Saturday, August 19, 2006


It has been a long while since my last post here, and tonight, logging online and spending a moment to peruse the writings, I can certainly see plenty of useful thoughts. However I also see the familiar and biting problem of its raison d’etre. This blog is, unfortunately, not a systematic and continuous dialogue, concerned with explicating and building on issues, not the kind of pseudo-dialectic that I first envisaged it as. Time and again it seems wiser to harvest these thoughts for a few moment’s edification, and then simply to ‘move on’ and have more complex, more truthful ones somewhere else.

News and I have built a weblog that reflects our interest in seeing the world become a demonstratably better place, and this means more than the actual quality of the thoughts on offer. So, instead of not bothering to post here again the blog should be recontextualised and reunderstood from a different vantage point. It seems correct to me that systematicity is a thing of composition, and that it is for the entirely obvious reason that it hasn’t been composed that this blog isn’t at all systematic.

Advancement in thought is like mini revolutions, and it would be wrong in any case of me to shun the blog for not being constructive when I no longer think that a blog, by itself, could in any meaningful way be such. There are two reasons for this attitude. Firstly, the knowledge that to build constructively on the arguments News and myself have presented would take major philosophical explorations, which are best initiated by a truer philosophical commitment than the fantasy of internet consistency. Secondly, there seems to be a general inability of people to genuinely engage with moving dialogue, and nothing shows this more than conversation, when, in an attempt to clarify a position, a logical move is made, and eyed with suspicion. A semantic novelty!

I’m sure that the blog is, to the people we might want to engage, more a representation of News and I ‘expressing beliefs’ than ‘forcing semantics on people’, but there is really no reason for us to fight for one of these niggardly opinions over the other. Of course, this blog has always been about our own understanding rather than its ability to be viewed on the internet by an audience, but still the criticism holds of the blog as a meaningful object in its own right. Indeed, the way I now consider the blog makes it almost necessary that it is functionally worthless. This will take a further post to detail, so, onward! (but only in a sense!!)