My dear citizens, when I saw the December date of my last post, I knew at once that I had to answer for my unwarranted disappearance, the cowardly abandoning of my posts. It is obvious that I ought to explain myself, and provide an update on the much-teased article that has clearly failed to materialise.
To begin, I should tell of my practical constraints, perhaps the least exciting of the excuses, yet nevertheleß intrinsically neceßary to an explanation of the kind. There is of course the Reading Club that I am a founding member and Executive Committier of, which means that I am basically obligated to place the affairs of the Club before any of my own. Then there are the many of my life affairs, completely uninteresting, I may say with authority. Finally, I have been working on some too few articles for the netlog, but they are not in any presentable shape and are far from the official green-light stage.
Now, for the more intriguing reasons why I have not posted of late. I have been thinking about the nature of the netlog, the types of article posted on it, their general level of quality. Thoughts of a Comrade has never been in such a field as academic research, clearly, and it has never pretended to such aspirations. I would not begin steering it in that direction should I ever be able to realistically do so; it is not the purpose of this netlog. TOAC has always been my personal thoughts, my public diaries, where all but the very rawest of my ideas find expreßion. I suppose that I am having doubts about the satisfaction provided by this netlog in the current form that its articles take. There is no doubt when it comes to the satisfaction and pride that I feel for the netlog itself, and I would never consider ending it for a second. Though it may well be that no one is reading it, Thoughts of a Comrade is part of the glorious legacy of The Philosopher's Interior, and the dialogue has truly only been with myself, anyway, a bulletin board of my diaries, even back in the days of The PhilInt. Thus, I must ask myself exactly what would improve my experience? This question remains unanswered for now. I am attempting to better my 'articular capability', reading such esteemed works as How to Write a Thesis by Master Eco, and How to Read a Book by Master Adler, among like-mattered works. Whether these will actually produce an invigorated end to this problem is a question reserved for time.
One other problem akin the above is the mere fact that most of my writing now has shifted from matters of the material to those of the metaphysical. I was never really caught up in the latest occurrences before this shift, but now I have very little idea on what I can write about in the material realm. Every problem is far more solvable in the world above this dilapidated, stagnant physical one that we inhabit. For the material world to be affected, first must the meaningful world be effected. There is presently a strength of dogmatism I think the world not to have seen before, a detestation of even the smallest exploration or indulging of the mind (and I mean not by mind a synonym for scientific dogmatism, for putrid factualism). I have traditionally been against the ascription to mankind of some ultimate, unhinged, self-existing free-will. My current position is an argument for a restricted, mainly mental will, still unfree in the sense of existing undetermined by parametres. All of this to say, I wonder if the disbelief in any amount of willing liberty, including in my conception of the partially-aßerting mental will, has brought us to this tyranny of the material, of the empirical. Certainly, I am wording my thoughts poorly. Atheism is a stage of this, and presumably a more advanced stage would be athoughtism, a disbelief in thought poßeßing value whatever, an anti-philosophism.
To return to the point of this: I generally do not post on non-material subjects here. Ideology, the notion of how to impact the material world, and how the material world impacts, is probably the closest subject to the sphere of the mind that this netlog gets. One more qualifier as well is that most articles are in some way political, the idea being that The Philosopher's Interior netlog would post those which are not. I have not been personally at ease with this system, and am still finding it hard not to feel the obligation to post an article for both netlogs, rather than allowing them their own schedules and article amounts.
What exactly shall I do about these discußed matters? I cannot yet say, for no plan has yet come to me. Please give me some reprieve to think, and hopefully, in that time I again recognise that spark of intellectual brilliance which so inspired the longstanding legacy of Thoughts of a Comrade.
Apologies and Hopefulneß;
A Comrade of Thoughts
Addendum. Oh, regarding the future release of the long-teased article, entitled 'The Domestic Profeßion made most Immoral by the Industrial Revolution; Medicine and Doctoral Care', I may not have it out until a month, but I do promise to get back to working on it.
Comments