Jan D > Recent Status Updates

Duh, the sentences. Start at the end where you might find a verb.

Still pretty interesting and its very helpful to understand some "Latourian" terms that he keeps using without too much explaination later.

Surprisingly easy to read so far (yet, not filling or anecdotes) and already plenty of interesting ideas and frames.

The introduction is nice, though the concerns about going native sound a bit like "getting infected by the scientist’s views" and read a bit outdated. The language is otherwise relatively accessible; Latour is, in general, not overly difficult to read anyway.

Phew. Ob ich da jemals duchkomme? Es ist interessant, aber die langen Sätze…

Manche Sätze sind lang und verschachtelt und scheinen kein Verb zu haben. Vielleicht hat Bourdieu oder sein*e Übersetzer*in manchmal den Überblick verloren.

Ich hatte mal nach 10 Seiten aufgehört und jetzt wieder angefangen. Interessante und manchmal auch unangenehme Analysen.
Die Satzlängen aber… ich zeichne mir teils Klammern ein, damit ich weiß, welche Schachtelung wohin gehört.

Ich hatte mal nach 10 Seiten aufgehört und jetzt wieder angefangen. Interessante und manchmal auch unangenehme Analysen.
Die Satzlängen aber… ich zeichne mir teils Klammern ein, damit ich weiß, welche Schachtelung wohin gehört.

Interesting! I did not know about the albertinian idea of architecture. The writing style is academic, but rather readable: Only few unusual words; Sentences have verbs.
So far I can recommend for designers, architects and STS scholars.

Some parts are easy to understand and have graspable examples, some are complex and abstract. It is not as hard as Process and Reality which is all complex and abstract.
So far it seems to be also the best introduction to Process and Reality I could find and/or read.

Hmm, is it a read-it-front-to-back-book? I read into come chapters, was good so far.

Like "From counterculture to cyberculture" this book is fascinating and well written.

I read a collection of essays by the same author and liked his writing; this is the first novel by him that I read.

Let's see if I ever read through it. It seems to be a bit easier (or less structuralist?) than Theory of Practice…

I think I need to propose that all simplifications of "process and reality" are as hard to read as the original itself.
So maybe just copy the vocabulary list from "A Key to Whitehead's Process and Reality" and slooooowly read Whitehead.

Pretty interesting, mostly well readable, never pretentious, but it occasionally uses some expensive words I never heard of.

If I start reading enough keys and companion books about Process and Reality, will I at some point understand it?

So far at least the most readable of the one’s I know.

OK, I'll wait for the "key to…" book to arrive. I need some serious vocabulary help here :)

So far, it is a good read that is interesting sociologically as well as personally.

As for the first impressions:
The various heart-shape covers of the editions seem to be directly inspired by the title, making it look like a romance guidebook to some degree or other.
The topic description sounded rather Marxist. It is, in a sense, but it it does not assume deep familiarity with Marxist vocabulary or Frankfurt School its remixes.

slow burn.
But great. Currently, science is in the conflict of active and bold experimentation and passive observation, barely held together by field notebooks to write down everything scientists do.

Its slow moving. Many new words. But few "creative" ones.
In this regard: Worse than late Wittgenstein, better than Heidegger.

"Of course, the bourgeois heirs of the Judeo-Christian God make a selection among his attributes: the new god writes, but he does not speak; he is an author, but he is not grasped corporeally [embodied] in an interlocution [conversation]."

It is hard to understand and I would not recommend going in without a secondary source to help you navigate it.
Its hard-to-read-ness is very different then postmodernism or Wittgensteinian oder Heideggerian followers. I guess I prefer Whiteheads style. Also a plus: Materialism, but not Heidegger.

Varies widely in its understandable-ness.
Most efficient is just reading the intro, which is great. Some parts live up to "bad French poststructuralism"-tropes. Some parts live up to "Great poetic french poststructuralism". I guess one can actually pick the single chapters, there is a common theme but it does not seem to coherently build up step by step. I recommend the intro and the train chapter.

Varies widely in its understandable-ness.
Most efficient is just reading the intro, which is great. Some parts live up to "bad French poststructuralism"-tropes. Some parts live up to "Great poetic french poststructuralism". I guess one can actually pick the single chapters, there is a common theme but it does not seem to coherently build up step by step.

Varies widely in its understandable-ness.
Most efficient is just reading the intro, which is great. Some parts live up to "bad French poststructuralism"-tropes. Some parts live up to "Great poetic french poststructuralism". I guess one can actually pick the single chapters, there is a common theme but it does not seem to coherently build up step by step.

A slow burn, but always interesting