Quick note on Accretions

So far myself and Freestone have thrown partially inchoate terms into ‘the world’. Or perhaps it would be more apt to say that we have conjured-up words that describe a new world; a world where the solid-world manifestation (and its neurotic workers and assimilation’s) is only one competing manifestation (against solipsism, aspects of phenomenology, idealism etc). So what do we have? We have neurotic subjects – not just neurotic in the psychological sense (a neurotic patient is aware of thought) but also in an ontological sense – whereby a subject is a site for various fleeting, contradictory concepts (….and nothing more?). Hence the neurotic subject is either a blabbering puppet of passing thoughts (what Nietzsche called the herd mentality), or they are players in a game; “I have got here through my thoughts so I must uphold them and spread their power” – the millionaire might say, or the religious thinker might say etc.  The concept of ‘identity’ is a ruse which basically makes us maintain various concepts and draw them out to see how far they go (we are led to believe that we want this identity formation  .. we say “this is who I am” etc.).

We also have this strange ephemeral description of assimilation; the concepts assimilate people to do and think certain things; we act in the name of a concept (‘the good’) and hence we are assimilated by the concept (we may even wish to die for it).  For things to make ‘sense’, in the most rudimentary way, they must be assimilated into a meaning-use context or piece of equipment; a word in relation to another word, a movement in relation to a piece of dance etc.

A subject’s neurosis (a being aware of the irreducible facticity of thought) can further assimilate a larger domain; Van Gogh’s personal neurosis becomes assimilated within the post-impressionistic collective movement, becomes emulated, I wear a t-shirt with his painting on it etc. In short – a thought can become a culture if assimilated correctly.

Even if the neurosis does not become assimilated it will almost definitely still accrete. This concept (or ontological description if you will) exists thanks to Freestone. What this means to me is that information can become unbound from mental acts or behaviours and exist in a semi-active realm (being dormant or gushing forth). For example; a London tower is assimilated by people via meaning-use terms, but what can accrete might be the plastic cladding installed in the building; the information about the plastic cadding was known to a select few people (people might have known it was a dubious material) but its informational power remained ‘real’ (or actual if you will) and was disclosed at a moment when it A) showed itself , or , B) was tapped into by certain assimilations.

For me the pneuminous realm is precisely this commitment to informational structures instead of prioritising a certain manifestation (or its manner of ‘appearing’).  For each manifestation the information is still there, forever mutable and absolute.

In other words – I cannot see why an accretion cannot be both a solipsistic auto-generation (like neurosis), the condition in which meaning-as-use objects remain tied to their use (a radiator may accrete radiator-ness) and … I don’t see why an accretion could not be an encounter with information hitherto undisclosed (‘the great outdoors’?).

When we add accretion to neurosis and assimilation we have the bricks and mortar that allows assimilation to happen. Before accretions existed we had assimilations working through predictable patterns or extrapolations (of cultures, peoples, language, etc) but with accretions the assimilation no longer takes its own course but meets all sorts of varieties of information through the assimilative journey. In short we have a kind of Hegelian process where an assimilation takes place yet the reality that it produces doubles on itself as the changing of information indexes itself back onto reality after the event (…and never fully leaves!!!!).



33 thoughts on “Quick note on Accretions

      1. So you don’t know if it’s a parody or not!

        Obviously my earlier comment was bogus — randomly generated nonsense liberally peppered with your jargon. The fact that you took it seriously, found ‘points’ in it to answer, and apparently felt no need to seek clarification despite its being utter gibberish shows that my presumption of intellectual charlatanry was correct.


    1. Dear ‘J’,

      Thanks for the response. I feel reticent to converse with you from the get-go because you are not qualifying a problem with the above post and you appear quite vulgar and flippant. If you are genuinely frustrated with the terminology and the various reasons why some of us have come to this conclusion (irreducibly of the concept, deconstruction of the subject, process philosophy etc.) then I am happy to try and qualify my statements (I have written four books trying to do this!). I too found it frustrating reading Heidegger, Derrida, Deleuze etc for the first time (but Kant, Hume and Hegel are equally as turgid). They do become more satisfying however with some time and patience. Here to help or elaborate when I can. To answer your question; sometimes things are necessarily obscure because
      reality is not as simply as it seems (this point almost all philosophers agree on). Also the question of mental illness is a poignant one for me (I support those critiques of absolute or non-relative health by theorists such as Marcuse, Fromm, Foucault etc) – sometimes the term ‘health’ can create unhealthy pigeonholing and discrimination.



  1. Yes it was quite clear here that your earlier comment was bogus too. But you face us with a problem, ignore your nonsense or view it as an interpretable challenge. It’s much more fun to do the latter. This is an experimental ontology site.


    1. 1) Do you want me to take your post seriously or not?
      2) Do you want me to tell you who you work for? (what personalities you identify with?).
      3) I would never seek absolute clarification from anyone (because a subject will never be able to absolutely clarify themselves).
      4) Your desire to respond masks your desire to want to play the game and see what you’re made of…

      Best wishes,



      1. CW Johns: I have no idea what you’re talking about, which presumably was your intention: “Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound strive for obscurity”.


    2. Erm…if you recognised it was nonsense, why did you respond as though it were saying something intelligible and substantive? Your claim that you chose to view it as an ‘interpretable challenge’ makes no sense. Nonsense is nonsense and so poses no challenge whatsoever. Does this pose a challenge to your ‘views’: shsus &6 uhy% shsuso huu spj.;?


      1. Let’s not be silly now. Your original comment obviously hovered somewhere between someone drunkenly commenting for fun or someone doing the old ‘lets see if any old nonsense will get past these people’ (possibly both). Unlike the string of characters you list at the bottom, it has no context for interpretation (though of course such string could be interpreted). It’s much more fun to look for sense in your post and reply accordingly than get wound up. More seriously though, there’s nothing really bizarre in the tradition about forming a terminology. The site is relatively young and there is growing glossary to help you. The truth is I’m sure you have pre-decided it’s all nonsense, which is fine, but if that’s the case it begs the question as to why you bother to keep coming back here. If you would like to untangle it and see if you can actually cogently argue with it, you would need to be able to understand it, but as you have pre-decided it can’t be understood there’s not much point in your persisting. Any actual point would be happily answered.


  2. Yes, I’ve read your glossary. It didn’t help, since the definitions are stated in jargon that is just as impenetrable as the definiendum (e.g., ‘accretion is an accretion of pneuma, as such it means the same as pneuminous accretion’; ‘Assimilation can be called the process description of pneuminous accretion’, etc., etc.)

    I didn’t prejudge anything. I stumbled upon your blog and read it with an open mind but found it unintelligible and highly pretentious.

    NB. ’To beg the question’ means to assume the truth of the very proposition one is trying to prove; it does not mean ‘to raise the question’.


  3. Dear ‘Jeremy’
    “I’m sure you have pre-decided it’s all nonsense” is what I am charging you with having an assumed the truth of, “why you bother to keep coming back here” is clearly a referent to what you are trying to prove in doing so (that it is nonsense). You have assumed (in my opinion) it’s nonsense to prove it’s nonsense, that is question begging.

    I have no trouble to try to explain any of this to you but probably you should stop it with the nebulous ‘this is nonsense’ ‘this is pretentious’ business -hardly the spirit of rigour itself. Saying ‘I read this with an open mind’ doesn’t mean you actually did (indeed your general tone is strongly suggestive to the contrary).

    Reading something immersed in its own terminology is hard and I can see that when it’s just a minority inchoate philosophy with not much interest in it, there’s not much call to make the effort. That’s fine, so stop wasting your life on this -unless you’re having fun too, in which case feel free to crack on- or ask a sensible question.

    best wishes



  4. At least we all share an enthusiasm for philosophy even if we seem to disagree. I do believe that agreement could be made. Perhaps if we started from more acceptable terms such as the cogito, or 17th century ideas of substance, and then disclose how such concepts seem problematic from the get-go? There are ideas of information-theory and systems-theory in mine and Freestones work (definitely of interest if you haven’t looked into people like Niklas Luhmann) and there is still a strange kind of panpsychism involved. The process philosophy of people like Whitehead, Bergson and Deleuze have also influenced us as many of these/our terms describe (at least for me) processes; because one cant explicitly talk about the reality of objects, concepts and subjects but must start to think of entities as ‘events’ or moments in time (defined by ‘becomings’ or the ‘trace’ in Derrida’s work, or the actuality of the virtual in Bergson and Deleuze). Language too has its power here (myself and Freestone both like the later Wittgenstein) and so I strongly side with him when people try to critique the ‘proper’ usage of a word – any word can be used as ‘meaning-as-use’ within a ‘game’ and a form of sense-making will ensue. I sense a strong analytical philosophy inclination in the young Jeremy chap (..?). It’s nice to have different backgrounds when having these chats. Best, Charlie.


    1. I note the sneering tone of your reference to analytic philosophy. Actually I’m trained in both traditions. But in my view there is no substantive difference between analytic and Continental philosophy, and those who want to classify serious philosophical scholarship as ‘analytic’ often do so in order to ignore it.

      As regards my interest in this website: philosophy is not a field where nonsense and intellectual charlatanry are permitted to pass in silence. There are English departments where you might get away with this sort of silliness but not in philosophy.


  5. Dear ‘Jeremy’
    So far you’ve tried to trick us, been generally insulting, bodged the accusation of a logical fallacy and failed to come up with any real critique even though we keep asking for a better dialogue.

    I don’t think Charlie was sneering about analytic philosophy and neither am I, this betrays (once again) your negative interpretation of the situation colouring your replies.

    Once again we ask that you come up with something a bit better than ‘this is all nonsense’. If you cannot do so maybe you should look for a refund on that ‘training’ of yours.

    KInd regards


    1. Let’s not compare CVs, G.

      The reason I haven’t engaged with your website beyond saying that it is nonsense is precisely because I think it is nonsense. My belief that it is nonsense obviously precludes any further critical engagement. In my view, there is simply nothing to engage with.

      I didn’t dodge your suggestion that I’d committed a logical fallacy. I ignored it, since I thought it was a bit silly. You obviously have no reason at all to believe that I came to this website already having decided that it is nonsense.


      1. No let’s not, this at least will save you the embarrassment of making a dodgy looking argument from authority. Of course it’s true that I couldn’t ground the accusation before you had seen the site at all (that would be nonsense). It doesn’t however take long to spot this.
        I obviously don’t have to tell you that saying ‘this is nonsense’ isn’t an argument. Real critical engagement is to actually show that the terms involved don’t add up, that the arguments are problematic etc. You’ve made a judgement because we use homegrown terminology that it must be nonsense (a problematic term in itself). I can understand that, we all know about Sokal. The problem of new terminology is a tricky one. What constitutes an authentic usage and what doesn’t? Is there even such a notion as authentic usage? My Wittgensteinian sense tells me the words must have criteria for usage. Your problem is you don’t know the criteria so you presuppose there aren’t any. Have you looked at Laruelle? My god that can give you a headache, but patience (trying to understand the where he is coming from, the criteria for usage) is very rewarding. But as I also conceded we’re not Laruelle or Lacan etc so there is simply no call to investigate the terms. No the glossary isn’t perfect by any means, but time is finite (haha at a certain level anyway) and we can’t write everything at once. The whole thing is a work in progress, a synthesis of two philosophies, Charlie’s and mine. Through discussion and writing, we rework and refine the ideas and if someone wants to get something out of it fine, if not they can ignore it. A much better strategy would be to ask us for meanings and then take us to task about our answers if you think they fell short. This would even be helpful and something that much more resembled a philosophical discussion.


  6. ‘Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood’ – Friedrich Nietzsche. This is artillery against your previous quote on ‘striving for clarity’. Dan, Jeremy, Olivia .. whoever you are. Nietzsche comes to mind especially when I read and think about you; you are too full of ‘resentment’ to want to explore and ‘think’ as Heidegger put it. Essentially you are too ‘weak’ as Nietzsche would say. You are too stubborn to achieve anything more than passive hermeneutic approaches to older scholars. That is fundamentally why you are on this blog and not interacting in the world of philosophy (as Graham mentioned there is no time for your little ego relapse, new work is coming out every day; whether it be Deleuze, Badiou, Laruelle, Brassier, Latour, Malabou, Mielllassoux etc and they all pose interesting philosophical problems). The game is already lost my friend; myself and Graham are already here and satisfied with what we are achieving. Only pleasantries and feelings of blessedness are what we can fundamentally offer to you now. Our new thoughts (being distributed through Penguin-Random House) are available for pre-order now if you wish to see how other philosophers such as Benjamin Noys (university of Chichester), Dany Nobus (Brunel University), Graham Harman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Harman) think through and with us (as a team of civil, affable, accredited philosophers). Now go sulk somewhere else!



  7. Oh Boy! You clowns really take the biscuit! Comparing yourself to Nietzsche! Are you for real? Nietzsche would be turning in his grave at your embarrassing attempts to psychologise me!

    As for the ‘neurotic turn’: it’s been a few years since I was part of the academy but I’m not aware of any such paradigm shift. Indeed, a quick search of Google scholar turns up a grand total of zero citations for each of you! So it seems that the only ‘turn’ that has occurred in philosophy, or any other field, as a result of your sophomoric ramblings exists in your daydreams.


    1. No one compared oneself to Nietzsche, one simply notices all the symptoms in you. This is glaringly obvious; you have passive polemics instead of active affirmation, there is no ‘turning away’ when needed. A Nietzschean would never compare ‘google scholar citations’ as a criteria for their greatness, for their nobility. Quite the contrary what you are doing there is becoming the ‘herd mentality’ by equating nobility with what public recognition one has. You dont even dare tell us who you are. We believe you are using someone elses email account. Can we stop bickering and and be friends now 🙂 Surely it’s too much hard work to keep this pompous attitude up much longer ‘Jeremy’. There has to be some cracks of kindness or happiness in you??? The point about the NT book is not a gloat (shallow acclaim or public recognition) but evidence that ideas are assimilating, accreting around these themes of agency, of conceptual determination, of the plurality of possible manifestions/realities. We have bickered it out over many comment posts now (strangely without confronting the philosophical material) and I am not fuelled by enough irritation anymore to play the game. P.S – I like the ‘daydreams’ part, makes me want to do a post on that particular notion 🙂


      1. First, it’s obviously a glaring non sequitur to infer that I’m a Nietzschean from the fact that I briefly quoted him. I’m not.

        Second, I think your reading comprehension could use some work, since I clearly wasn’t equating citation rates with ‘greatness’, ‘nobility,’ or ‘public recognition.’ What I was saying is this: your pompous and self-congratulatory description of your work as initiating a ‘turn’ suggests that it has had a far-reaching, perhaps even revolutionary, impact on the development of philosophy (or some other field). As Google scholar citations are the best metric of impact and influence, and since you have zero citations, I am strongly inclined to believe that your claim is false.

        Third, I have no idea why you think attacking another’s philosophy is passive or an expression of resentment. Philosophy is by nature a combative discipline, and if you put your views in the public domain you should be prepared for them to be savaged. There is no personal animosity in my attack, since I don’t know either of you from Adam.


      2. Come on Jezzski, this is the only kind of thing we have a problem with ‘if you put your views in the public domain you should be prepared for them to be savaged.’ That’s true, no one minds comments or criticism, as you say it’s non-personal. It’s just you don’t give anything constructive or even successfully negative, there is no substantial attack, there is no ‘being savaged’ just the old ‘nonsense’ mantra. Now as variously implored, you could help out with actual critique or you could call it day.


  8. Why do you think the charge of intelligibility is not subtantive? I have also pointed out that your attempts to define your jargon are circular. This too is substantive. Any further substantive points would require meaningful content, which is what I claim is lacking.

    There don’t seem to be any arguments to criticize anyway. Even if the individual propositions themselves were intelligible, they are merely asserted and not argued for. Take, for example, the following passage from ‘The Doctrine of Pneuminous Accretions’:

    “Beware! Things are not as they seem; your discrete and solid world is permeated by something else. What is this else?! I hear you cry. This else is the impossible double of all things that makes them things at all! What nonsense! I hear you cry. There can be no double to what is! Yet there is; the impossible pneuma makes all things what they are.
    What is this pneuma of which you speak and how is it the double of that which is? The truth if we dare to use this word here: is that it is not the double of things, it is the thing itself! But it is the double insofar as the shadowy and mysterious also has a kind of being which the pneuma attaches to. This shadowy behind is necessarily there yet only the pneuma shows itself.”

    Where is the argument here? Even if I could understand your secret language, I’m given no reason to accept the claims beings made, so I might as well believe their negations.


    1. The ‘Doctrine…’ most certainly is a piece of hyperstitional writing. No argument there 😉 But pneuma is just information conceived as having the possibility of exerting an effect on a putative materiality. Well done, this is much more like it, even if you pick weak target.


    1. Hi, yes I agree with you that its sounds a bit self-congratulatory (a whole ‘turn’!). There is a book and general movement called the linguistic turn and then there was a book called the speculative turn (out about 10 years ago). This new book is similar in that its brought together by a group of writers all interested in either clarifying , expanding or reconstructing the now redundant term neurosis (thrown out of the DSM about 40 years ago). We’re hoping that it will sell more books with that kind of title! 🙂 There are some writers in the book who suggest that the way we develop sense-making (and the way material processes shape the world – if I can say that) is based more on processes of repetition (some compulsory/traumatic and some cultivational) rather than perhaps a more humanist connotation like perfect rationality, freedom or a kind of ‘naive’ realism of pre-existing objects just being there for us to understand. I think a lot of social theorists in the book were interested in showing a novel paradigm of human activity which could be described as ‘neurotic’; checking ones phone repeatedly whilst singing a song on the radio whilst engaging with a video game etc seems removed from responding to the natural environment the way we would have done in the past. They wondered how many of those responses are simulated (or virtual interactions) and what the stakes are for such interaction (how such interaction creates an idealised or purely conceptual/symbolic sense of the self; facebook, avatars, etc) . Hope that helps and hope you find it interesting. It would be great if you ever wanted to write something similar, that also takes your interest into account. Cheers, Charlie.


      1. It makes sense to speak of a ‘linguistic turn,’ because so many of the major movements in twentieth-century philosophy (logical positivism, ordinary-language philosophy, etc.) were based on the idea that philosophical problems can be solved, and pseudo-problems dissolved, through reflection on language. Similarly, it makes sense to speak of an ‘epistemological turn’ to mark the shift in the seventeenth-century from metaphysics to epistemology. The word ‘turn’ in both contexts refers to a philosophical revolution. No such revolution has occurred as a result of your, or anyone else’s, work on neurosis (getting your mates to contribute to a book doesn’t constitute a revolution!). Indeed, the citation rates I referred to before suggest that it has been largely ignored. Hence I would say the word is extremely poorly chosen, perhaps even delusional.


  9. Actually, I picked that passage pretty much at random. The point holds in respect of everything else on this website that I’ve read. If there are counterexamples, please present one.

    Giving it a clever-sounding label (‘hyperstitional writing’) doesn’t change the fact that it’s basically a string of unsupported assertions.

    >But pneuma is just information conceived as having the possibility of exerting an effect on a putative materiality.

    What does this mean? Plain English please.


    1. So it concerns the possibility of magickal interactions. So in a Jungian synchroncity for example if we bracket off the much expounded notion of statistical probability as explanation (not because its wrong, but because it doesn’t need me to write about it as well) and consider what occurred in one of the big alternatives (the actual reality bend one as opposed to a preordained harmony) then it is the symbol, the information that has strongly structured the world (as opposed to weak structuring which you get in the statistical confirmation bias version, which is just another form of material explanation). Conceiving information with the ability to make this kind of strong interaction/alteration of the world is what I would generally call pneuma, though I can confess sometimes I use it for non-magickal world information and call it weak-pneuma and strong in the magickal case.


  10. Why does a ‘turn’ have to qualify a revolution? How do we know if certain ideas (lets say work on neurosis) is not revolutionary until we see what takes effect and passes through different future thinkers? This does not mean it will, it’s just what I feel strongly about. I like the phrase because it could denote a ‘turn’ in the sense of someone changing their attitude (perhaps for the worst..). I think describing how people form identities under late capitalism as a process of neurosis; obsessions with attaining a certain identity or being obsessed with how one is seen by others, modes of brainwashing, mass conformism, the construct of the ‘subject’ tout court .. but also the neurosis of the thinker preoccupied with a certain thought (even the humiliation of NOT knowing) – I think these aspects could be explored more. Also the book isn’t out yet mate … steady on! 🙂 I like how other people are interested in the same themes as me at the same time. Like this lecture by Benjamin Noys. I think it contains food for thought (even if some of these thoughts come from literary studies, psychology, media studies I still believe they can be synthesised in the philosophical tradition). I’ll take your criticism about the title on board though. How about the Speculative Turn? Is that a revolution in your eyes? If not then does that mean there are a few of us who are guilty of delusion?


    1. >Why does a ‘turn’ have to qualify a revolution?

      I’m not sure what you mean by ‘qualify’. Do you simply mean ‘refer to’ or ‘mean’? If so, why not say that, instead of using this rather obscure formulation. But if you do just mean ‘refer to,’ then I don’t understand the question. Are you asking about the etymology of the word or perhaps the history of its common usage? Or are you saying that you’re coining some new usage? That doesn’t seem to fit with the blurb for your edited collection, which clearly suggests you’re using it in the conventional way.

      >How do we know if certain ideas (lets say work on neurosis) is not revolutionary until we see what takes effect and passes through different future thinkers?

      Obviously we don’t. But that applies to every philosophy book ever written. It seems very odd to describe one’s work as initiating a turn on the basis that it *might* initiate a turn.

      >How about the Speculative Turn? Is that a revolution in your eyes?
      No. There is no evidence of which I’m aware to support this either. A group of scholars having a common research interest doesn’t constitute a revolution.


  11. Hi Jeremy, how are you? What I would like to ask is why a ‘turn’ has to mean/refer to a revolution? I’m asking this, not because I’m interested, but because I want to try and answer your question accurately. For me a ‘potato’ could mean a revolution if the word is used in a particular way. I did not write the blurb. From my experience with publishers I never seem to be able to write my own blurbs/promotion, it’s one of the problems of ‘widespread’ publication. Yes I think you’re attitude is right here regarding being dubious of the the desire for revolution of a work (that is what you’re saying – that it’s odd to proclaim this), I think it’s just something I’m interested in; attempting to activate something important in the future. I like how Nietzsche used to say ‘a book for the future’ or ‘ for my future readers’. Do you know what I mean? I don’t think it has to be arrogant and I promise I wont push too hard if it doesn’t amount to much. I think it can just be a future-oriented way of positing ones work. Also, as I said before, I like the word ‘turn’ in reference to sayings like ‘ a turn of events’ or ‘ a turn for the worse’ .. even ‘the wrong turn’. I also like it because in my own personal way it chimes with Henry James’ work ‘a turn of the screw’, all these connotations (or denotations) I like. Thanks for participating on the blog and speak soon.


    1. >What I would like to ask is why a ‘turn’ has to mean/refer to a revolution? … For me a ‘potato’ could mean a revolution if the word is used in a particular way.

      You seem to be alluding to the idea that it is only as a result of convention that words acquire their particular meanings. Even if that’s right, on the assumption that you want to be understood, it’s a good idea to use words in their conventional sense, rather than privately decide that the word means something else altogether. You could have called your book *The Neurotic Potato* and meant whatever it is that you are claiming you actually meant by *The Neurotic Turn*. But obviously no one apart from you would have understood what you meant. If you’re going to repudiate conventional meanings so that no one can understand what you’re saying, then it becomes very unclear why you would bother disseminating your writing in the first place.

      More generally, I find what you are now saying about your use of the word ‘turn’ very confusing. On the one hand, you seem to be claiming that you’re using it in some wholly unconventional, idiosyncratic sense, but on the other, you’re saying ‘who’s to say my book won’t be revolutionary?,’ and comparing your book to Rorty’s on the ‘linguistic turn’ and the putative ‘speculative turn’ in Continental philosophy.

      >Yes I think you’re attitude is right here regarding being dubious of the the desire for revolution of a work (that is what you’re saying – that it’s odd to proclaim this)

      No, that is not what I’m saying. The desire for one’s work to have far-reaching influence strikes me as eminently reasonable. What I was saying is that it is odd to describe one’s work as initiating a turn when (a) that it is patently false and/or (b) all you really mean by ‘turn’ is that you hope your work will initiate a turn. I’m sure you would like your work to initiate a turn but that hardly makes it a suitable title for your book.


  12. The answer why a turn has to refer to a revolution still hasn’t been clarified here for me..? I think every conventional sense of a word is mutable (the critique of ‘Being’, ‘Subject’, ‘Woman’, ‘Man’ etc in Derrida’s and others work takes note of this mutability). Convention is contingent. The question for me is what is the present use of the word , what does it do and what ideologies are behind that denotation ? ( .. this still holds if the word is polythetic). So what am I doing; the usual playfulness of words and meanings – to take ‘turn’ and disclose some of its other meanings: ‘to move in a circular direction’, to ‘twist or sprain’, to’ move (something) so that it is in a different position in relation to its surroundings or its previous position’ (this is very apt regarding the purpose of the book), to ‘start doing and become involved with’ .. these are all proper definitions if you want to read them up. So to take a dominant meaning and reveal repressed or less dominant characteristics of the word. This also chimes well with my whole project of trying to de-humanise some ideological aspects of thinking (choosing neurosis or obsession before the decision to make a rational project or method). There is no repudiation of meanings (that to me would be a failed/hypocritical project already in many ways) but a shifting or disclosing that respects the conventions in order to play with their semantics. This answers all three questions in a sense. I’m not interested in what could follow such as; if there is a rule book for ‘turn’ or non-‘turn’ books then who decides and under what criteria? I think people will decide for themselves whether they want to read the work or not without a group of people designating what is and is not suitable to be considered a ‘turn’. To repeat – I use it both differently (liberating less desirable qualities of the word which chime with my work) AND as a nod to the use of the word in those philosophical turns we have talked about. Note – a nod could be critical or ironic, like an experimental band calling their album ‘Greatest Hits’ 🙂 I can critique the ‘use’ of the word beyond its content (I like Rorty etc). Where would the fun be of thinking if the meaning-as-use of it were immutable? The analogy between ‘turn’ and ‘revolution’ is only one analogy (and I don’t think its a common analogy tbh), the word ‘turn’ is only self-congratulatory or mis-used if you abide by a strict criteria within a certain historical period (and that criteria is never fully comprehended) . I like the idea of eating cake and having it, or, the notion of the ‘dispositif’ (turning mechanisms of power, convention, knowledge back upon itself to expand its definition i.e the legacy of the ‘turn’).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s