We live in a time with a growing phenomenological, object-level (or as I prefer to call it, log-level) bias. Patience for abstractions of any sort is at its lowest in my living memory. If you argue at an “ism” level, you are presumed stupid until proven worth listening to.
-
Show this thread
-
If you traffic in ideas, you’d do well to compile them down to the lowest level you can manage. The ideal form of intellectual output is a sort of mindful witnessing of the zeitgeist where your abstractions are implied by the phenomenological boundaries you draw, not definitions
1 reply 8 retweets 104 likesShow this thread -
Memes are one bit of evidence for this trend. Memes don’t just go to the log-level themselves, they witness the game of abstractions itself from the underbelly perspective, bracketing and framing them with sensory-phenomenological templates.
1 reply 5 retweets 41 likesShow this thread -
When you cast a high-falutin’ abstract debate into say the American Chopper, expanding brain, or distracted boyfriend templates, you’re asserting the supremacy of phenomenology over abstractions. The concrete frame subverts the abstract content to varying degrees.
1 reply 5 retweets 50 likesShow this thread -
Memeing *is* how you do philosophy and polisci now. If you don’t get why or how, you’re destined for dismissal and marginalization. To those who take your abstract frames seriously you may be a genius. To those who meme-pwn you, you’re a lolcow. Guess which perception wins?
4 replies 17 retweets 101 likesShow this thread -
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.
