Just need to update that book announcement, since the date has changed and I’m using it as my pinned Tweet on Twitter. Nothing more to report, I’m afraid… still busy – but Babette Babich has my edits to the new dialogue, so we are getting closer to another fascinating adventure of Babich and Bateman. Stay tuned!

Temporal Flux

Apologies for the slow running of comments, new content etc. but I’ve been travelling all over the place and am also swamped with various projects. I am progressing with Babich and Bateman III… hope normal service will resume soon! (If you’ve left a comment, firstly – thank you! – secondly, I hope to get back to you later this week.)

Brian Eno on Politics and Philosophy

We’re always being pulled in two directions, one is the sort of utopian side that says ‘we could make a better world’ and the other is the side that says ‘the world is getting bad, we’d better defend the bit we’ve got’. And that’s actually an easier message to sell, unfortunately. You can actually not ever find a position where you’re not doing politics. You’re always doing politics and you’re always doing philosophy as well – they’re sort of the same thing, you know. The position you take is a philosophy, whether you call it that or not.

Brian Eno, interview broadcast on Stuart Maconie's Freak Zone, BBC 6 Music, Sunday 8th May 2016.

Running Behind

This week’s post wasn’t ready in time – I only just finished it, and I don’t want to post precipitously without adequate time to mull upon its wording to an unhealthy degree that borders upon the obsessive. Suffice it to say it combines two classic topics of Only a Game: philosophy… and squirrels. Watch this space!

The Sting of Rejection

Seems the British Journal of Aesthetics rejected my recent submission, "Can a Rollercoaster Be Art?", and for quite bad reasons this time. There's no sign of the high quality peer review I received last time, indeed, no sign of any engagement with my argument at all. It's a shame as it's a great paper, and I don't have another home for it. It's strange to be told "I just don't think that this author is familiar with the BJA or the work that tends to be published in the journal" in a paper that cites the British Journal of Aesthetics no fewer than eight times. I'm afraid I am forced to conclude two things: that the reviewer did not understand my argument of the connection between 'game' and 'art' as aesthetic concepts, and that all the discussion of 'game' was therefore lost to them because it did not seem relevant. That smarts. But it's also a reminder that we have in no way won the battle over the artistic status of games: we just satisfied ourselves with the arguments we had.