<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Larval Subjects                              .]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[larvalsubjects]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/author/larvalsubjects/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Speculum Criticum on Rote Theory and&nbsp;Practice]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Skholiast has an especially <a href="http://speculumcriticum.blogspot.com/2010/06/rote-in-thy-brothers-eye.html">rich and nice post</a> up riffing on my post about Rote Theory and Practice.  He really gets right to the core of the issue.  Perhaps I&#8217;ve just had it driven into me by my background in Lacanian psychoanalysis, but for me the ultimate normative imperative regulating my thought is &#8220;Listen and look!&#8221;  I&#8217;m not suggesting I always live up to this, but it is the ideal that governs nearly every discussion of ethics and politics I participate in.  In this regard, I have a visceral reaction to any theoretical framework that I sense is merely <em>subsumptive</em>, placing phenomena under pre-existing ossified categories rather than opening itself to being <em>surprised</em> by phenomena.  Needless to say, listening and looking is not equivalent to merely &#8220;hearing&#8221; auditory vibrations or receiving wavelengths of light.  Listening and looking is incredibly hard and requires overcoming Malkovichism:</p>
<span class="embed-youtube" style="text-align:center; display: block;"><iframe class="youtube-player" width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Wx0ut4xHH_0?version=3&#038;rel=1&#038;showsearch=0&#038;showinfo=1&#038;iv_load_policy=1&#038;fs=1&#038;hl=en&#038;autohide=2&#038;wmode=transparent" allowfullscreen="true" style="border:0;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-popups allow-presentation"></iframe></span>
<p>Again, I am not suggesting that I live up to this ideal.  It is not without reason that Freud said psychoanalysis is among the impossible professions.  But that makes it no less a theoretical ideal.</p>
]]></html></oembed>