This is fucking surreal.

I'm done with the one class today. I have finals and papers to grade, but that should be relatively easy with such a small number of students. After that, I'm taking the weekend to write. I should be at the Mug on Saturday for River Chicken's last show, but other than that I should be locking myself away and writing.

On second thought: who am I kidding. I'm probably go to the bar.

So, I guess I'm single again. Nothing horrible happened, it just became clear that we were not looking for the same thing out of this. I still think the world of her. She made me very happy, and I'd still be with her if she wanted me to be. But I don't really think she did. Nor did she.

This is somewhat opportune, because I have three major time-consuming tasks this month. First, I'm moving. I need to pack and move my stuff, and to get this apartment to shape so that I won't need to pay too much. As it stands, my security deposit is less than the total maintanence bill I'm facing. (I have several walls to paint back to their original color despite the fact that I was the one who kept insisting it was a bad idea. Stupid fucking people don't listen; so, here I am stuck.)

Second, I'm writing. I got my refined and re-directed dissertation topic approved today, and I need to get shakin' if I'm going to get done this year. I may be able to score a real job this year (remember heath insurance?), but I will have one lined up here if I don't. It's more likely than not I'll be in Florida next year, but there is a non-zero probability that I'll actually get a visiting position in some god-forsaken flyover state. For this reason, it would be a bad idea to be dating someone who's committed to staying in Tampa (as N. was), because just when it got serious I might be leaving. That's not fair to her.

Finally, I'm teaching. My Marx class starts next week, and as it stands I've got 37 eagar minds ready to understand Marx, and only six weeks in which to do it. My task is exacerbated as I've got to get them to see the real Marx, not the economic boogeyman of popular repute: a bearded villian sneaking in to "redistribute" your stuff. And although reading Marx almost always puts me in a good mood, grading thirty-seven weekly response papers is probably going to want to make me take a header off a bridge before September.

So, long story short: you may start seeing me at the bar periodically. Buy me a drink.

Good talk with Roger today, and I actually think I articulated an argument to him. It's not what I thought I was going to argue, but I think it's more . . . well, I can articulate this. The great first steps taken to unite Anglo-American analytic philosophy of language with Continental social theory will need to wait until I can understand how the hell I am going to do it.

My recent mantra has been: 'Smaller and more modest goals.' and also, 'Write Wrong' (which is a demonstrable corollary of--what I will call--the Malikow thesis, 'Just get it out and get on with it.')

Reason 37b how one can tell I am writing (and I use the word loosely) a dissertation: the librarians at the circulation desk know your name.

Me: "I have a recall on hold."
Circ Guy: "Sure."
Circ Lady: "Let me guess"
Me: . . .
Circ Lady: "Broo . . . oo . . . mich?"
Me: "Yeah, that's me."

Mind you, this is at an institution of 30,000+. I need a hobby.

Think it's bad living in a country run by a Bush? Try living under two of them. That's the distinguished honor that we Floridians have. And so too do they share an askew view of reality. Jeb Bush recently signed HB 7087, the Florida's Education Omnibus Bill, colloquially known as A++. Amongst the guidelines and requirements under FL 1003.42 which Florida public schools must now educate *ehem* students includes that:

American history shall be viewed as factual, not as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.

The intent of the clause was given by an earlier Senate amendment (that did not make it into the final bill), which immediately before the above clause read, "the history of the United States shall be taught as genuine history and shall not follow the revisionist or postmodernist viewpoints of relative truth." [Emphasis mine]

Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor at NYU, wrote an interesting rebuttal to the new regulatory changes in the LA Times last week. He wrote:

Ironically, the Florida law is itself revisionist history. Once upon a time, it theorizes, history — especially about the founding of the country — was based on facts. But sometime during the 1960s, all that changed. American historians supposedly started embracing newfangled theories of moral relativism and French postmodernism, abandoning their traditional quest for facts, truth and certainty.

The result was a flurry of new interpretations, casting doubt on the entire past as we had previously understood it. Because one theory was as good as another, then nothing could be true or false. God, nation, family and school: It was all up for grabs.

There's just one problem with this history-of-our-history: It's wrong.

Ah, the illusion of objectivity. I run across this in my discipline, too. The temptation to model all knowledge on the methods of science on one hand, or literature on the other. According to this disjunctive and disfunctional view of knowledge, if a discipline is not modelled on one, then it must be modelled on the other. Either a discipline deals with "knowable, teachable, and testable" facts like physics, or it's all interpretation, or adopts a "revisionist or postmodernist" standpoint and merely interprets, without ever attaining any degree of truth like literary studies. The sad fact is that this popular way to look at things is patently false.

As Thomas Kuhn points out (as do also Lakatos, Feyerabend and Duhem) to say that science has any objective validity independent of the historical paradigm is incorrect. Science is never an accurate portrayal of reality, but always subject to amendment and fine tuning. Moreso, the history of science is subject to periodic revolutions, wherein the conceptual map by which we use to understand the world is overturned. The Newtonian model of the universe works well for mid-sized objects (like tables, cars, dogs and those things we are used to in our everyday lives) but does not apply to very large objects (like planets) or very small objects (like electrons). The language of twentieth century physics--of relativity and quantum mechanics--is not merely an expansion of Newtonian mechanics, but rather an undermining of it. The two paradigms are, strictly speaking untranslatable, or "incommensurable" as Kuhn put it. In the first few decades of the twentieth century, our view of the universe has shifted and with it the "truths" of the Nineteenth century. So too will our current "truths" of science be jettisoned with time.

Likewise, to say that humanities disciplines merely interpret and therefore have only subjective or emotive truth is also false. It is a common sophomoric understanding of my discipline that "philosophy is all interpretation" and so one's opinion on the state of things is just as good as any other. This comes from not merely an ignorance of philosophy, but rather a general ignorance of the nature and character of knowledge in general. As Wittgenstein reminds us, "Philosophy is not one of the natural sciences", but rather "limits the disputable sphere of natural science" (TLP 4.111, 4.113). Philosophy is neither a sum of doctrines--nor more egregiously a sum of interpretations which have equal (or no) truth--but rather an activity. "The word 'philosophy,'" that is, "must mean something which stands above or below, but not beside the natural sciences." (TLP 4.111)

Is it any wonder then that getting outside of the hermeneutic flow of knowledge is impossible? The legislators of Florida must think that one can take a "God's eye perspective" and get to the "facts" of history in an "objective" way. This is not only false, but embarrassingly so. History is developed and chronicled by people. And further, to arrive at what is significant in the flow of history is not subject to an objective method; it is relative to our epistemic character since relevance means relevance for us, not for the Universe or for quarks.

For this reason, it's a good thing the appointed government officials are doing something useless like making laws, rather than spinning their fairy tales of objectivist history outside of Tallahassee. To amend the old adage: if those who cannot do teach, then those who cannot do anything get elected to public office.

Today, not quite two weeks following the truimphant beginning to the Atlantic hurricane season, we lucky residents of the Gulf coast are getting our first substantial inclement weather. "Tropical Storm Alberto," as it is now called, is projected to reach a full-fledged hurricane by the end of the day. The center of it is still projected hit well to the north of Tampa, but that doesn't mean it is pleasant outside. On the contrary, it is quite dreary out today. Rain and wind are expected to keep up until at least tomorrow.

The way that we view hurricanes--and the potential danger that may ensue from them--has changed drastically since Katrina. The ability of such a powerful storm to literally incapacitate and entire city has not been taken seriously until now. Of course, a storm's strengthening is a function of water temperatures; and since water warms slower than air, it follows that the most serious storms will not be coming until at least late July. But this almost immediate and ominous foreboding of the coming storm season has left me a bit uncertain. Recall that last year, the worst hurricane season in over a hundred years, was innaugurated by a little storm (Arlene) made landfall in the second week of June. Of course, the first real damage was done by Dennis in early July 2005.

Long story short, we still have a long way to go. And if this season shapes up like last season, the ride should be a bit bumpy.

I woke up late today, and with a headache. I slept through my alarm. I was supposed to get up early and begin preparing my lecture. No such luck.

I didn't do so yesterday, because the procrastination bug bit me and I had an overwhelming desire to clean my bedroom. I can justify the "wasted" time to myself insofar as I need to move soon, and thus need to throw away the stuff I'm not plannning to take with me. I must have thrown away several bags of trash and downsized my wardrobe (if you can call it that). I also vacuumed and did a lot of laundry. I didn't get much work done, but I can now see my floor. So, I was productive . . . sorta.

I spent yesterday morning running around town looking for rails for my new filing cabinets. They used to make a set of rails (which I bought for my now full filing cabinet) which were engineering simplicity: they were nothing more than two metal arches which fit into the holes on the side. No nonsense, no assembly, just functional. The only thing I can find now are those box-looking deals, which are more expensive and more complex than I need. Apparently nobody carries the old ones. Oh, Staples, why hast thou forsaken me?!?!

This weekend I've got a date with Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. And I'm gonna get lucky.

The Crit class is going well. I think some of them are starting to "get it." There is method to my madness, I swear.

I'm going to a roller derby bout on Sunday with N. and her friend. Alycia has been bugging me to come see her kick some ass on wheels, and finally I shall this weekend.

To the shower, and then off to the library.

N. is back and I'm glad.

Some time in the library today will get me back to business. I have a meeting with Kwasi Wiredu to discuss Russell today.

I've been thinking of expanding the first chapter into the tradition of British Idealism to which Russell and Moore are reacting. That means I have to read F. H. Bradley (for those who may not know: it's worse than it sounds).

The UT class is going well. I think I taught Kant very successfully for the first time last night. It felt kinda good.

It seems my recent 'topical' posts have attracted a good deal of insightful debate (between Hud and Norbert on writing and also between jason and Aeryn on jazz). I think I'll post on things that piss me off more often.

Back to business.