/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11563573]

do any of you guys read scott bakker's blog? it's got some really interesting philosophy stuff. don't know about his fiction and i would estimate i understand the implications of less than 25% of what he talks about, but it's all pretty fascinating stuff.

thoughts?

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/

[Anonymous No.11563575]

i haven't, but i thought he was underrated in enterprise

[Anonymous No.11563581]

>>11563575

[Anonymous No.11563585]

>>11563573
I enjoyed this one https://www.academia.edu/31152366/On_Alien_Philosophy
>>11563575
wrong scott homie

[Anonymous No.11563609]

>>11563585
*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.11563634]

>>11563609
what is this book and what does it have to do with bakker

[Anonymous No.11563673]

>>11563609
Been meaning to check this one out too, been on that OOO tip for a bit now. Any particular highlights in this text?

[Anonymous No.11563813]

>And so, cognitivism and post-cognitivism find themselves at perpetual war, disputing theoretical vocabularies possessing local operational efficacy in everyday or specialized experimental contexts, but perpetually deferring the possibility of any global, genuinely naturalistic understanding of human cognition. The strange fact of the matter is that there’s no such thing or function as ‘knowledge’ in nature, nothing deep to redeem our shallow intuitions, though knowledge talk (which is very real) takes us a long way to resolve a wide variety of practical problems. The trick isn’t to understand what knowledge ‘really is,’ but rather to understand the deep, supercomplicated systems underwriting the optimization of behaviour, and how they underwrite our shallow intuitive and deliberative manipulations. Insofar as knowledge talk forms a component of those systems, we must content ourselves with studying ‘knowledge’ as a term rather than an entity, leaving intentional cognition to solve what problems it can where it can. The time has come to leave both cognitivism and post-cognitivism behind, and to embrace genuinely post-intentional approaches, such as the ecological eliminativism espoused here.

>The Knowledge Illusion, in this sense, provides a wonderful example of crash space, the way in which the introduction of deep, scientific information into our shallow cognitive ecologies is prone to disrupt or delude or simply fall flat altogether. Intentional cognition provides a way for us to understand ourselves and each other while remaining oblivious to any of the deep machinations actually responsible. To suffer ‘medial neglect’ is to be blind to one’s actual sources, to comprehend and communicate human knowledge, experience, and action via linguistic fetishes, irreducible posits possessing inexplicable efficacies, entities fundamentally incompatible with the universe revealed by natural science.

the concept of a kind of internal cognitive ecology is super interesting. like we basically go running around in our own minds strip-mining for knowledge of the thing doing the strip-mining. or being really, really clumsy archaeologists in troy looking for the one true mask of agamemnon and being unable to see the forest for the trees.

some of this stuff even resonates with me in terms of thinking through some of the craziness of late capitalism. i keep imagining some version of a TED conference or whatever, and thinking: what would it like to be a meme persona selling meme persona gear to meme personas at a meme-persona conference? of course, the same holds through in academia too, i guess. dovetails nicely too with my occasional wish to become completely absorbed in flaky new-age stuff also.

whatever. still interesting stuff.

source:
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2017/09/11/the-knowledge-illusion-illusion/