intellectual caliban (Lev)

buns. #ゆるキャンΔ #葬送のフリーレン #フリーレン

イラスト活動をツイッターで初めて6年が経ちました。
いつもありがとうございます✨

[HAN DYNASTY, 100 B.C.] MUMEI: "FIDDLESTICKS... if only i could ask some kind of CHAT instead...."

mumei consults the I Ching #drawMEI

I'm firmly in the "do (realize) dialectics" camp, which still allows you to be a communist, the important part

also because I've grown to be suspicious of the "look at real people!!!" move, which effectively delimits historical work to an impoverished, bourgeois conception of "social history"

not because it makes me feel bad, but because it's usually treated as a thought-terminating disciplinary cudgel

honestly it's probably the philosophy kool-aid, but I think the "knockdown critique of philosophy" reading of Marx is one of my least favorite

when the rubber hits the road I'm not primarily a Marxist + prob wouldn't consider myself one

Smol Heart

aside from my "dead German guy" arc, I did find Alison Stone's book on popular music from 2016, and I'm glad to see the reviews are quite positive!

"right but annoying about it" except without the "right"

good news: one dude in Greece writes about Hegel + Plessner re: music, which might be able to escape the Habermas interpretation of Plessner

(or ignore it because it’s anti-subject or w/e ig lol)

we’ve moved from “Hegel is [only] the dialectics guy” to “Hegel is [only] the speculation guy” (it’s neither; it’s both) and also forgotten about the logic

the few other connections are thru aesthetics, which I am actively seeking to encircle

unfortunately very few people have written about the Absolute thru Hegel in music studies, and the one I’ve been able to find post-1950 on RILM is 99% going to be “analytic Hegel’s Absolute” which is kinda dogwater

really not beating the allegations tbqh

Bryan Parkhurst, “Sins of the Son”: […] I'm afraid I lack her confidence in my ability to have done very much better. But only the most motivated reasoning could somehow steer the reasoner toward the curious conclusions that I do not 'contextualise the book within its field of study and relate it to other pertinent literature' and that I do not conduct 'a meaningful interdisciplinary discussion' (Lavengood 2025, p. 123). Ummm... compared to what? Just so we're clear: 'Sins of the Father' is, by design and not by accident, a colourful, jaunty think-piece, not the opening lit-review chapter of a PhD dissertation on Ewell. Thus, in addition to being a dispiriting sign of the ideological times - I commend it to future intellectual historians as a pathognomonic symptom that indexes, with crystalline purity, the very quintessence of our currently unpropitious cultural moment here in the wilting groves of academe - the dreary bibliographic bean-counting to which Lavengood's letter descends on page 123 is just a blatant category error. That's all a bummer, but what really bums me out, as I say, is the way the deck gets stacked against me. Could any duly spruced-up version of what I wrote succeed in being free enough of 'glaring omissions', or full enough of 'meaningful interdisciplinary connexions' (p. 123), to have passed muster, according to the […]

my bro you don’t have to ideate the last part lmao

the form of this is the review equivalent of a Trump truth . social post, which is not a compliment, and I say this as someone sympathetic to Parkhurst

I wish bro wouldn't write like this

oh Parkhurst wrote a response to Lavengood's response to his Ewell review

yayyy

is God a body or Body itself

It's very funny as a Catholic to watch Talarico get raked over the coals by Evangelicals over "God is Non Binary"

You really think it's beyond the pale that God is non-binary?

GOD IS LITERALLY AN ETHEREAL BEING!

GOD DOESN'T HAVE GENETALIA!

THIS ISN'T ZEUS!

GOD DOESN'T FUCK!

how tired...?

69 69

風見幽香💐

saber