My morning thought. I think what's most incompatible about the way I think and the journal article format as a means of capturing and validating thought is that I have a completely different sense of the relation between tentativeness, rigor, and informatic compression.

The characteristic Pete thought is: wait a minute, this whole area is dominated by an assumption that no one seems to be questioning, and I've got two options to express that: i) outline the logic of the issue in a quick and compressed way, ii) write a small book with references.
The discipline seems to want something in between these poles every single time, and this makes me extremely anxious because I feel (with good reason) like any partially referential engagement with the issue will get instantly torpedoed by anyone outside its referential remit.
To repeat something I've said before: I'm actually quite good at being *concise*, I just find it very hard to be *brief*, because most of the thoughts I have don't permit brevity. Consider what your (referential) reactions are to this brief piece: https://t.co/2jEbPMd1A1.
One of the main genres of publication I've actually excelled in over the years is dictionary articles, which I take a lot of joy in writing, and include some of the pieces of which I'm most proud. Consider this one on the crux of Meillassoux's project: https://t.co/cXBjWYzRtg
I take great pleasure in explaining things in an optimal way. A good explanation is like a good anecdote. A rough stone that's been polished by the waves of dialogue so many times it's become a tiny smooth pebble. These waves are the ebb and flow of decompression-recompression.
This is why I enjoy Twitter, because my impulse to squeeze as much information as possible into each tweet hits a hard limit that forces my more poetic instincts to reconsider and revise, polishing each grain in miniature rather than waiting for a complete craggy draft.
I think writing dictionary articles and giving talks has made me a better writer, and that Twitter has had a similar effect, and I hope to improve further. For now, let me point you in the direction of a few more optimally compressed pieces I'm quite proud of:
1. 'Artificial Bodies and the Promise of Abstraction' - an overview of the 'embodiment paradigm' in philosophy that is only possible because the interview format obviates referential constraints: https://t.co/fHDeXBkPbD
2. 'Ray Brassier' - my dictionary entry on Ray's philosophical project in the Meillassoux Dictionary, which I think is the most concise thing ever written on his work: https://t.co/ivUEkYXvje
3. 'What's in a Game?' - not written up, but as concise a study of the whole (Western) tradition in the philosophy of games as you'll see anywhere, with a synthetic theory to boot: https://t.co/UxNZZVsY0V
4. Essay on Transcendental Realism (ETR) - the archetypical Pete piece, too long for an article, too short for a book, too Continental for Analytics, too Analytic for Continentals, i.e., completely unpublishable: https://t.co/9QrxURHLSj
To close by compressing my point: I struggle to transform tentative thoughts (posts/threads) into journal articles, because this often seems to involve adding referential syntax while subtracting semantic content. Bureaucratic sins against the poetics of explanation.
Here's to finding a happy medium. 🖖

More from pete wolfendale

So, here’s a way of reframing this question: which societies enabled coexistence and collaboration between people with divergent social styles, rather than imposing a dominant social style? Such social pluralism is very important indeed.


I suspect that the vast majority of the answers to the original question will fall foul of the tendency to project ideal social arrangements that reflect our own style of social understanding and engagement, and that this will lead them to talk past one another.

Consider the perspective of someone far away from you on in the neurological map, who doesn’t overlap with your socially calibrated genetic resources for social intelligence: the social heaven of an autist introvert may be the social hell of a bipolar extrovert, and vice versa.

I’ve had many good conversations about this with people in different parts of the map who overlap with me in different ways (h/t @tjohnlinward, @dynamic_proxy, @maradydd, @mojozozoe, @UnclePhobic) whose personal heavens I would like to visit, but maybe not live in full time.

We get to see glimpses of these heavens not merely in the past, but in the present, and abstract their geometries, both in spatial/architectural terms (https://t.co/aTcRgtJOVJ) and in temporal/dynamic terms (). The physical/computational platforms around us configure our agency.
This is what happens when you train neural networks largely on tone and its stylistic relics. They pick up formal features of arguments (not so much fallacies as tics) that have almost nothing to do with semantic content (focus on connotation over implication).


This is a secular problem in the discipline. It's got nothing to do with the Analytic/Continental split in the anglophone world. They've both got the same ramifying signal/noise problem, it's just that the styles (tics and connotations) are different in each pedagogical context.

And this is before we start talking about tone policing and topic policing, which are both rife and essentially make the peer review journal system completely unfit for purpose, populated as it is by a random sampling of pedants selecting for syntactic noise over semantic signal.

We've allowed a system of self-reinforcing and ratcheting filters to evolve that effectively *fuzzes* our contribution to the growth of human knowledge (https://t.co/VmW15pGt7J), because it selects for properties only loosely related to those we claim to want. Let that sink in.

This is literally the opposite of what a filter is supposed to do: extract signal from noise, syntactic compression that preserves semantic content. Instead we are awash in syntactic artifacts optimised for minimal criticisable content and maximal pedantic posturing.

More from For later read

Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet🧵

Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.

Rachel Riley is listed as patron.
https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0


SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks

Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut

Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove

You May Also Like

महाभारत की कहानी कौन नहीं जानता।लेकिन क्या आपको पता है कि महाभारत के ज्यादातर पात्र किसी न किसी श्राप में फंसे थे।अगर ये श्राप न होते तो कदाचित महाभारत की कहानी कुछ और होती।हिन्दु पौराणिक ग्रंथों में विभिन्न श्रापों का वर्णन मिलता है व हर श्राप के पीछे कोई कहानी अवश्य होती है।


आइए आज जानते हैं महाभारत कथा में वर्णित कुछ श्रापों के बारे में।

1) राजा पाण्डु को ऋषि किन्दम का श्राप

एकबार महाराज पाण्डु शिकार खेलने वन गए।झाडियों के पीछे कुछ हिल रहा था। मृग है सोचकर राजा ने बाण चलाया जो जाकर ऋषि किन्दम और उनकी पत्नी को लगा।वे दोनो रति-क्रीड़ा में लिप्त थे।

जब राजा ने उन्हें देखा तो बहुत दुखी हुए कि ये मुझसे क्या पाप हो गया।बहुत क्षमा याचना के बाद भी किन्दम ऋषि ने पाण्डु को श्राप दे दिया कि जब भी वो किसी स्त्री को काम भावना से स्पर्श करेंगे उसी क्षण उनकी मृत्यु हो जाएगी।पश्चाताप करने, वे सिंहासन पे अन्धे राजा धृतराष्ट्र को बैठाकर...


..स्वयं अपनी रानियों कुंती व माद्री के साथ वन चले गए।पांडवों का जन्म भी कुंती को ऋषि दुर्वासा द्वारा दिए गए मंत्र से हुआ था जिसमे किसी भी देव का स्मरण कर उस देव से कुंती,पुत्र प्राप्त कर सकती थी।एक बार माद्री पे मोहित हो जब पांडु ने उसे स्पर्श किया,उसी क्षण पांडु की मृत्यु होगयी।


2) उर्वशी का अर्जुन को श्राप

महाभारत युद्ध से पहले जब अर्जुन दिव्यास्त्र प्राप्त करने स्वर्ग गए तो वहां उर्वशी नाम की अप्सरा उन पर मोहित हो गयी। अर्जुन ने जब उन्हें अपनी माता के समान बताया तो यह सुनकर उर्वशी क्रोधित हो गयी और अर्जुन को श्राप दे डाला कि तुम नपुंसक की भांति...
Ivor Cummins has been wrong (or lying) almost entirely throughout this pandemic and got paid handsomly for it.

He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...


... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again:


Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.

Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9


Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."

I wonder why...

Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x


Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.

Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq