-- and shall kogan be king?
May. 4th, 2007 01:23 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
dubdobdee.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
poptimistswhen i brought the netroots into my previous post, it's true i was primarily looking at finincially sustainable systems, rather than "similar content"
but another element of overlap was (i sort of felt) actually content-related -- which is that the netroots gather round a cluster of highly critical pundits (viz atrios) whose energy and lure derives from the stubbornness with which they say NO to established media structures, habits, cliches and (this last important obv but not i think overridingly so) actual partisan political positions
so i was interested also -- less clear-headedly, somewhat intuitively -- in the idea that a broad self-generating structure could exist (and, to the point, already perhaps semi-exists) in which kogan-esque commentary MATTERED, precisely bcz a key part of his thought manifests as REFUSAL
i feel within what frank is asking is a potential conflict -- he wants DDR to be all-encompassingly open to types of voice and types of topic, and yet a lot of his personal project does in fact consist of saying (usually correctly) [xxx] IS ACTUALLY STUPID AND UNHELPFUL; in other words, while radically inclusive in one sense, it is also very much defined AGAINST something already in existence (or rather, two related things: what cultural journalism has become; and what the academic humanities have become)
my gut feeling has always been that this apparent contradiction, far from being disabling, has enormous potential gathering energy and liberating attraction, IF YOU CAN SET IT UP RIGHT (my motto when i wz editor of "the wire" was after all "have fun starting arguments")
but another element of overlap was (i sort of felt) actually content-related -- which is that the netroots gather round a cluster of highly critical pundits (viz atrios) whose energy and lure derives from the stubbornness with which they say NO to established media structures, habits, cliches and (this last important obv but not i think overridingly so) actual partisan political positions
so i was interested also -- less clear-headedly, somewhat intuitively -- in the idea that a broad self-generating structure could exist (and, to the point, already perhaps semi-exists) in which kogan-esque commentary MATTERED, precisely bcz a key part of his thought manifests as REFUSAL
i feel within what frank is asking is a potential conflict -- he wants DDR to be all-encompassingly open to types of voice and types of topic, and yet a lot of his personal project does in fact consist of saying (usually correctly) [xxx] IS ACTUALLY STUPID AND UNHELPFUL; in other words, while radically inclusive in one sense, it is also very much defined AGAINST something already in existence (or rather, two related things: what cultural journalism has become; and what the academic humanities have become)
my gut feeling has always been that this apparent contradiction, far from being disabling, has enormous potential gathering energy and liberating attraction, IF YOU CAN SET IT UP RIGHT (my motto when i wz editor of "the wire" was after all "have fun starting arguments")
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-04 07:29 pm (UTC)1st meaning: A dilettante flits from subject to subject and project to project, alighting on one, taking shallow sips, and then heading for the next, without really concentrating his efforts on anything. (Most crucial defect: the dilettante leaves off from an inquiry before the subject matter can work any changes on him. In fact, his being this sort of dilettante may be due to his aversion to being changed.)
2nd meaning: A dilettante is someone who is endlessly curious and follows questions and connections wherever they lead. ("Dilettante" derives from the Latin verb that means "to delight.")
My vision includes the idea that at least some of the participants engage in conversations that they won't allow themselves to break off until each is convinced that the others understand him or her. This is a very ambitious dilettantism, since it's suggesting that in one's journeys one tries to master other people's ideas.
(And my hope is that the type two dilettantes not shut themselves off from the impatient and the lazy and the hostile, that they don't lock themselves away and concentrate on each other's ideas free of distractions.)