Over drinks with Adrian, and meeting folks from the blogosphere

So I finally got to meet Adrian over at Immanence yesterday! The first real live person I’ve met from philosophy/theory blogging, or whatever we call this new practice. I’m looking forward to actually meeting Graham Harman and Ben Woodward as well, at the upcoming Villanova ‘Return of Metaphysics’ conference in two weeks. Fun stuff!

Back to Adrian. He was in NYC yesterday for a conference at the New School, and I was actually at a different conference at the New School at the same time, between sessions we were able to grab a quick drink together. Got to chat for about an hour.

It’s uncanny at first to meet someone you’ve only know from the blogosphere before, but after long, you start to connect aspects of the person in front of your with the online presence. In particular, the physical voice with the online voice. Its kinda like online dating, but without the dating part. Anyway, a very pleasant experience. We started chatting about the cinema books Adrian is nearly done with, and the more longer-term work in progress he’s doing. Would’ve been great to have more time, but we were between various commitments, but hopefully we’ll be able to pick up the conversation soon.

I really think what Adrian’s got his finger on with this cinema project is going to be quite new. I find it interesting how much anti-Deleuzianism there is in the cinema studies world, where people either love him or hate him (generally because if all you do is cinema, without much background in theory, he’s often a really incomprehensible read without some serious help).

Adrian’s project seems to pick up on some Deleuzian motifs and expand upon them, in particular, by radicalizing the ways in which Peircian side of things can be related to the intersubjective dialectic of entering the world of a film. Dialectical Peircian intersubjective phenomenology of cinema of sorts. Quite excited to see where this is going. And my sense is it will be much more accessible to film folks, because of its more phenomenological roots, its relation to the intersubjective experience of watching film as a phenomenon.

Whenever I hear Adrian describe his project, I get these odd images of networks of goo interacting in nested layerings. And as a fellow-traveller of the so-called gooey process-relational approach, to me, that’s a good thing. Cinema-watching as the experience of a giant gooey brain (the brain is the screen!) watching its thought-pictures think itself. Sounds like fun to me . . .

Advertisements

~ by chris on March 28, 2011.

2 Responses to “Over drinks with Adrian, and meeting folks from the blogosphere”

  1. Thanks for the nice post, Chris. I agree it would have been good to have had more time to chat. (I’ve hardly had a minute to collect my thoughts, let alone write them down, since returning from NYC.) ‘Online dating, without the dating’… indeed, something like that (!). And thanks for the plug for my cinema project. I’m not so sure about the goo, but if it’s goo made not only of brain matter but of image-matter, affect-matter, worlds in motion and with plenty of room to move around in, then yes, definitely something like that…

    Cheers,
    Adrian

  2. yes, Adrian, that’s exactly what I meant, goo in relational matrices, differential-differentiating affect, image, matter, subject-goo. In many ways I relate to the world visually, I often ‘see’ philosophies as differing types of shapes and colors, quite like a synethesia. And in fact, as a musican, I do see different musical keys, chords, and instruments in different colors. I assume its some crosstalk in my neural networks, and I’m very happy to get the pretty pictures. I often draw diagrams in the margins of my philosophy books to explain particular philosophies, and when I use them in class students seem to like them, but I doubt they’d be of help to anyone without the explanations. But yes, goo, but a very multilayered, multifaceted, post-dialectical goo. I hope this isn’t disconcerting to you, but coming from me, this is a compliment, while Tim Morton might argue rightly so that I like lava lamps too much . . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: