You're viewing the dmv.community public feed.

Federated feed Local feed

JNLjnl@hcommons.social
Oct 15, 2026, 2:22 PM
One of the (many) maddening things about finding oneself ensconced in academia as a problem-centered scholar is the almost unbelievable difficulty of getting the relevant lit together, so aggressive is the discipline-by-discipline knowledge bounding
and I don't even mean, 'it takes a long time,' though it does, or 'it makes lit review very challenging,' though it does that too
I MEAN THAT ALMOST FOUR YEARS IN I AM STILL FUCKING **"DISCOVERING"** VEINS OF THINKING THAT ARE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT
SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE HIDDEN FROM MY VIEW
(DISCIPLINE-TIED AS I NECESSARILY HAVE HAD TO AGREE TO BE)
UNLESS I IDENTIFY **EXACTLY** THE RIGHT SEARCH TERMS
WHICH IS HARD TO DO
BECAUSE TERMS OF ART ARE OBSCURE
UNLESS YOU ARE SOCIALIZED INTO THEM
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0

Replies

JNLjnl@hcommons.social
Oct 15, 2026, 2:26 PM
*academia's social answer to this:
[shrug]
[it's not like you will be held responsible for knowing anything outside of your own disciplinary discourse]
*WHY THIS SHRUG IS NOT FUCKING RELEVANT
because those of us here to work a problem are in fact actually trying to understand it
and 'the discourse' is a proxy and often a stupid one at that, but you forget, have forgotten, need to re-member in all of the senses of that word, that a stupid proxy doesn't usually gesture toward a stupid **THING**
the thing, which is to say, bringing our best collective thinking to bear on the urgent puzzles of our time, THAT THING ACTUALLY MATTERS
it **matters** what folklore has to say about my project
because FOLKLORE actually thought about it
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0