Beyond Reason: The Top Ten

[linebaugh]

It might be hard to believe, but, even though it's unlikely, you will probably concede that it's at least conceivable that there could be someone on here so unfeasibly ignorant that they have never read this book, in fact there might be someone - definitely not me but someone - so ill-educated that they - again, to be clear, not me - have never even heard of it and don't know what it's about. And I wonder if, for the benefit of those fools, perhaps it would be better to begin the discussion at a lower stage, maybe saying what it is and what it's about etc rather than wading in with a discussion of a particular specific point which, yes, is fine for those of us who've read it but for people such as, I dunno, probably @DannyL for instance who haven't - well for us er them it's kinda meaningless and hard to follow.

Alright I haven't read the fucking book, what is it, why is it good? Please tell me.

Camille pagillia the author was essentially kicked out of academia and had her career nearly ruined because she got in an argument with other academic feminists who beleived that there was absolutely no correlation between hormones and behavior, to give you an idea of where the book is coming from. Its a reconsideration a non-stupid form of gender essentialism reacting against popular theories of gender being entirely socially constructed. She uses frued to argue this which basically means theres a little biology but the crux of the argument is phenomological- there are unique persceptive experiences that arise from having a male or female body and these innately influence the metaphors we think in, for example she thinks its 'natural' for women to be less control motivated or agressive not just because they have less testosterone but because they inherently reckon with having less control over their own bodies via the menstrual cycle and pregnancy and etc. Basically theyre prone to being zen in this way and as far as Ive read thats the central metaphor the entire book works around: woman is representative of and more conftorable with Nature while man is outside Nature and has a more complicated almost adversarial relationship to it and this explains gendered behavior as much as social constructivism does. theres something to this but you can also see how it can quickly become a wank.

The rest of the book is looking at various things in art and media ('sexual personae' like the femme fatale archetype) and working through them with this primary thought

 

[linebaugh]

@linebaugh I think you'd maybe dig the opening chapter of Labatut, it feels Wes-core to me for whatever reason

Very excited to read this and learn about the world and also what you think of me

 

[sus]

I agree with all your critiques of Paglia, linebaugh, but Sexual Personae's prose has so much style, it is so refreshing reading ideas presented that way, a marriage of content and form

 

[sus]

In the beginning was nature. The background from which and against which our ideas of God were formed, nature remains the supreme moral problem. We cannot hope to understand sex and gender until we clarify our attitude toward nature. Sex is a subset to nature. Sex is the natural in man.

Society is an artificial construction, a defense against nature’s power. Without society, we would be storm-tossed on the barbarous sea that is nature. Society is a system of inherited forms reducing our humiliating passivity to nature. We may alter these forms, slowly or suddenly, but no change in society will change nature. Human beings are not nature’s favorites. We are merely one of a multitude of species upon which nature indiscriminately exerts its force. Nature has a master agenda we can only dimly know.

Human life began in flight and fear. Religion rose from rituals of propitiation, spells to lull the punishing elements. To this day, communities are few in regions scorched by heat or shackled by ice. Civilized man conceals from himself the extent of his subordination to nature. The grandeur of culture, the consolation of religion absorb his attention and win his faith. But let nature shrug, and all is in ruin. Fire, flood, lightning, tornado, hurricane, volcano, earthquake—anywhere at any time. Disaster falls upon the good and bad. Civilized life requires a state of illusion. The idea of the ultimate benevolence of nature and God is the most potent of man’s survival mechanisms.

 

[linebaugh]

I agree with all your critiques of Paglia, linebaugh, but Sexual Personae's prose has so much style, it is so refreshing reading ideas presented that way, a marriage of content and form

Thats why I added the 'not her fault' qualifier to my original comment- id probably be more in the spirit of her tone and style and its merging with the content if it wasnt so aped by alot of annoying modern cultural discourse. I actually didnt know much about the book and I thought the 'sex' was litterally about fucking lol. So when i got into it there was a 'oh, its more gender talk' moment

 

[mvuent]

Very excited to read this and learn about the world and also what you think of me

"hey linebaugh i found the perfect book for you, it's about not understanding the world, i saw it and immediately thought of you!"

 

[mvuent]

I've finally gotten round to watching season 2 and just have the finale left. It's great when Giamatti appears and they all end up in Mexico. He materialised in the Pynchon sub to promote the show at one point.

in "fool's gold" sus argues that this guy is way way smarter than pynchon and that the show renders his novels completely obsolete

 

[sus]

"hey linebaugh i found the perfect book for you, it's about not understanding the world, i saw it and immediately thought of you!"

@mvuent your recommendation is "Fiat Flux"

 

[sus]

Here's Random Cloud's "Fiat Flux," which I scanned in so y'all fools can read it

Cloud is a pseudonym for a Canadian close-reading textual scholar who specialized in Renaissance poetry.

He also invented whacky devices for comparing manuscript editions by layering the images atop each other in your vision

This piece is a crazy inventive piece of scholarship that examines many different printings of George Herbert's 1633 poem "Easter-wings," and shows how impossible it is to pick an "authoritative" version, and how seemingly minute editorial decisions lead to dramatic interpretive swings.

It's a gorgeous introduction to Renaissance poetry, textual scholarship, and the world of Renaissance bookprinting. You end up having to learn how quartos are stitched together, and what sorts of common binding mistakes were made, in service of comprehending Herbert's poem.

 

[IdleRich]

Camille pagillia the author was essentially kicked out of academia and had her career nearly ruined because she got in an argument with other academic feminists who beleived that there was absolutely no correlation between hormones and behavior, to give you an idea of where the book is coming from. Its a reconsideration a non-stupid form of gender essentialism reacting against popular theories of gender being entirely socially constructed. She uses frued to argue this which basically means theres a little biology but the crux of the argument is phenomological- there are unique persceptive experiences that arise from having a male or female body and these innately influence the metaphors we think in, for example she thinks its 'natural' for women to be less control motivated or agressive not just because they have less testosterone but because they inherently reckon with having less control over their own bodies via the menstrual cycle and pregnancy and etc. Basically theyre prone to being zen in this way and as far as Ive read thats the central metaphor the entire book works around: woman is representative of and more conftorable with Nature while man is outside Nature and has a more complicated almost adversarial relationship to it and this explains gendered behavior as much as social constructivism does. theres something to this but you can also see how it can quickly become a wank.

The rest of the book is looking at various things in art and media ('sexual personae' like the femme fatale archetype) and working through them with this primary thought

Ah I didn't realize it was Paglia - read some of her stuff when I was young - somehow (it must have said) but great explanation, thank you.

 

[sus]

In the beginning was nature. The background from which and against which our ideas of God were formed, nature remains the supreme moral problem. We cannot hope to understand sex and gender until we clarify our attitude toward nature. Sex is a subset to nature. Sex is the natural in man.

Society is an artificial construction, a defense against nature’s power. Without society, we would be storm-tossed on the barbarous sea that is nature. Society is a system of inherited forms reducing our humiliating passivity to nature. We may alter these forms, slowly or suddenly, but no change in society will change nature. Human beings are not nature’s favorites. We are merely one of a multitude of species upon which nature indiscriminately exerts its force. Nature has a master agenda we can only dimly know.

Human life began in flight and fear. Religion rose from rituals of propitiation, spells to lull the punishing elements. To this day, communities are few in regions scorched by heat or shackled by ice. Civilized man conceals from himself the extent of his subordination to nature. The grandeur of culture, the consolation of religion absorb his attention and win his faith. But let nature shrug, and all is in ruin. Fire, flood, lightning, tornado, hurricane, volcano, earthquake—anywhere at any time. Disaster falls upon the good and bad. Civilized life requires a state of illusion. The idea of the ultimate benevolence of nature and God is the most potent of man’s survival mechanisms.

@IdleRich pls give this a composite score out of 15, awarding a maximum of 5 points for spirituality, 5 points for aesthetic sophistication, 5 points for philosophical potency

 

[linebaugh]

Going to post "The Media" in its entirety, because it's very short + paywalled + brilliant

This is a big stylistic inspiration for you is it not? Both the prose and the interdisciplinary weaving?

"I’m just clicking on things in bed, a review by a man named Luka, who says I have no feelings and hate art."

 

[Clinamenic]

This is a big stylistic inspiration for you is it not? Both the prose and the interdisciplinary weaving?

"I’m just clicking on things in bed, a review by a man named Luka, who says I have no feelings and hate art."

“the purest example of a philistine conceiveable”

 

[mixed_biscuits]

In the beginning was nature. The background from which and against which our ideas of God were formed, nature remains the supreme moral problem. We cannot hope to understand sex and gender until we clarify our attitude toward nature. Sex is a subset to nature. Sex is the natural in man.

Society is an artificial construction, a defense against nature’s power. Without society, we would be storm-tossed on the barbarous sea that is nature. Society is a system of inherited forms reducing our humiliating passivity to nature. We may alter these forms, slowly or suddenly, but no change in society will change nature. Human beings are not nature’s favorites. We are merely one of a multitude of species upon which nature indiscriminately exerts its force. Nature has a master agenda we can only dimly know.

Human life began in flight and fear. Religion rose from rituals of propitiation, spells to lull the punishing elements. To this day, communities are few in regions scorched by heat or shackled by ice. Civilized man conceals from himself the extent of his subordination to nature. The grandeur of culture, the consolation of religion absorb his attention and win his faith. But let nature shrug, and all is in ruin. Fire, flood, lightning, tornado, hurricane, volcano, earthquake—anywhere at any time. Disaster falls upon the good and bad. Civilized life requires a state of illusion. The idea of the ultimate benevolence of nature and God is the most potent of man’s survival mechanisms.

There is nothing outside of nature obv: humans are completely within it, 'society' is nature too and there is no possibility of 'artifice'

 

[IdleRich]

@IdleRich pls give this a composite score out of 15, awarding a maximum of 5 points for spirituality, 5 points for aesthetic sophistication, 5 points for philosophical potency

Sorry, help me understand here, you want me to write an in-depth review of your post above, concentrating on the specific criteria you mention.

By... why do you want a post reviewed? And why that one particularly? On those criteria, and why me? What's going on?

 

[linebaugh]

There is nothing outside of nature obv: humans are completely within it, 'society' is nature too and there is no possibility of 'artifice'

Im not convinced, do you think you could spend hundreds of posts across dozens of threads arguing this?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Im not convinced, do you think you could spend hundreds of posts across dozens of threads arguing this?

Think about it for just one sweet second; how can there be anything outside of nature in human behaviour? Clearly no-one would claim that other species have behaviours that outstrip or lie outside their natures or Nature with a capital en...why should humans be different?

 

[Clinamenic]

Think about it for just one sweet second; how can there be anything outside of nature in human behaviour? Clearly no-one would claim that other species have behaviours that outstrip or lie outside their natures or Nature with a capital en...why should humans be different?

Yeah to me its a semantics issue, IE you can define nature in such a way that it encompasses all of reality, and the only things that fall "outside" it are hypothetical alternatives to reality. You could also define it such that 'artificial' is a subset of 'natural' and the distinction becomes one of specificity rather than of mutual exclusion.

 

[sus]

This is a big stylistic inspiration for you is it not? Both the prose and the interdisciplinary weaving?

Somewhat convergent, somewhat divergent? I was already very interested in a lot of the maneuvers, but reading it definitely accelerated my interest / made me realize an affect was possible. Maybe we could call it "ADHD density"

 

[sus]

There is nothing outside of nature obv: humans are completely within it, 'society' is nature too and there is no possibility of 'artifice'

This is true in a meaningful sense but I think there is a load-bearing distinction people are drawing upon, when they try to contrast nature with society, and I think you need to replace it with a better distinction if you're gonna toss the old one out