Like @vgr in that essay, I don’t believe in “authenticity.” INauthenticity—duplicity—is a thing for sure. Opposite is not “authenticity” tho
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
Absence of rabbits is not a thing—we don’t need a word “rabbitlessness.” Absence of inauthenticity is not a thing either. Just an absence.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Realized recently that I care much less about this than most because I never watch TV, surf with AdBlock+, etc.; so never see advertising.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Maybe if I got a normal contemporary dose of advertising, I would believe in “authenticity” too.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
I think
@vgr’s attempt at steelmanning went wrong, tho. He’s entirely missed the point of the thing he’s critiquing (if I’ve identified it).2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness And that point of the thing is? (I assume you mean whatever X I've reified as 'cultural ether')1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
.
@vgr meanings do not live in individual people’s heads; they are collaborations almost always.2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
.@vgr From an individualist point of view, it’s difficult not to hear that as “mental fluid slopping out of brains” which isn’t the point…
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness I see it more as a hypothetical cloud enveloping a cuddle puddle or something.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.