Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Sociology and ontology

You have pointed out that “sociology presupposes an ontology” which implies the primacy of ontology. Your “ontology of assemblages” in the present skeletal form leaves scope for hundreds of questions, and hence the disagreements. If you are proposing a new ontology devoid of sedimentation then a lot of fleshing out would be necessary. Or if it is a synthetic one then you will have to spell out the sources. In this context, may I reproduce what you wrote a few days back:
[Much of my thought and writing lately has been an attempt to speak honestly about what I value and am committed to. That is, I’ve tried to imagine a writing that might transform how I feel or relate to the world, or a writing that might be addressed to a close friend or loved one, summing up what I feel to be of particular value and truth. It seems to me that theory as it is often practiced today is split between a surface theory that is published and a shadow theory that the theorist genuinely advocates. For instance, a theorist might publicly claim that all is signifiers and then go to the doctor to get checked for cancer. There seems to be a disadequation between what the theorist proclaims and what he really advocates. This is a banal and unfair example. I want form of thought that is more honest and true to how I actually encounter the world.]

No comments:

Post a Comment