This was something else: "A “map” can be a “Schrödinger’s Conceivability Structure” and exist in the realm of “blurs” between truth and falsity, where the “map” can only be critiqued through a “Pynchon Risk” which might suck us into madness. This book has argued that theory, “script,” judgment, etc. are all structurally similar (as “maps”), and so critiquing any of these bring with them the same risks—risks which incentive us not to bother with them, which by extension risks us falling into passivity, complacency, and ultimately the “thoughtlessness” which characterizes “the banality of evil.” This mistake is notably tempting given how an “internally consistent system” can protect us from outside critique, while at the same time giving us something to Desire."
Thanks so much for giving this a read, my friend, and this is indeed one of the crazy paragraphs where I attempt to reference just about every section in the book at the same time. Always fun to give that a whirl.
This was something else: "A “map” can be a “Schrödinger’s Conceivability Structure” and exist in the realm of “blurs” between truth and falsity, where the “map” can only be critiqued through a “Pynchon Risk” which might suck us into madness. This book has argued that theory, “script,” judgment, etc. are all structurally similar (as “maps”), and so critiquing any of these bring with them the same risks—risks which incentive us not to bother with them, which by extension risks us falling into passivity, complacency, and ultimately the “thoughtlessness” which characterizes “the banality of evil.” This mistake is notably tempting given how an “internally consistent system” can protect us from outside critique, while at the same time giving us something to Desire."
Thanks so much for giving this a read, my friend, and this is indeed one of the crazy paragraphs where I attempt to reference just about every section in the book at the same time. Always fun to give that a whirl.