PS. At the end of the document, there is a downloadable pdf-file.

I admire Jürgen Haberma's project about situating rationality in the real, everyday communication act (1984). It is something immensely beautiful about searching for logos i the local war zones of the daily communication. It is a shame there are no logos to be found. But the search is not in vain, history has shown that the elusive logos might function as a transcendental bait often leading to real world knowledge included in the materiality of everyday praxis. But I also admire writers as Donna Haraway and Jacques Derrida who dares to go beyond the rationality of language and explore the complexity of the innumerable layers of signifier collisions happened over the last three thousand years. Multiplicity is a virtue. I am sorry to say that academic writing still suffers from the positivist project of numerological divination leading to the impoverishment of the creative power in the intellectual sphere. Numerous positivist project can be justified based on their contextual values; the main problem is - as always - about exclusion. The logocentric view of the world leads to reductionism which in its turn leads to everything else estranged to the fringes. The cone view of universe is destructive for everything happen to be situated outside of the everlasting process of narrowing.

When I wrote my licentiate (2006) thesis, I had the intention to "give my self up" and write as was expected to reach a large group of various professionals and academics. I struggled with linearity and concept hierarchies. I wanted to find the golden mean in my target audience. I succeeded, according to statistics, my licentiate thesis has been on the top list of downloads in our university database for a long time. This utility-thinking was not bad, neither for me, for the university and all of those who could learn something from it. This way of conducting academic writing is not so common. The most common form is to obey the authority of the example, a traditionalist process practiced in academia for most of its history. For a long time period between the rise of christianity and the activist thinkers of the enlightenment, Aristotle had the almost unfathomable signifier "the Philosoph", as if to exclude new thoughts by the sheer use of a word. It was a reason for this reduction. The scholastic power had decided that Aristotle's clean, unfleshly, rational texts would suite their own knowledge of spiritual things. They saw Aristotle as an instrument for knowledge in the mundane world, a world the christian church would not invest too much time in themselves. So it was practical to be able to use Aristotle as an emissary for knowledge about bodily things without real importance for the real incorporeal life they all spent their life preparing for. Aristotle was an earthly man. He would probably turn in his grave if he would have learned about the mideval church's intention to use the aristotelian world of knowlege as a tool for its own project.

My project will not use Researchers as argumentative tools. I will not use knowledge in the following way: X is a fact because Y say so, and since Y is ranked third in Web of Science, her deductions has a larger truth value than Z, because Z is not even ranked in Web of Science. When I am refering to another researcher, it is the Person, and the communicating act, I am refering to, not the authority. Practically all locations is treated as empirical material, rather than argumentative tools. This non-authorative approach is an important methodology for me in my search for accountable reserach. The methodological approach is partly forced by the infinitesimal body of reserach avalible to me, which in turn is due to the short time period Internet has been something we could call a life world. This methodological approach render a blogger's statement on the same level as something written by theorists as Donna Haraway, Jürgen Habermas, Sandra Harding, Nietzsche or Aristotle. Perhaps you could say that this methodology strives for an increasing flatness in the world of discourse.