The Difficulties and Paradoxes of Interrupting Colonial Totalitarian Logicalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I wish to explore a few puzzles that can be seen at work in Nassim Noroozi's combination of Martin Heidegger, Hannah Arendt, and William James in the definition of wonderment.This point relates to the relationship between totality and the ways we relate to language and meaning within modernity.Different readings of Heidegger suggest different relationships between existence and meaning. 1 Similarly, James seems to wrestle with the question of wonderment vis-à-vis experience and thought.Noroozi defines wonderment both as experience-based thought that interrupts circumscribed totalitarian meanings and as the pluralization and subversion of meaning itself through the amplification of the ambivalence and traces of signification.The examples she uses make me wonder about the connections between totality and the enduring nature of logocentric enchantments, where currents and countercurrents of thought work to both interrupt and reinscribe each other. 2 How can we tell when this move is subversive and when is it not?I believe a similar puzzle related to the relationship between meaning and experience/existence, is at play in Noroozi's conflation of Marie Battiste and Paulo Freire's projects of decolonization: although Battiste and Freire's critiques of totalitarian logicalities are somewhat similar, their projects of decolonization are not necessarily the same.Noroozi has been faithful to Freire but has betrayed Battiste.However, this is an important betrayal: it comes to teach us something.My response focuses on the paradoxes and difficulties of onto-epistemic ruptures, if we take distinctions between the two projects into account.1. See Carl Te Hira, "The Enowning of Thought and Whakapapa: Heidegger's Fourfold."Review of Contemporary Philosophy 13 (2014): 48-60.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".