https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-032-06516-2_4This is his recently published article. I feel like he just uses random made-up or baselessly borrowed terms to make something rather simple sound drastically more complicated.I feel like in short he's saying that politicians may use crises to control the population.
>>25287008Welcome to academia you fucking moron
>Instead, the chapter explores the epistemology of emergency from a symbolic-imaginary perspective. Hence, it rests upon several fundamental concepts that organize the analysis and the argumentative logic. These are the concepts of constitutional imaginary, quantum constitutionalism, cloud constitutionalism, quantum entanglement, narrative sovereignty, and layered narrative.The analysis starts with an explanation of why crises and emergencies are signified and represented in the form of layered narratives. It shows that the constitutional imaginaries of crisis and emergency are a result of competing narratives, which may amount to battles for control of the nar-rative. They are ensuing from narrative sovereignty as the ultimate source of narrative quantum entanglement of meaning. The narratives are pro-ducing—alternatively or cumulatively—constitutional imaginaries which are shaping the collective constitutional consciousness, subconscious, and unconscious.Here's but a snippet.
>>25287008>Entanglement in Quantum ConstitutionalismIs this Sokal 3.0? Wasn't the original hoax something like "Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity"?
>>25287025I don't even know what he aims to do with this. It's like he's just scratching his tongue trying to sound as sophisticated as possible. He quotes John 1:1 and while yes - it's parsable that he understands the verse as describing the power of a narrative to bring ideas into reality - what is the practical use of talking about this in the context of constitutional law. Why doesn't he just write a philosophy book or something.
>>25287024Curse the eternal inkhorn.
Way to dox the poor guy
>>25287008Didn't know constitutional law professors were doing nothing in Bulgiaria too, kek.Truth be told, he could have used Kant's epistemology for a lot of the quantum shit.
>>25287008This is extremely common for certain spheres of academia where word soup is both a sign of right-think as well as a shield against criticism (can't call me out when you can't even know what I'm saying). >I feel like in short he's saying that politicians may use crises to control the population.It's more like the constitution is made up of ideas, maaan. And dude, in a crisis people fight over which ideas and concepts and symbols should win, maaaaaaan. It's like, a psycholinguistic cold war over our definitions of reality or some shit. Woah I just blew my mind.
>>25287008https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIAMxQ1KLiI
>>25287053This is a publicly available article?
>>25287097I would counter that insisting we write ‘normal’ prose makes it impossible to think in abnormal ways. There is plenty of BS in academia though I won’t deny that. But anyone who has had the experience of turgid, ugly, even apparently schizo prose turning into something revelatory knows what I mean.
OP is a complete faggot. The article he linked is the 4th section of a 16-chapter text entirely focused on constitutionalism and paternalism. It reads like academic babble because it's just been ripped from all context and presented like a separate essay. You can see for yourself it's loaded with tons of cited sources and the abstracts clearly outline each part. Both of these contribute towards a broader discussion on crisis management and how emergency intersects with authority.
>>25287024>HenceYeah, stopped reading
>>25287008>incapable of thinking critically >incapable of articulating a rebuttal>stilted, ESL writing >incapable of comprehending “his” professor’s article>waaaaaaahhhh wahhhhh I am a big weetard pls think for meYou’re cattle. Kill yourself
>>25287008If their work includes words like 'basal' (which has a normal world equivalent) or 'simultaneity' (which leaves just enough leeway to say it doesn't), they are likely a moron.A good rule of thumb for English is that sensible ideas can only be communicated in words derived from German. When someone starts using a lot of words derived from Latin with no in-tongue equivalent, they are bullshitting you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn74HAIPXLY
>>25287306I thought this when I was 12, when I had read some Orwell and Plato and no other philosophy or modernist fiction.
>>25287337The funniest thing about OP's professor is that he has a lot of takes that would not look out of place on /lit/, such as the belief that neoliberalism is at a crossroads leading to a dead end, and that both Marx and Fukuyama were proven wrong. If anything he's another disciple of Hegel doing his best to pick up the pieces now that globalism has been shown to be subservient to the wider phenomenon of globalization. At least, that's how I view it, I'm not a constitutional law professor.
>>25287337I'm not saying you can't use those words, just watch the ratio of them, and how often they are really needed. Countries which translate their terminology in natural sciences make it more of a pain in the ass to become a professional on the world stage if that's where you were born, but at the end of the day, they are the ones taking their work seriously.Besides, German continental philosophers generally didn't use Latin-derived words, they used German words. English is a successor language to German, so logically it should have the same capability for reasonable expression. There's nothing stopping you from using compound words and shorts in English to express complicated ideas, you know! Surely you want your work to be transparent to the student you strive to inspire?
>>25287008All philosophy and criticism is like this; it doesn’t give you a shiny new Fact, it goes underground. But people who can only see the surface don’t get it. “All he’s REALLY saying is, x”. I’m not trying to be a dick too much here like I said I thought this way when I was 12, hopefully you’ll grow out of it.
>>25287285This is a series of essays and it being one of them doesn't allow it to have zero backbone when it's on its own.
>>25287295You have contributed nothing to the conversation, braindead nigger
>>25287349>All philosophy and criticism is like this; it doesn’t give you a shiny new Fact, it goes underground.The CoPR was absolutely not like this, it's an immediately transformative work
>I feel like he just uses random made-up or baselessly borrowed terms to make something rather simple sound drastically more complicated.
>>25287343I honestly love the guy. He's super chill and nice. It's just that this article was super out of place with that my other professors usually write, which is very material and to-the-point law. But prof. Belov focuses not the Kelsen-possitivist view which can get quite one-sided and uninventive, rather on these more abstract ideas. But with this article I feel like he just went too far.
>>25287407"Quantum entanglement of narratives" is a painfully made-up term.
>>25287411I wonder if his pessimism is a result of having to be so abstract all the time.
>>25287419Kek
>>25287349There's nothing revolutionary or controversial in the idea that - granted that the professor is not bullshitting - pompous presentation puts people off, causing fewer students to attend the class, and ultimately limits enjoyment of the subject matter to a bunch of doctorands on tenure who endlessly circlejerk about it, and likely enjoy their detachment from the unwashed masses. Their understanding of the terminology is a rite of passage, that is the 'revelation' you feel when you understand a complicated book. An achievement, is it not? In law and theology, at least, that's certainly how it works.In this way, the terminology serves as a cipher. There are very particular use cases for ciphers in social interaction: Let us first make distinct slang and argot. Slang is really a form of a short - it is terminology for a non-professional or not yet firmly established field. Both sides of communication comprehend what it means, and they are skipping explaining it over and over. Argot is a true cipher - it is meant to be lexically impenetrable by the general society. You have probably learned in school that argot is used by criminals, but that's reductive - argot is used by any socially excluded group to conceal the nature of its operation. 'Pizza' clearly falls under criminal, but when someone says they work as a 'shocker', they don't want people on the bus stop to understand what they suck dick for a living. The pornography industry has much argot, and much of it can be seen on 4chan. Yaoi fangirl argot is very extensive, yet it is seen by its users as secret signs and enlightened knowledge. Why should your particular socially excluded group (cocksuckers on tenure) be exempt?I propose to you the horseshoe theory of linguistics: Word soup is really no different than criminals arguing on the street in cipher about which store to rob next, who to sell out to the cops, which woman could be easily raped. Unwillingness to part with the mystery of academics really only shows inclination towards the end of the horseshoe, where your own group's goals are revealed to be just as childishly plain, escapist, and frankly, parasitic upon society at large.
From reading the abstract my guess is >Our concept of the constitution stems from a collection of various narratives we are exposed to from the media, writing, our peers, etc that are conflicting and technically are not realized in reality, so they coexist. Thus in society our engagement with the constitution and our actions in response to our belief in the constitution can seem contradictory, because society’s conception of it is contradictory until it is confirmed by law which narrative is accurate. Until then, on a practical level from society’s perspective multiple conflicting narratives of the constitution can be true at the same time
>>25287524Yes, exactly, and a different narrative can be used to describe a reality in order to fit a political agenda, which uses the constitution to cater to the population. Like Trump sees immigration as a constitutional threat, while Biden didn't (simplifying). And such crises like 9/11 and Covid only serve to imbibe fear and prejudice in the public-conscious (against muslims, airports, planes) which creates a new narrative. I am curious of the prof.'s americo-centrism, as your common law system greatly differs from ours, and I think your Bill of Laws and the rest of the amendments are what really suffers from the differentiating public narratives.
>>25287430>Their understanding of the terminology is a rite of passage, that is the 'revelation' you feel when you understand a complicated book.No, you still don’t understand. Reading schizo-autismo philosophical prose is like clouds parting on a cloudy day. You grind and sweat, you get annoyed, you go for a walk and then - BOOM. The ones worth reading are writing at the edge of language; philosophy can be very powerful. That’s my honest experience and presumably other anons’. And yet it is rational; this isn’t poetry, it’s reasoned argument. The greatest philosophers are generally ugly writers; they’re ‘ugly’ because they see beyond everyone around them. This goes for Aristotle, Kant, Adorno, Deleuze, anyone worth reading really.
>>25287126Yes, but now I'll email him this thread and say one of the chud students in your classroom is trying to doxx you on 4chan.
>>25288499We're discussing his work, he's published it to be discussed
>>25287008>The Constitutional Imaginaries of Crisis and Emergency: Between Battle of Narratives and Entanglement in Quantum Constitutionalismwhat a title like that you JUST know its going to be midwit slop
>>25288587>discussingBit of a disingenuous stretch there, bud
>>25287008>I feel like he just uses random made-up or baselessly borrowed terms to make something rather simple sound drastically more complicated.TBF, someone like Kant does this exact same thing and /lit/ jerks him off regularly. Welcome to academia btw.
>>25288607Tell me you've stupid without telling me you're stupid. You can't generalize it like that.
Found the problem:>This chapter is produced as part and funded by the European Union-NextGenerationEU, through the National Recovery and Resilience Plan of the Republic of Bulgaria>>Bulgaria
It is pretty funny that these secondary fields (ie, any field not explicitly concerned with Philosophy) pretend to acknowledge the lesson of deconstruction but end up just performatively replaying Aristotelian dialectics of determinacy/indeterminacy.
>>25288595Call it whatever you want
>>25287008>quantum constitutionalismoooooh brooother
>>25288676>You can't generalize it like that.Why not? What basis do you have for saying that beyond your childish and gut reaction insults?
>>25287025yeah so that hollyweird fag russel brand goes on tucker carlson to plug his book how to become a Christian in 7 daysbasically when he was accused of rape he said, ok, look, i never forced a woman, they were all over my dick by choice,and then he realized that for all his fornication all he had to show for it was rape accusations.well, because hes still an arrogant hollyweird fag, his babbling including the word quantum. now, the reason for that is, the fags finalized taking over the universities between the 1920's and the 1950's. so their eternal concept of contemporary physics that they can cite to prove how advanced their thinking is, is the word quantum
>>25288593>Battle of Narratives and Entanglement in Quantum Constitutionalismi.e. you dont know if murder is legal or teaching children about Jesus in school is illegal until the nine episcopaliens on the supreme legislative council decide. once its decided that sodomy is legal and trannies can perform in womens sports, all indications otherwise disappear as if they never existed — just like when an entangled system chooses its state, all components fall into the new state instantly as if there was never a question
