CONVER/DICTIONS: The Prerequisite to Learning (Contradiction Conversations)
Contradiction Conversations (converdictions) are NOT Debates - A statement of intent for this new genre.
Whether you love hot takes and debate culture or shy away from such things via recourse to a cosmic eyeroll that has nothing for disdain and dismissal for that pseudo intellectual dead end, what we’re cooking up at Theory Underground is going to scratch an itch you have likely been feeling (even if you had yet to find the words for it!).
I’m going to talk about the invention of a new genre of content, both in theory and practice, which all culminates in exciting details about an upcoming event. First comes the somewhat dense theoretical side of things.
The Idea of the Universal and Contradiction Towards that End
The first course ever at Theory Underground was The Idea of the University, which focused on Karl Jaspers’ work by that same name. I chose this text as our starting point with two of my closest compatriots, Ann and Bryan, because we are not just “doing theory,” or “politics,” or anything else that people might initially assume.
Theory Underground comes out of a dissatisfaction with what was on offer for us in our experiences at a state university. We don’t do this here because we simply prefer to, but because the University as an institution is not hospitable to its own higher end. Rather than critique the existing institution, we would prefer to do what we went to university to do in the first place. The nice thing about Jaspers’ work on this is that he does not just criticize the institution.
Jaspers’ work is critical yet positive, sober yet optimistic. Instead of just looking at the shortcomings, he fleshes out what the institution is supposed to strive towards. As he says,
“To be permeated by the idea of the university is part of a way of life. It is the will to search and seek without limitation, to allow reason to develop unrestrictedly., to have an open mind, to leave nothing unquestioned, to maintain truth unconditionally, yet recognizing the danger of sapere aude (daring to know).”1
The Idea of the University is, in a nutshell, the idea of a community of truth-seekers in pursuit of the Universal (truth, understanding, etc.). This does not simply mean we’re all the proverbial blind men “holding on to different parts of an elephant.” If that was true, all we would need to do is overcome our differences so that we can get at “the thing itself.”
The blind people feeling out the elephant only gets at part of the dynamic while missing something essential. It’s relatable insofar as each truth-seeker is working from his or her own unique standpoint granted by the combination of experience and field-specific discipline, in dialogue with others within and outside of that given field; all of this directed towards the higher end of the universal.
The issue with the elephant analogy is that the universal is not a thing that exists “out there” on its own without intersubjective mediation and the contradictions posed by competing perspectives. As
highlights in For They Know Not What They Do (which we studied in another course at Theory Underground):“The principal motif of Hegel’s critique of the “naive”, commonsensical theory of knowledge is that it conceives the process of knowledge after the model of penetrating some previously unknown domain: the “spontaneous” idea is that one discovers, discloses, some reality that already existed prior to our process of knowing it; this “naive” theory overlooks the constitutive character of the process of knowledge with regard to its object: the way knowledge itself modifies its object, confers upon it the form it has as an “object of knowledge”.”2
This is not to say that there’s not “there” outside of us, nor is it to say everything is subjective. Žižek says,
“transcendental constitution is more than a mere subjective perspective upon reality, more than another name for the fact that we are condemned to perceive reality within the limits of our subjective horizon - the transcendental horizon is ontologically constitutive of what we call “reality.”3
I take this to mean that we are part of the very reality we are trying to understand. We are contradictory, as is the reality we are a part of, and so understanding any subject-matter means, in part, working through the constitutive contradictions of the given field or subject-matter.
Which is where I want to bring Jaspers back into this. As Jaspers says, (and the emphases are mine)
“The university is the place where truth is sought unconditionally in all its forms. All forms of research must serve truth. The radical character of this commitment creates strong intellectual tensions at the university. They are the very condition of progress. The tensions which flare up into intellectual battles are meaningful by virtue of the common ground which emerges in the course of intellectual dispute. True scholars, even in the heat of controversy, remain firmly united with one another.”4
If I understand him correctly, then the common ground established is not simply one of agreements concerning theoretical matters, so much as a respect for the process of trying to get to the bottom of things and the recognition that we’re all a part of that process.
When the institution stifles such intra or inter-disciplinary exchanges and makes it easy for academics to avoid genuine tensions, we are all the poorer for it. For a perfect example of a popular theorist avoiding an intra-disciplinary debate, we need look no further than Judith Butler giving Joan Copjec the silent treatment for almost twenty years.
Of course, nothing is ever perfect. Imperfection is inherent to the situation. As Jaspers says,
“Stripped of its ideal the university loses all value. Yet "institution" necessarily implies compromises. The idea is never perfectly realized. Because of this a permanent state of tension exists at the university between the idea and the shortcomings of the institutional and corporate reality.”5
This “imperfect” split between the idea and the reality of the institution is similar to the contradiction between particular and universal in Hegelian dialectics. As Žižek says in For They Know Not What They Do,
“the discord between the Universal and the Particular is constitutive: their encounter is always “missed” - the impetus of the dialectical process is precisely this “contradiction” between the Universal and its Particular. The Particular is always deficient and/or in excess with regard to its Universal: in excess, since it eludes the Universal; since the Universal - in so far as it is “abstract” - cannot encompass it; deficient, since - and this is the reverse of the same predicament - there is never enough of the Particular to “fill out” the Universal frame. This discord between the Universal and the Particular would be “resolved” were it to attain the repose of the fortunate encounter, when the disjunction, the division of the universal genus into particular species, is exhaustive, when it is without remainder; yet the disjunction/division of a signifier’s set is never exhaustive, there always remains an empty place occupied by the surplus element which is the set itself in the form of its opposite - that is, as empty set. This is how the signifying classification differs from the usual, commonsensical one: next to “normal” species, one always comes across a supplementary species which holds the place of the genus itself.”6
Do I actually understand what Žižek is getting at here? Probably not. I’m no
(an amazing fellow traveler who taught Hegel’s Science of Logic last year). But I’ve been thinking about Žižek + Jaspers ever since those two courses, and this is my first attempt to bring them together for you all.All I’m trying to say is that knowledge of the universal, that thing that we strive for, is in a dialectical relation to particulars, which are, in their very bones, contradictory. We all, as particular learners, seeking to understand things, need to see and think through contradictions.
To that end, Theory Underground aims to allow certain contradictions that have arisen over the last couple of years to show themselves.
Announcing Contradiction Conversations at Theory Underground
“Contradiction conversations” AKA “converdictions” are a neo-dialectical online genre being experimented with at Theory Underground. These are “dialectical” in the sense that they are based in a back and forth over time, which is itself a process of becoming; not a process that ends in synthesis, but which involves irreconcilable contradictions that must be worked through in order to understand the situation, much less to be able to sublate (surpass yet retain) the deadlocks of the moment.
All of that is what I take to be standard (though obviously simplified) dialectics. What makes it “neo” is the medium itself, i.e. the internet. Some think the internet has already always been dialectical, because they see different sub-cultures advancing various positions, clashing, and changing over time.
And that’s fine as far as it goes, but I argue the internet’s cybernetic and algorithmic tendencies are inherently anti-dialectical. That doesn’t mean it cannot become so. We have no idea what the internet is capable of, but we aim to find out.
As a critical media theory experiment, Theory Underground seeks to understand the tendencies of the internet, so that they can be strategically countered and harnessed towards our ends. In line with that, we seek to go beyond the culture of influencers who avoid disagreement while assuming “fandoms,” as well as the converse, i.e. professional debaters whose audiences are paying with eyeballs and dollars to see flashy cock fights.7
Debates are, in this sense, “mere criticism” as opposed to “critique.” To learn more about this distinction, check out ’s post this week on the topic.
As opposed to debates, which are about “a side” winning, the purpose of a converdiction (contradiction conversation) is to disclose a position vis-a-vis its Other for the sake of learning workers with earbuds.
Two points about that.
First, we assume an audience of learning workers with earbuds. Not all workers, but ones who are getting into the theory scene and seek to develop their abilities.
Second, we are not so foolish as to think that any given position in a discursive field has only “one” Other. “Positions” with only one “Other” are, by definition, one dimensional. (An example of this would be “atheist” as opposed to “religion,” assuming that there are only two poles on a line, or of a spectrum.) Positions in 2 or 3 dimensional planes, on the other hand, have many “Other” points against which they must be compared and contrasted if they are to be understood.
Why it matters: In order to get oriented in the world we have to grasp myriad subject-matters. I used to believe that understanding a subject-matter is as simple as getting the dictionary definition, Wikipedia about section, and maybe a few additional articles or even a book; all attempting to reveal the thing under discussion “as it actually is” in its full positivity. That was naive.
Taking a note from Žižekian dialectics, a subject-matter is not simply an objective state of affairs that can be approximated by shifting our perspectives to get at the thing-itself. Any given subject-matter, including the field within which it can be comprehended, is constituted by contradiction. In other words, to understand something means to understand its contradictions.
A perfect example: “Philosophy” could be summed up by a dictionary, wikipedia page, or a philosopher. In any of these cases the learner is led astray. Philosophy cannot be comprehended without making sense of the contradictory positions and concepts developed over its history. The field is made up of constituent contradictions.
The life of the mind is a life spent getting oriented in myriad different fields that must become familiar if one strives to comprehend “the Situation” from both the level of one’s singular lived experience and The Universal itself. That means that workers with earbuds, who are trying to understand the world, are not done any favors when “influencers” either act like theirs is the only position on things, or when they act like discursive positions are an us vs. them sport.
Contradictions must be allowed to speak for themselves. When it comes to issues such as understanding “the Left,” “libidinal economy,” or “Marxism,” contradictory positions must be allowed to show themselves and speak for themselves in the presence of their Other(s).
A perfect example was when Chris Cutrone, a man who has spent his life trying to allow contradictions to come to light through his work with Platypus Affiliated Society, took some swipes at Lacan and French theory more broadly. It was back in 2022, a few months before I changed the game from “Theory Pleeb” to “Theory Underground.” Cutrone said that he takes Lacan about as seriously as proud boys refusing to ejaculate. His point was that people should be focusing on “the good stuff” rather than this faddish craze in inferior theorists.
Being quite the fan of everything I’ve heard Michael Downs of The Dangerous Maybe, or Todd McGowan of Why Theory, saying about Lacan and Žižek, I brough Mikey and Todd on the following day for an intervention (with special guests Andrew, Nick, and Trey). The point of that stream was to show why Žižek and Lacan are important to any “anti-capitalist” project (something that should matter to Cutrone).
Around that time I asked both Cutrone and McGowan if they would be willing to have a conversation on my channel, and both said yes. I really dragged my feet on making it happen though, because I wanted to really established Theory Underground first—and not as some kind of “debate” platform!
At this point, I think TU has established a good enough track-record that people know this is an education-first place for workers with earbuds who are getting into theory. So with that said, in the interest of really signal boosting the upcoming “American Idiots” Tour we are doing in the EU, I’ve organized a very special Epic Livestream Marathon at TU (ELMTU):
Learning and Contradiction - April 18th, 2024
Part One:
Part two:
Down below, I’ll share the times each set of speakers will be joining and a few words about the theme of each conversation. But first, I want to address a common “rebuttal” to anyone who thinks that contradictory conversations do not matter. It goes a little something like this:
“People don’t change their positions. Disagreements only make peoples’ positions stronger.”
Fair enough. But this assumes individuals and their little in-groups are all that matters. At Theory Underground, the idea is we want to go beyond individuals and in-groups, to lay the groundwork for a genuine working class intellectual milieu. It’s an intergenerational project, which means it’s not just about you, me, or some abstract “us” that actually exists right now.
It’s one thing to say that individuals hold certain positions and rarely change them, rather getting more entrenched with time. But it’s important for future generations to see us get along, work through disagreements, and allow the contradictions to exist in the light of day. Only by doing so can people work through the various positions and come to, hopefully, some higher comprehension of the situation.
And ultimately, who knows, maybe understanding is a waste of time. Maybe our efforts be better spent doing anything else. For those who think they have it all figured out and that everything else is just persuasion, sure, what we are doing at Theory Underground is pointless. Worse, if you don’t want your audience to think for itself, then you will do everything you can to avoid speaking with others whose positions will differentiate from one’s own.
But we care about learning, which is only possible through comparison and contrast. Propagandistic “education” takes up a position and then tells you how that position compares and contrasts with the other relevant ones. It tells you about the contradictions, rather than showing them to you or allowing them to speak for themselves. It’s rarely done on purpose or explicitly; it’s usually done in an implicit way, that leaves out key concepts, distinctions, and positions, while oversimplifying and strawmanning the ones that do get presented.
What happens when contradictions don’t come to light?
Debate culture is the idiotic return of the repressed. Debate bros posture as the ones who are not afraid to do anything, like they will talk to anyone, but what they do is not talking. Nor is it thinking. As entertaining as debates might be (wouldn’t we be better off just watching Wrestle Mania!?), they rarely tarry with the complexity of the contradictions, much less the fact that those very contradictions might be constitutive of the situation.
What contradictions are we focusing on in the livestream next week?
Not every segment is focused on contradiction per se, though most are. Some are focused on the experience of learning itself.ed
7:30 AM Eastern with Peter Rollins on The Church of Contradiction (how he has taken “contradiction” from Žižekian theory and puts it to practice in a religious/anti-religious context).
9:00 AM Eastern Nance interviews Dave and Ann on The Idea of the University, Critical Media Theory, and Critical Doxalogy and Timenergy theory, three areas of research being conducted at Theory Underground, each of which is made up by contradictions in different ways.
10:00 AM Eastern - Helen Rollins will talk about intellectualism, anti-intellectualism, becoming a learner, the absolute unavoidability of lack, and poor rich kids.
11 AM Eastern - Michelle Garner (one half of
and wife of Daniel Garner, friend of TU) will share about her own intellectual journey, choosing to homeschool, lessons she’s learned regarding this form of practice, and continuing adult education as a way of life!12:00 PM Eastern - Benjamin Studebaker will share about his own intellectual journey, and we will probably focus a lot on the strengths of an institution like Cambridge, contrasting that to the contemporary “state University.” He gave a recent lecture to subscribers only that I’ll share below the paywall.8 For the general public, check out this interview with him on the TU channel:
1:00 PM Eastern - Swol x Pleeb, i.e. Eamon and I (Dave) will be talking about our political journeys and how much we have or haven’t changed since our early “Left tuber” days. In particular, we will focus on why Swol left the Marxist org he was a part of (the IMT) yet still considers himself a Marxist whereas I left a Marxist org and now consider myself post-Marxist in a variety of ways.
2:00 PM Eastern - Eliot Rosenstock, author of Žižek in the Clinic and The Ego And Its Hyperstate is joining me to talk about what he thinks psychoanalysis has to offer timenergy theory. This is less directly related to “learning” or “contradiction” than all the other segments, but it’s going to be awesome and, if past ELMTUs are any indication, it’s going to tie in wonderfully with everything. hjuuuuuuu (Ryan, my cat, stepped on the keyboard and that was his addition so I’ll let it be)
3:00 PM Eastern - Samuel Loncar x Justin Murphy - Christian Atheism vs. Catholic Accelerationism. Samuel Loncar of the Becoming Human Project has, on Theory Underground, expressed his distaste for accelerationism, as well as anti/post/trans-humanism. Justin Murphy is a lot more “of” that world, but he shares some interesting similarities with Loncar concerning the nature of religion and the occult. My main goal is to let them share their positions on these matters and then we’ll get into points of similarity and contrast. Below are videos with each of them separately when they visited for an ELMTU.
What is The Human? with Samuel Loncar
Catholic Accelerationism with Justin Murphy
4:30 PM Eastern - Spencer x McManus - I recently had Matt McManus on Theory Underground to talk about his research. McManus studies the Right, from the Left. So of course I was quite curious to hear all about how he thinks of these terms, movements, and philosophical traditions. Along the way, he talked quite a bit about Nietzsche as a political thinker. After he left the stream, I felt energized and wanted to do something, so I brought on Spencer Leonard. I did not realize he was going take a lot of shots at McManus, but he sure did! The major contradiction here is in HOW to read “non-Left” philosophers. Spencer’s position is, if they are not expressly political, then chasing down little things they say that can be made political is not a fruitful project; they should be engaged with on their own terms, i.e. philosophically. McManus’ work goes expressly against this tendency, and reads Nietzsche, as well as Heidegger, politically. To wrap your head around these two sides you can watch the stream I’m referencing here, or just come on the 18th to hear them speak for themselves!
6:00 PM Eastern - Special new PSA of the Ivan Illich course with Bryan Weeks, which you will see we situate via contradiction and learning.
6:30 PM Eastern - Cutrone x McGowan - This is in every way the “headlining event” for this ELMTU, and I don’t really need to say much about it because that was all spelled out above. Basically think of this like Marxism vs. Žižekianism, though of course Cutrone is in no way reducible to Marxism, nor is McGowan reducible to Žižek’s thought.
Each has done an immense world of good (or harm, depending on where you’re coming from) in introducing a generation of working class intellectuals to rich intellectual, theoretical, and political traditions—while forever imprinting the discourses they teach with their own theoretical contributions. Both are father figures, in a sense, so we will do everything we can to avoid becoming the primal sons and doing the thing.
8:00 PM Eastern - post-game with Mikey AKA Michael Downs of The Dangerous Maybe - You’re all familiar enough with him that I’d like to say he needs no introduction… Mikey will probably be joining me and Nance for a post-game.
Watch the conversation Mikey, Nance, and I had last with Todd McGowan here:
DESIRE: Jacques Lacan vs. Gilles Deleuze with Todd McGowan
My hope is that this ELMTU is going to really help us develop a sense for what’s possible when this medium is used against the grain. Instead of cheap shots, piffy takes, and perpetual siloing, we s eek discourse that allows the contradictions to come to light, not for beef or clicks, but so that we can all strive towards this thing called universal truth, which is itself constituted by its contradictions.
Thanks for reading.
Get involved: If you want to get actively involved with ongoing lecture sessions related to timenergy research and critical media theory, become a TU subscriber today here.
Support: If you don’t have time to get involved but wish to support nonetheless, become a patron here.
This post was made possible by the 4 amazing Substack subscribers who actually pay me to keep writing.
THANK YOU!!!
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Theory_Underground to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.