You gotta love someone with the audacity to write:
Along with the positivism, the contemporary university seems to have an abhorrence of mixed writing. This is probably the heritage of the methodologism and paradigmatization which flourished during the fifties and thereafter. There’s no real reason that a single book on a piece of literature couldn’t be structuralist, historicist, appreciative, politically engaged, and post-modernist (fill in your own isms)—all at the same time or in alternation. It might also even be well-written and fun to read. But this would be harder to do than the supposedly rigorous single-track expositions that the university demands. (And again, single-track writing has a lot to do with turf wars.)
I think I've found a new hero. Check out his project.
My plan from here on out, dog willing, is to write and self-publish 2,000 words a week for the next ten years or so (approximately until I'm 70). Of these million words, I hope for 200,000 to be longer pieces of substantial permanent interest. The rest will be lighter and less ambition, but few of them will be time-dependent and I expect that 80% of them will retain their interest.
I seem to recall however some philosophical underpinnings of Conservatism that made it sound rather Positivist and argued that it will inevitably take over the rational world. I'm going to create a Conservatism category to further disambiguate 'Critical Theory', so maybe I'll find it somewhere in there.
Recent Comments