'm pretty resistent to overarching logics/narratives, but in practice I often find myself generating them in production, especially initially. It takes some work for me to break them down and complicate them. I've been questioning why I tend to work this way for several years now...still no good answers, but I am concerned that it renders my thinking and writing more 'simple' than is reflective of my subjects [and that they deserve].
- Do you tend to over-generalize, or to hold back from overarching argument? As briefly touched upon above, defenitely on the side of over-generalizing. I suspect this has to do with my discomfort with writing. I tend to speak with more nuance than I write.
- Do you like to read interpretations different than your own, or do you tend to feel scooped or intimidated by them? I enjoy reading defferent interpretations from my own. They enrich my thinking, as does conversation, more than I can typically accomplish on my own. Sometimes, I feel intimidated...there are lots of really amazing thinkers out there...I hope to get there one day.
- Do you tend to change an argument as you flesh it out, or do you tend to make the argument work, no matter what? Some of both, often driven by my beliefs. I find I'm willing to manipulate supporting evidence and narrative structure [almost like an intellectual game] for interest and for fun, to make an intellectual proposition 'work.' But there are certain values I hold deeply, which I often find I will modify the intellectual argument to support at almost all cost. I worry that this is opportunist at best, and not ethical at its worst.
- Do you tend to think in terms of “this is kind of like” (metaphorically)? Do you hold to examples that “say it all,” leveraging metonymic thinking? Hmmm...good question. I'm not sure I have a preference, but that could be because I haven't thought to pay attention until now.
- Do you like gaming understanding in this way? Does it frustrate you that your answers often don’t fit easily on either side of the binaries set up by the questions? (Jakobson suggests that over attachment to a simple binary scheme is a “continuity disorder.”). I love exploring the 'grey tones' between black and white. While I find it very productive in terms of thinking, it can be a liability when working on finalizing ideas/projects as it often results in slower production inspired by more questioning.
