You down with OPP!?!?

Hoping some of you remember Naughty by Nature….in any case, ‘OPP’ here stands for Original Positions Podcast, an idea I’d like to introduce and (partially) pitch in this post.  Basically, the idea is that regular OP-ers convene in a spectacular live podcasting event once a month or once every two months to have a two-hour long conversation about a book each has agreed to read beforehand.  I see OPP operating much like a book club, inasmuch as each of us would have a chance to decide on a book for the group to read, one that reflects whatever our current interests happen to be at the time.  So, for example, Josh could get us to read Hegel’s Philosophy of Right–something I’m not likely to do otherwise–and Nates could follow-up with some tome about Egyptian astronomy that is currently piquing his interest.  You get the idea.  As far as I can tell, it would be no problem arranging a live podcast with us assembled at different locations–they do it on this podcast, with good results:

 http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/

These guys–ex philosophy majors from UT-Austin–put out a regular philosophy podcast that–well, let’s say–attracts a hell of a lot more interest than we do here at OP.  That’s fine, but my typical reaction when listening to their podcasts is that they would be better if it were Josh, Nates, Carolyn, Juan and myself talking about the works in question.

So…what do you think?  I, for one, just kind of like the idea of experimenting with podcasting.  It was not so long ago that we decided, as a group, to experiment with that newfangled WordPress software, and look at the stunning results of our collaboration!

Plus, we’d talk to each other more than we currently do.  Let’s hear from you!

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to You down with OPP!?!?

  1. Josh says:

    Sounds fine with me. Let’s do it. The only way to get it going is probably just pick a date and stick with it, regardless of whether we finish the books, anyone says they want to hear it, etc. Then eventually if we stuck to it it would improve.

  2. Nates says:

    Sounds fun. Count me in. What should our first text be? My preference would be something that was of both philosophical and literary interest. And also not too long. Any suggestions?

  3. Josh says:

    Either In Search of Lost Time or The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.. Or both, let’s schedule it for Friday.

  4. David says:

    Ok, good. Glad to hear you’re both on board. I suppose the next step is to begin discussing (i) what our first book will be, and (ii) ideal format of the discussion (freestyle, structured, etc.). Some of this we’ll figure out as we go along, of course, but it would be nice to have a (revisable) plan going in.

    Nates’ suggestion that we begin with something of both philosophical and literary interest sounds a bit softy-soft to me, but for the sake of getting things off on the right foot I’ll remain open to any and all suggestions.

  5. Josh says:

    Are we looking for a book that none of us have read? Or one that one of us already has read that we think the others would like?

  6. David says:

    I like the idea of a book that none of us have read–but again, whatever you guys want. Also, I’m hoping that Carolyn and Juan might want to get on board….

  7. Josh says:

    One idea I had was a book by Tom McCarthy. I read two of his novels – “Remainder” and “C” – but I think there are two other books. I saw him speak in Chicago recently; a very thoughtful, young (I think younger than us) contemporary writer who takes the play of ideas (and aesthetics) very seriously (and also writes very engrossing books).

  8. David says:

    My preference is for non-fiction, but that’s why it might make sense to take turns deciding on material. At the moment, I’m leaning towards Montaigne’s essays.

  9. Carolyn Richardson says:

    I’d love to join you guys. Holy Cross has a podcasting studio that might come in handy. I vote for Montaigne’s essays, though now David is thinking of Nagel’s _Mind and Cosmos_, apparently…

  10. Josh says:

    Can we set up some sort of vote among readers? Not that there’s a ton of them so maybe that wouldn’t work but it might increase interest in the podcast itself. Like if we came up with 2-3 choices first then had a vote on the site somehow?

  11. Nates says:

    Mind and Cosmos had occurred to me too. That would be interesting, as would Montaigne.

  12. Josh says:

    Montaigne is sort of nicely out of the realms each of our expertise, don’t you think, hence making for a more interesting discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *