What both extremes miss is in locating the heart of intellectual production in conversation. But conversation, whether acrimonious or civil, isn't at the heart of modern intellectual production. The heart is subversion.
-
-
Just leaving the thread dangling here as a starter stub. There's something here I'm driving at that I can't clearly see myself.
Show this thread -
Okay another point. Besides subversion, there is an element of deep solipsism to how we produce. This is why the focus on "debate" and "conversation" feels like missing the point. I'm happy to debate where that helps, but generally, I'm off on an exit bunytrail, not voice
Show this thread -
The QA function of conversation/peer review, which is highly ceremonialized in academia is turned into a conscious risk management choice in internet mode. Do you want to go out on a limb on your own, or derisk early. Former is not a choice in academia.
Show this thread -
Because of deep ties to the way university research is funded, academic mode production has a ceremonialized fail-fast aspect to it. Going off on your own spirit quest on a topic for 5 years is career suicide. Publish and get past ornery peer reviewers frequently or perish.
Show this thread -
This may be why the dream of institutionalizing independent research is wishful thinking. If you want others to pay, you're going to be subject yourself to early, conservative QA. No funding source will pay for a world of extended solipsistic questing.https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1195789557465153536 …
Show this thread -
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.