to think would indeed change, for characterising an adventure is very different to articulating the necessary steps of a method. In following this adventure of inventing in thought, we would have to begin not by presenting a set of aims and principles but by attempting to describe the multiple layers of complexity and plurality through which such an adventure might play out. We would have to pay attention, for instance, to what Schlanger (1977, p. 85-86) refers to as the sense of that accompanies the becoming of a ‘intrigue’ thought-event. The intrigue produced by the fact that never knows in advance ‘one where, when, or how the heuristic effervescence will play out’. The intrigue produced by being seduced by words and intuitions without being able to determine in advance whether a thought may succeed in inserting itself within an existing situation and infect it with its novel character, calling the existing definition of the situation into question, restructuring it, transforming it; or whether new itself’ ‘the will become what rejected and deported elsewhere, culturally exiled to another ‘is dimension’. If even that approach it as a matter of method agree that thinking and theorising deserve to be called an art (Swedberg, 2015), why not experiment with notions that are relevant to other arts too? The conversation might change if we began to speak of the experience of reading others, of thinking others, thinkers with and thoughts, not as a question of accuracy and criticism, or of whether one is imitating the right rhetorical gestures in the correct manner, but as a matter of tonality and resonance. What if what was at stake in learning to think with others, in honouring the capacity for the propositions of others to move us, was the development of a felt or lack of affinity between problems’ (Stengers 2014, ‘affinity p. 194) and modes of problematisation that bring our adventures and those of others
to think would indeed change, for characterising an adventure is very different to articulating the necessary steps of a method. In following this adventure of inventing in thought, we would have to begin not by presenting a set of aims and principles but by attempting to describe the multiple layers of complexity and plurality through which such an adventure might play out. We would have to pay attention, for instance, to what Schlanger (1977, p. 85-86) refers to as the sense of ‘intrigue’ that accompanies the becoming of a thought-event. The intrigue produced by the fact that ‘one never knows in advance where, when, or how the heuristic effervescence will play out’. The intrigue produced by being seduced by words and intuitions without being able to determine in advance whether a thought may succeed in inserting itself within an existing situation and infect it with its novel character, calling the existing definition of the situation into question, restructuring it, transforming it; or whether ‘the new itself’ will become what ‘is rejected and deported elsewhere, culturally exiled to another dimension’. If even that approach it as a matter of method agree that thinking and theorising deserve to be called an art (Swedberg, 2015), why not experiment with notions that are relevant to other arts too? The conversation might change if we began to speak of the experience of reading others, of thinking with others, thinkers and thoughts, not as a question of accuracy and criticism, or of whether one is imitating the right rhetorical gestures in the correct manner, but as a matter of tonality and resonance. What if what was at stake in learning to think with others, in honouring the capacity for the propositions of others to move us, was the development of a felt ‘affinity or lack of affinity between problems’ (Stengers 2014, p. 194) and modes of problematisation that bring our adventures and those of others