Habits,+Neuroses,+Talents+EF

MEMO: Habits, Neuroses, Talents

//Do you have more trouble articulating your frame (social theoretical questions) or object? // I have issues with both, the more I think about it though, I have more issues with articulating my frame and the social theoretical questions rather than the object upon which I am focused. This may be due to my current background in social theory, though, as I have a long way to go in figuring out what frameworks are available to me and where I fit!

 //Do you tend to project-hop or to stick to a project, and what explains this?// I tend to project-hop as I have many different interests. I have a tendency or need to explore all options and leave no rock unturned. I am not quite sure as to the root of this issue. I certainly have a tendency to start projects and not completely see them through, something that I am working to ameliorate. Conversely, there are certain projects that do capture me and in which I become heavily embroiled and have a hard time saying “no” to helping out with or following through. Typically, these are projects that are not my own in which people are dependent upon my involvement and my commitment. When I am doing collaborative work, I stick with it so as to not let people down. For my own projects, I have a tendency to let myself down.

 //Do you tend to be more interested in internal dynamics, or external determinations? In the terms laid out by Keller, do you tend to focus so intently on the object of your concern that context falls away (i.e. are you obsessive compulsive, rather than paranoid)? Is your desire to name, specify and control your object? Is your desire is for figure, its ground your annoyance? Or are you paranoid, context being your focus and obsession? All is signal. Only begrudgingly will you admit that something is noise, outside the scope of your project? Figure is hard to come by. Its ground has captured your attention.// I am more interested in external determinations, and thus as laid out by Keller could be considered more paranoid than obsessive compulsive. I often want to take in all material and all data and the varied paths down which I can go to help further define and contextualize an object or issue at hand. Yet, there are certain things I know to keep away from, that are just noise and not relevant – it is certainly harder for me to focus and I am easily distracted by all that is encompassing and populating the world around the object. There are certain things I really like to focus in on, but I do not focus in on defining them as much as I could.

//What do you do with unusual or counter examples? Are you drawn to “the deviant,” or rather repulsed by it? // I do not run or try to hide counter-examples, and often like to explore and poke at why these manifest themselves. Along with this tendency, I am quite often drawn to what might be considered “the deviant.” Exploring counter examples is very interesting to me, and it is something that first interested me in studying the history of science – the deviances and the counter examples that often led to new lines of thought and uncertain discontinuities.

 //Do you tend to over-impose logics on the world, or to resist the construction of coherent narratives?// This is a tricky one. I would say I do a little bit of both. I do try to impose some logics on the world, but I also have an innate resistance to coherent narratives, possibly due to my affinity for deviance and exploration into the twists and turns of narratives that often make them incoherent and obscured. Having a clear narrative that can delineate these deviances and counter-examples is something I strive for, though.

 //Do you tend to over-generalize, or to hold back from overarching argument?// I tend to hold back from overarching arguments and try to stay away from generalizing or falling into reductionism. Yet, I can see the validity in some generalization for making interesting connections between phenomena. I am still grappling with how to make some kinds of generalizations while not essentializing a situation.

 //Do you like to read interpretations different than your own, or do you tend to feel scooped or intimidated by them?// I enjoy reading interpretations different than my own because these help to inform my own arguments and reveal the multiplicity and diversity of thought upon a specific issue or topic.

 //Do you tend to change an argument as you flesh it out, or do you tend to make the argument work, no matter what?// I have a tendency to change arguments as I flesh them out and further explore the problem at hand. I enjoy letting new knowledge or thoughts inform my work as I write or formulate my response. This may be indicative of the emergent way that I create art, in that I often let mistakes or unexpected outcomes guide what I had originally intended. I do try to stick to the general argument as I originally intended it, but have no problem with tweaking it or changing it drastically if I feel there is a need.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> //Do you tend to think in terms of “this is kind of like” (metaphorically)? Do you hold to examples that “say it all,” leveraging metonymic thinking?// <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">Hard one. I think more metaphorically I suppose, in making connections; that there are some kinds of linkages and similarities, but not in a “say it all” sense.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> //Do you like gaming understanding in this way? Does it frustrate you that your answers often don’t fit easily on either side of the binaries set up by the questions? (Jakobson suggests that over attachment to a simple binary scheme is a “continuity disorder.”)// <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">I am not sure how I feel about putting understanding in these contexts, but I think it is an interesting binary to keep in mind. I am not so frustrated that my answers do not fit neatly into either side of the binary, as I would hope I am not focused on one side or the other, but have some kind of balance within the binary. From knowing my own neuroses, I would say I am more in tune with being contextual and not being able to describe or name the object that has my attention. Yet, there are definitely some issues I have in giving myself full context, so I am not completely on one side or the other. I also tend to discount simple binary systems as being too simplistic when dealing with issues that are complex and have many factors affecting them.