One of the annoying things about my current research on temporality is that there are several big fat books everybody (correctly) regards as essential references that I don’t have the patience to read fully.
-
Show this thread
-
I’ve snacked, sampled, browsed, and read around them enough to be confident in my assessment that I get what they’re about. I can to situate my ideas in their context, and have extracted what I need. But there’s still this niggling good-student sense of phoning in my homework.
3 replies 2 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
During my PhD my advisor or somebody offered a wise heuristic: for every 100 references you collect (and 100 is the minimum to claim mastery of a subject) and grok the basic point of, you actually shallow read maybe 10, and deep read maybe 3-5.
2 replies 7 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
The strategic trick is realizing that the 3-5 you go deep on are almost certainly NOT going to be the consensus seminal references in the field. That’s a recipe for boring incrementalism. You get interesting results by putting weird, unexpected obscure picks in your top 5.
1 reply 5 retweets 32 likesShow this thread -
Still, this is hard when a subject is dominated by gravity field of big fat books. It’s like operating in Jupiter orbit. Engineering research is like the asteroid belt. Mostly papers. If it’s a big fat book, it’s already a textbook in civilized core, not part of the frontier.
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Research on temporality is shaped by the gravity field of a few big fat books: J. T. Fraser’s Time: the Familiar Stranger Proust’s In Search of Lost Time The Einstein-Bergson debate (an event with a fat literature attached) David Landes’ Revolution in Time
3 replies 2 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
Do you care more about temporality as experienced, or a more objective / scientific notion of temporality, or both/ their relationship?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
that distinction is a couple of abstraction levels above what I want. If the ref works within traditional objective/subjective distinctions it's not deep enough for my needs
-
-
Replying to @vgr
Any chance you could share what the kind of take you're working on then? I'm really curious about what you have in mind!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @neuropoetic
It's a book length project. If I could summarize it in a tweet, I wouldn't need to try writing it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 3 more replies
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.