Do you think we should work to discredit common sense as a whole? I think the best thing we could do is adopt fallibilism as our default position, admit that we might be wrong about very fundamental things and welcome efforts to discredit our knowledge. More broadly, which external knowledge do we need to accept in order to render the work of other intelligible?
How do you think we can unsettle disciplinary boundaries? What is the value of free-flowing, descriptive work as opposed to prescriptive, systematic work? Can we adhere to prescriptive knowledge as long as we accept it might be fundamentally wrong, and remain open to critique? Personally I think we should deinstitutionalise the barriers between disciplines and leave the world’s body of knowledge open, acting as a kind of space through which we flow, picking up those metaphors and methods most useful to describe what we need to describe at that moment and freely discarding them when they’re no longer useful. In my opinion categorisation is completely fine so long as we work to prevent it entrenching itself.
Can we produce intelligible work without adhering to some existing structure? What’s the difference between schizophrenic work and revolutionary work? What’s the extent to which I can avoid engaging with structure, and how can I engage with it in atypical ways? Through subversion for instance. Can we do anything besides adhere and subvert? Most importantly, how can we keep our knowledge from replacing common sense, rather than perpetually destabilising it? I don’t think we can produce knowledge which is inherently subversive, but I could be wrong. I think it’s just a matter of constant work.
Then I decided the most productive way to look at the world was a collapse of those poles into a “panradical” knowledge (I love making up words). A system in which everything is the radix around which everything revolves, and in which knowledge is described as “Everything is everything else”, in which all objects are not only themselves but are subject to the metaphors of all other objects. The panradical system is then made intelligible through subtraction, as opposed to typical systems of knowledge which are made intelligible through addition of subject matter and interpretation. I have to think more about the intelligibility-through-subtraction before I could tell you what it is, but it’s like counting backwards from infinity.