Gonna start writing again
Found my blog again with the help of Leslie! I’ve been wondering where this thing ended up, and I’m glad I got access to it again. When I first made this blog, I was 1. in a bad place 2. had just dropped out of essentially my dream studies (a year study in philosophy), and was very much using this as a testing ground to see if I liked to write articles. I came to the conclusion at the time that it just wasn’t my thing. I don’t know, my head just wasn’t in it, every word felt like a battle that I needed to win in order to reach a semblance of coherency, and looking back I didn’t always win those battles.
Most of all, it felt like work, work that I hadn’t been trained in. Since that time, I started a bachelor in philosophy, joined the student union for philosophy, have tried to participate in different forums for philosophy, and I am currently in the process of starting a journal for philosophy here in Bergen, the journal “Undring”. In this I think I’ve found a new perspective of what philosophy, but chiefly also writing, can be.
I am currently in a reading group that I started for reading Anti-Oedipus by Deleuze and Guattari. It is a book that commits all of the sins of writing that French philosophy pulls off. It uses a rather inventive terminology while not disclosing how that terminology came about, it references philosophers and debates in philosophy while not letting readers without prior knowledge of these know that the referencing is even occurring, all the while they are delving (^1) into quite esoteric philosophy.
For all the faults of Anti-Oedipus, there exists a story of cyberspace, and liberation. While the liberation that the book calls for is not what interests me here, even though the book commits all kinds of sins in its writing it feels free. It doesn’t feel like the authors have gone to work and produced just ‘cause (which is ironic considering the work), they play with words, they play with references, they’re free to do whatever they want, coherency be damned.
That kind of exploratory writing I’ve tried to do myself, and I’ve found what you could call a love for writing again. My writing isn’t good, not by a long shot, and I am often very inconsistent in my terminology, a death sin in modern philosophy (especially at an analytical institution like FoF at UiB). Still, I don’t care, and I’ve been able to express myself better than ever. The other little essay I posted here was me trying out that kind of writing, expressing myself (whatever that might be) from “a” phenomenological point of view.
Now I’m just rambling, but I think I’ll post more things on this blog now.
(^1) In the usage of the word “delve” it would be wise to acknowledge that, not to put too fine a point on it, there indeed exists a so-called interlocutor, which is modified with the clause acting as an adjective “so-called” due to the numerous debates as to the cognising capabilities of the so-called interlocutor in question, where this so-called interlocutor in question has the unfortunate tendency of using this terminology in a higher average percentage than the average human being capable of uttering the Anglo-Saxon tongue, the interlocutor in question often called by the name of “Chat-GPT”.