humour: media / politics

[baboon2004]

"Who is 'k-punk' and what would k-punk know? Even if s/he did have some experience of either university, how can s/he generalise about the tens of thousands of people who pass through them? Has s/he not heard about colleges like Wadham (Oxford) or King's (Cambridge)? They're absolutely packed with name-dropping, left-leaning wannabe intellos (one of my friends is at King's). "



Replying to mixedbiscuits' post (haven't read the entire debate, but have personal experience of this as went to Wadham in Oxford):

I think that the main thing these places teach you is to separate intellect and intelligence. I thought a lot of the teaching methods at Oxford, but I met many people who I thought had aptitude for their subject but very little emotional intelligence.

Wadham is full of people who pretend to be radical and then go to work in banks.

Having said that, at least people at Oxford seemed interested in their subjects. My and others' experience of several 'redbrick' universities suggests an intellectual hardcore (who probably would have benefitted hugely from the 1-1 support that few universities outside Oxbridge can afford) surrounded by swarms of middle-class people who think they're entitled to a university life despite being, to all intents and purposes, vacant.

Open up universities to all classes and get rid of these over-privileged zombies.

Am definitely not defending Oxbridge, but compared to many other UK undergrad universities, it has its plus points.

 

[gek-opel]

Oh for sure, but not necessarily in the student base.

I seem to recall roughly the same level of intelligent conversation at

(a) my working class primary school
(b) my middle class grammar school
(c) my toff-laden Oxford College...

I actually think there is room to be radical AND work for a bank (indeed the genuinely retro-grade step would be to do something as utterly corrupt as work for a charity of course). I suspect tho this is my own sidewards take on the thing (ie- how else to gain the necessary knowledge of the hard edge of capitalism- not in books alone surely... and if the total value of virtual capital / derivatives etc is 40 times the value of the entire real output of the world economy then this seems like an area which too few radical-leaners investigate-- rather than approaching it as something to either give in utterly to ("Selling out") or attempt to "fix" into some kind of benevolent capitalism (ie- "subversion"), to rather understand the nightmarish new landscape and utilise the knowledge to later engage in a far more perverse project).

 

[gek-opel]

OK, fair enough, it was the mention of the article to dismiss what Mixed_Biscuits said that I objected to, not the article itself.
As to the value of the K-Punk piece, I read it before (can't seem to find it now though I'm afraid Mr Sloane) and I found that parts of it at least (ignoring the wilder, more speculative claims) seemed to accurately reflect my girlfriend's experience (she is doing a phd at Oxford at the moment although she's not much of a gym hero), so much so in fact that I sent her the piece. Maybe that's not quite the full story though, the people from her course (philosophy) that I've met I would describe as, in the main, very interested in their subject for its own sake (whether that makes them an intellectual to satisfy Gek I don't know). That's certainly all they talk about if you go to the pub with them. On the other hand, there is another Oxford type, that really is, despite Oxford's attempts to change it, overwhelmingly from public school and happily on that trajectory that Gek identified from Eton/Milfield to Oxford/Cambridge to City/Civil Service, pausing to get drunk and show their arses every now and again on the way.
What subject did you study Gek? I wonder if that may influence your experience. It may also be different at graduate/post-graduate level.

Yeah I mean I knew people who finished top in their subject for the whole university ("by a long way" if I recall correctly)... and a lot of the really high achievers were pretty hedonistic too... but to return to one of Mixed Biscuits' points upthread- (on name dropping etc)... the kind of crazy interdisciplinary creativity and innovative thought that I anticipated was a bit absent really... it was either pleasant upper middle class twaddle or detailed stuff from their courses, ultimately fine, but I was disappointed. Maybe I should've been talking to the maths people (I had very little respect for maths then, err shit-loads more now esp the number theory stuff).

I studied Law which was quite amazingly low on mind-blowing moments. Bad choice eh?

 

[borderpolice]

and if the total value of virtual capital / derivatives etc is 40 times the value of the entire real output of the world economy then [...]

Why? There are different notions of values at work, leading to much confusion. The values of derivatives represent something like an average of the expectation about the future, e.g. future dividends of shares. Given that these future predictions are usually about the next 20 years, and given development, technical progress + world population increase, the 40 times surplus is hardly unexpected -- in fact it seems low.

 

[IdleRich]

"... the kind of crazy interdisciplinary creativity and innovative thought that I anticipated was a bit absent really... it was either pleasant upper middle class twaddle or detailed stuff from their courses, ultimately fine, but I was disappointed."

That is certainly what has disappointed my girlfriend, in most people she has met she has found an amazing lack of interest in anything beyond his or her course and the most mainstream culture (it's a major surprise to them if somebody is not a fan of X-Factor, Britney Spears, Queen etc and is interested in something else). Maybe she's not met the right people, I can't believe that that is all there is.

"Maybe I should've been talking to the maths people (I had very little respect for maths then, err shit-loads more now esp the number theory stuff)."

Why is that? I mean why little respect then and why more now?

 

[gek-opel]

Reading Badiou (not namedropping haha) and his use of transfinite number theory (mindbogglingly brilliant)... also chats with my maths mate who has convinced me that maths is basically the most abstract kind of philosophical engagement possible.

Whoever does the publicity for maths does a BAD job!

 

[gek-opel]

Why? There are different notions of values at work, leading to much confusion. The values of derivatives represent something like an average of the expectation about the future, e.g. future dividends of shares. Given that these future predictions are usually about the next 20 years, and given development, technical progress + world population increase, the 40 times surplus is hardly unexpected -- in fact it seems low.

In some senses I guess you are correct, but surely their value rests not just on what they stand for (predictions of various outcomes) but their ability to be traded, quantified, gambled with etc... Literally speaking of course they are strictly virtual, and if they sold them all back to whoever issued them this value would disappear... it still strikes me as an area of interest though, weird-capital.

 

[borderpolice]

In some senses I guess you are correct, but surely their value rests not just on what they stand for (predictions of various outcomes) but their ability to be traded, quantified, gambled with etc...

Of course, so what? In what sense is buying corn futures that mature in 3 years from the point of purchase a more irrational form of "gambling" than going to oxford studying law? Both rely on expectations about future benefits of the respective course of actions, i.e. on expectations about the future that may fail to materialise.

 

[gek-opel]

I didn't say it was necessarily "irrational", such instruments plainly have massive advantages (specifically in terms of manipulating risk). Also gambling isn't a pejorative (or not necessarily)-- depends how risky/rewarding the gambling involved is. Its not so much futures themselves as the complexity they create which is interesting (not necessarily "irrational" again).

 

[borderpolice]

Its not so much futures themselves as the complexity they create which is interesting (not necessarily "irrational" again).

I would not say they create complexity. They transform it.

 

[gek-opel]

Yes its an interesting view that they take complexity which is already there in the financial situation and quantify it and enable it to be traded as a resource itself.

 

[nomadologist]

here's a link to k-punk's blog where I just searched "class" and the results are listed:

http://www.abe1x.org/movetype/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=7&search=class

I can tell there are quite a few of the posts I was talking about listed in there...shouldn't be too hard to find them...

 

[mistersloane]

here's a link to k-punk's blog where I just searched "class" and the results are listed:

http://www.abe1x.org/movetype/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=7&search=class

I can tell there are quite a few of the posts I was talking about listed in there...shouldn't be too hard to find them...

wicked, give me a day

 

[vimothy]

Reading Badiou (not namedropping haha) and his use of transfinite number theory (mindbogglingly brilliant)... also chats with my maths mate who has convinced me that maths is basically the most abstract kind of philosophical engagement possible.

I have a good friend who is a mathematician and he says Badiou's maths is pretty bad.

Whoever does the publicity for maths does a BAD job!

It's also taught really badly, at least in this country. For e.g., my Dad is a mathematician and used to be head of pyhysics at UMIST. He said that the level of maths of undergraduates was so terrible that they usually spent the first year of the physics course just teaching them that.

 

[IdleRich]

"Reading Badiou (not namedropping haha) and his use of transfinite number theory (mindbogglingly brilliant)..."

"I have a good friend who is a mathematician and he says Badiou's maths is pretty bad."

This is something I often wonder about, has there ever been a proper rigorous study of Badiou's maths by a mathematician? If so what did they say and if not why not?
There is a definite attempt to blind with science that I notice in a lot of theorists but you couldn't really get away with that in the same way in maths. If he could "pass" that maths test that would surely give the unbelievers some pause for thought although if he failed it would be vindication of a sort for Dawkins et al no?

 

[baboon2004]

That is certainly what has disappointed my girlfriend, in most people she has met she has found an amazing lack of interest in anything beyond his or her course and the most mainstream culture (it's a major surprise to them if somebody is not a fan of X-Factor, Britney Spears, Queen etc and is interested in something else). Maybe she's not met the right people, I can't believe that that is all there is.

IIRC from the thread, your g/f is at Oxford? There definitely are the people she's searching for (finding those kind of people is not so much the problem), so maybe she's jsut been v unlucky so far.

I like the idea of a single person being "Publicist for Maths".

 

[gek-opel]

I'm trying to remember if there is...

The actual maths he uses I would imagine is pretty watertight (ie the theories he plugs into his philosophy). Whether his implications once they are into all kinds of other realms is accurate is up for debate I suspect. There are some interesting questions around how his new book logiques de mondes updates the mathematical aspects (roughly previously that essentially maths=ontology at the purest level of each concept, utilising post-Cantorian set theory) He is now moving towards topos theory.

I don't think it is necessarily a question of pass or fail, Badiou himself would probably argue that a lot of his argument proceeds as the result of a decision.

 

[IdleRich]

"The actual maths he uses I would imagine is pretty watertight (ie the theories he plugs into his philosophy)."

OK, so he is just using accepted ideas* and the debate is not about the maths itself? So Vimothy, why does your friend say this?

"I have a good friend who is a mathematician and he says Badiou's maths is pretty bad."

Does he contend that it is not just a question of "plugging in"?

I don't think it is necessarily a question of pass or fail, Badiou himself would probably argue that a lot of his argument proceeds as the result of a decision.

Well obviously, that's why I put it in scare quotes (I hope I did at least). On the other hand if the maths was just nonsense that would undermine the rest of it right?

*I guess you mean theorems rather than theories as a theory is unproven and is thus by definition far from watertight.

 

[vimothy]

OK, so he is just using accepted ideas* and the debate is not about the maths itself? So Vimothy, why does your friend say this?

Don't recall, sorry. Could be bad understanding or bad application, I suppose. I have zero interest in, and little knowledge of, Badiou, but I'll try to remember to ask Dave about it the next time we speak.

 

[vimothy]

I would not say they create complexity. They transform it.

Shockingly sensible posts on this thread, Borderpolice.