Does anyone know where I can find a biographical or otherwise behind the scenes account of Samuel R Delany's process or life around the time of writing Dhalgren? Does such a thing exist?
Is rather ask you freaks than the main sub
I've been a Dylan fan half my life read chronicles and positively 4th Street seen all the movies and am currently balls deep in the jokerman podcast
What's the best book on his career?
No voice of a generation boomer nostalgia slop
Just so this qualifies as circle jerk
How bout rainy gay jism #60 and #9
Why does the algorithm inverting the world necessarily cause more destruction than nuclear holocaust? Wouldn't it just be like inverting all noninverteds at once. From where individuals could be inverted one at a time to catch back up with the flow? Sure this would cause chaos and probably many deaths for people not being able to get oxygen. But it actually seems less destructive to me than nuclear war. Especially if it could be prepared for.
And then if it just a matter of the people from the future don't believe in the grandfather paradox, and think world-inversion to save themselves from an ecologically dying planet will work just fine, why are we supposed to think the present knows any better than the future? It's just a leap of faith? Actually the way inversion works for most of this movie, as a localized difference in the directional flow of time, it hardly seems like the grandfather paradox would matter at all.
(To pick up an inverted round you retroactively will dropping it in the future. This feels like a clean break from the linear laws of causality that would depend upon not creating a grandfather paradox. (And why does this one matter? With how many other paradoxes in the story.))
And then what's with Sator/protagonist's dialogue in the final mission? Sator goes back and forth saying he is saving the world for the future and saying everyone must die with him. He doesn't really believe one or the other? He says one and the protagonist insists he really believes the other? Why has Sator come to the same conclusion about the grandfather paradox as the Tenet organization instead of trusting in the confidence of the future that the past can be destroyed.
To analyze the politics of this it's actually a fairly conservative movie. The present and past have destroyed the world for the future. The future is trying to destroy the present to secure themselves as a present. The heroes of the story are denying the future in selfish survival of their own selves? If there is a way to coexist or avert this ecological disaster it is never explored. Only a zero sum game between past and future, in which case in real life, I'm betting on future.
Why is (my) A V Miller translation of Phenomenology of Spirit (Oxford) abridged between .522 and .573 without being labeled abridged, and what is (roughly) the content of these sections?
​
Is there a known history of this? Or is it in all versions of A V Miller's translation? Is there an ideological reason for quietly leaving these sections out?
I guess it's a matter of opinion, but basically just a practical question about the contents of the Sartre collection published as "Between Existentialism and Marxism."
The Verso website calls it a collection from "The Critique of Dialectical Reason" through to the 1970s, but I can't find anything written on the particular contents of it, besides some of the literary figures whose work Sartre analyzes in it.
I am mainly interested in The Critique but due to its massive size and price point in paperback am a little intimidated and put off by it. (I know PDFs are available, but I am an old school physical reader.)
Basically just wondering if this collection offers a good selection from The Critique and can stand in as a short form read of Sartre's thinking at the time, the way, for example, "Existentialism is a Humanism" offers a slim introduction/summary of the thought elaborated in "Being and Nothingness".
Thanks.
Basically feel like I've tapped out the canon of existentialist philosophy. Wondering if anyone's encountered any modern (1990? and newer) philosophers significantly contributing to or radically re-interpreting the tradition of Nietzsche Heidegger Sartre etc.
I know people have sometimes called Zizek an existentialist (maybe even himself) but I've read Ticklish Subject and am not looking for that kind of Hegelian-Baidouism
There's gotta be something right? Slipping through the cracks but going to be on the surface in decades to come