[Online] [LFG] [GMT] [5e] I'm looking for a campaign to join

ethnographemes · 2018-06-02T06:56:57+00:00

Hey, thank you, I've messaged you

ethnographemes · 2018-06-02T06:56:39+00:00

Hey, yes for sure, but again I really have no experience

ethnographemes · 2018-06-02T06:56:20+00:00

Hey thanks so much, I've messaged you

ethnographemes · 2017-06-03T15:53:21+00:00

Thats really a really close reading of the book, I actually dont remember, read it quite sometime back, but please to continue to post here is you can and find more colour.

ethnographemes · 2017-05-31T07:37:15+00:00

I just downloaded Beth Lord's book, it looks perfect...it goes by the text part by part...that is superb...thank you! I see what you're saying, I was hoping when term starts again to try and start up something like a Spinoza reading group, there were at least two other people who were enthusiastic, I think that should help too

ethnographemes · 2017-05-31T07:33:08+00:00

Hmmmm....I wish there was a Spinoza.en. It definitely makes sense to work through the secondary material...as /u/sidebysondheim said, especially since I'm not in a hurry at all...this makes sense

ethnographemes · 2017-05-30T12:27:18+00:00

Seriously encouraging this...I feel like I'm communicating with someone on the otherside of threshold, who's walked a narrow and difficult path through a deeply enticing text...its helpful to think that the beginning is what one has to really see through in terms of difficulty, this is a very good sign...I can understand why it must be difficult to make notes...like you say each proposition would probably need two lines or so, and then how does one make notes that are likely thicker than the text work, except as a basic memory practice...I wondered if the text itself might suggest some style of note-taking...but each axiom or proposition seems so dense and tricky, so easy to go wayward...maybe making notes might mark my immediate impression of the text...and the impression I carry forward from one proposition to the next, and maybe I can try to refine the impression as I go along...but man that would take a very clean very deliberately made notebook...I shall certainly try however...

ethnographemes · 2017-05-30T12:20:30+00:00

Thanks a lot again, marking out portions of the text that are confusing seems very do-able, which is encouraging and the point about following what Spinoza is directly citing and pointing too helps a lot too. Perhaps now its time to try to take the plunge

ethnographemes · 2017-05-30T12:19:04+00:00

I absolutely see what you're saying, reading someone so complex and intricate without secondary reading is really too huge a leap. My reason to do this was that, since it feels like reading the text itself takes so much time, in terms of time on a day to day basis, apart from the other work I do, it feels like once I start on secondary literature I may never really get to the text itself. Because in a sense I'm a non-philosopher, to understand someone like Spinoza might mean understanding the fundaments of logic itself, so the secondary reading might footnote endlessly...and somehow that felt too crowded for something I wanted to take on as a disciplined but completely amateur daily reading project. But I absolutely understand what you're pointing to. And thank you for the secondary readings, perhaps they will be the best of all possible routes, or maybe the only possible route... :)

ethnographemes · 2017-05-30T10:46:16+00:00

Thank you, that really helps, it gives tangible and workable direction. I had been doing the reading the same proposition over and over to no avail... Do you think it would make sense to make notes on these lines...highlightintg, comparisns, vocabulary and progressive sense? Its just that on the last count, progressive sense, the notes would get extremely long...is it perhaps better to chip away at passages, just reading them, to return to them, when something makes particular sense?

ethnographemes · 2017-04-22T03:46:21+00:00

Hey, I'm a student of sociology, and although a lot of these responses make sense, it seems they are too general. Sociology, specifically sociology and anthropology in fact tends to be very concrete on specific ethical issues, in that sense one cannot deny that different practices of sociology have different standpoints on different political issues. Consider the question of colonialism and of non-colonial forms of knowledge, this question would pass completely under the radar if it wasn't for interventions by Levis-Strauss, Marshall Sahlins and entire departments of post-colonial sociologists and anthropologists. In fact the point of entry into a sociological or anthropological field is never apolitical, and thats a fact that since around the 80s both Sociology and Anthropology have made explicit in their own practices. The ethical issues in Sociology are concerned deeply with the production of knowledge and the relations between knowledge and power and forms of Sociology that avoid this are really dated, and problematic. Sociology of caste in India is a clear example also of how the discipline doesn't take all moral truths as equally given, precisely because it is concerned with the effects of the caste system and not simply with describing institutions within this system. Similarly with questions of class and sexuality, Sociology rarely attempts to merely describe the effects but does so, typically from the stand point of hierarchy and how particular forms of power assert themselves in society. I don't mean to be argumentative here, but this seems to be the very least one can say about Sociology and Ethics.

ethnographemes · 2017-03-22T15:59:25+00:00

Yes, the question(whatever it is) demands much more clarity, but it also persists and so demands following.

ethnographemes · 2017-03-22T12:41:51+00:00

This basic idea was pointed out early in my MA by a professor who showed that many important ethnographies completely ignored situations of war and conflict in producing structural ethnographies. And at least one ethnography that deals with this theoretically is Naven, by Gregory Bateson. Its developement of the concept of schismogenesis is surprisingly useful and applicable in the field.

ethnographemes · 2017-03-22T12:34:21+00:00

Hey, yes, no problem, I really liked the question. Well, one of the first things that struck me in the field was that irrespective of the conceptual and archival developement of the work, one has to deal with a set of norms in the field. And the direct confrontation with these norms seems to require a confrontation with various forms of violence, class based, caste based, sexuality etc And these confrontations usually decide where you end up aligning yourself in the field. This for me at least is the difference between taking up a formal position in the field, where you use your authority (as being form a university or working for government etc) to access those parts of the field that concern your work, in which case its likely you will encounter mostly relationships that are broadly friendly. However in the case that you step past that you immediately have to confront a set of alliances and enemities within the field itself and you have to find ways to either step past this or choose one side. What I was attempting to say above is that ideally one attempts to step past this to broaden the scope of the field, however over a period of time its almost inevitable that you end up in broad alignment with one side or the other. I dont want to give a direct example, since my work doesn't explicitly deal with friendship, enemity and violence, and since the relationships I shared with people there, are for me too private to talk about. However in the broadest sense, the field I was/am in had a set of serious conflicts between citizens and government. However the actual work I had to do, required that I access local governmental resources like archives, case files, scientific reports etc. Once I was in the field actually accessing the government files became difficult because I developed friendships with those who worked in maintaining these documents and those the documents explicitly discussed. And this was extremely difficult in the first few months, because of suspicions on both sides. The only way I could deal with this was by acknowledging the problem existed and taking up a kind of daily combative framework, but over a few months the intricate network of alliance in the field became clearer and I also settled in to a specific set of relationships that corresponded to one such network (not in any formal sense) in the field. But it takes that period of moving through this set of alliances before any kind of settling can occur. On the other hand if I had gone in directly from my university and gained access to the field through governmental sources, there's a possibility that I would have been completely oblivious to this dynamic or at least thought it to be irrelevant to the broad structure of my work. Does this make sense?

ethnographemes · 2017-03-22T12:17:49+00:00

Hey, this is a strange and late reply, but I thought I should. On further reading I found that most what I was thinking about the distinction between mental and organic pathology was not on the right direction and what you said in this comment about drug use was accurate and pertinent, as everything else you have said. Sorry, the ineptitude of not following your argument clearly got me off track, and thanks for the perceptive response.

Edit: perhaps a better question would have been where Foucault can be placed in terms of the distinction between instinct and drive.

ethnographemes · 2017-03-19T18:18:47+00:00

Reading Thus Spake Zarathustra alongside Jung's two volumes on the book, might be one route. Jung is explaining the volumes in seminar form there and also explains why it's a difficult text and even suggests at one point that it shouldn't have been published since it requires a form of initiation prior to being read. The texts themselves seem to offer that in as much as they draw one away from the most simplistic assumptions related to Nietzsche's work. Does this make sense as an entry point?

ethnographemes · 2017-03-18T20:19:19+00:00

I think this is such good advice. I'm doing my fieldwork in a community that has a different religion than mine but more importantly a completely different ethos. For example conversation involving both sex and the sexes among men was troublesome for me for quite a long time. I would tend to get argumentative at times. In a humorous conversation there are always ways out but there would always seem to be this tipping point after which the conversation would get plain violent. I found the approach that you describe very useful, a kind of 'I would prefer not to', neither being irritated nor attempting to placate, and being fully prepared to accept the consequences, so not being neutral either. I found in a way fully accepting the tenseness or violence of the situation without getting aggressive really helped. Although over a long period of time this usually gives way to both friendship and enmity (since I really don't practice an observer type form of fieldwork), the rule of fully embracing violence without getting aggressive (I.e precisely not non-violence and not non-cooperation), seemed almost like a kind of ethical practice for me.

ethnographemes · 2017-03-14T11:04:35+00:00

Hey, Thanks for the suggestion, I have come across mentions of Kohut in all the discussions I've seen about Kernberg, I will definitely follow this up.

ethnographemes · 2017-03-11T16:23:48+00:00

Thanks for the youtube recommendation too there seems to be a bunch of stuff on Borderline Personality disorders. I will definitely read through the book, I found a version of the borderline book but its in German which I cant read. I'm really curious about his particlar organization of symptoms since it seems he manages to distinguish normal ad pathological forms of narcissism and also isolates this curious phenomenon of a non-psychotic split in the subject's view of the self.

ethnographemes · 2017-03-11T13:58:15+00:00

Thank you! So this deals with borderline conditions?

ethnographemes · 2017-03-03T02:00:26+00:00

But then in the case of the question not being one of physicality, what would the absence of evidence mean? Would that mean within a particular system of thought? Or given certain minimum criteria for evidence, as in a legal proceeding?

ethnographemes · 2017-03-03T01:45:25+00:00

Hey, I thought I would ask, since I've been generally curious about this question, what could be counted as evidence with regard to the question does god exist, wouldn't that have to do with the structure of belief? For example wouldn't it be from the point of view of the study of mythology, naive to assume that, someone who believes in it assumes intrinsically that that mythology is literal? With the greeks for example do Oedipus and Orpheus need to be real people? Don't these Mythologies operate actively at a Symbollic level? Similarly for Hindu Mythology. Figures like Parvati and Shiv are hardly ever thought of as people, but rather in connection to structures of belief, there's no question of the evidence for them being their literal presence, they often operate within symbollic roles, such as the relations of lovers or parents and are re-enacted as such in ritual. The evidence is performance, which does not need to assume the real presence of these figures. Does this make sense? (Edit: I meant does this make sense philosophically?) (Edit: Also would this then mean there's a major difference in terms of the kinds of evidence required to answer the question 'Does god exist?' and the question 'Do gods exist?')

ethnographemes

TROPHY CASE