| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
1. Background on this paper |
| | Kaleb,
"What holds the parts together?" "Why the obscurity?" |
|
<
< | 1. The act/actor/observer dilemma holds it together --
- The Haiku in "Background on this paper" invokes Veblen on uniforms: what's the sign and what's the substance? Regarding our papers: Eben is the observer, but what's the act -- us, or our papers?
|
>
> | 1. The act/actor/observer dilemma ( trilemma? ) holds it together --
- The Haiku in "Background on this paper," cf Veblen on uniforms, what's the sign and what's the substance? Regarding our papers: Given that Eben is the observer, what's the act -- our papers, or us?
|
| |
- In "Freud on Socrates," truth/justice/beauty become moving targets when you try to distinguish them. It's impossible to control variables.
|
|
<
< |
- Hippocrates on health: When an intervener tries to improve society by improving a subset of it (whose boundaries he defines, good god, in terms of PROPER FUNCTION), he compromises his proper, larger goal. [Ted hit this one on the head.]
|
>
> |
- Hippocrates on health: When an intervener ("observer") tries to improve society by improving a subset of it (whose boundaries he defines, good god, in terms of PROPER FUNCTION), he compromises his proper, larger goal. [Ted explained this one to me.]
|
| |
- Rousseau: See "Freud on Socrates:" Here, act/actor/observer = the problem of praxis -- when you make an idea real, how do you then verify that you haven't compromised your idea?
- 6. and 7. (Plato, Drucker, and King): Our economy says it maximizes value (shareholder, consumer, CEO-agent), but value gets defined by their relationship.
|
|
<
< | 2. but this was obscure to me, too, until after I responded to comments by you, Ted, Gideon, Jesse, and Sandor! |
>
> | 2. All this was obscure to me, too, until after I responded to comments by you, Ted, Gideon, Jesse, and Sandor! |
| | 3. I was trying to write a paper that was relevant to as many readers as possible. Now, one way to be relevant is to upset as many people as possible.
At which I'm improving: e.g. |
| | |
|
<
< | Arguably, I've here created thought experiments, verbal Rorschach prints, which anyone can take any side on. In retrospect, I think that once I got your responses to the Rorschach prints, and learned what you regarded as the "shortcomings," I've been able to become more relevant in my responses to your comments. |
>
> | But there are other ways to become relevant, and that's not the one I was trying for here. Here, I've created thought experiments, verbal Rorschach prints, which anyone (including myself) can take any side on. In retrospect, I think that once I got your responses to the Rorschach prints, and learned what you regarded as the "shortcomings," I've been able to become more relevant in my responses to your comments. (It's also enabled me to modify the "background" section to make what followed look like it fell directly into my purpose.) |
| | |
|
<
< | (Alternatively, I just never got over the idea that "the rules change as the rules are applied," or as Jesse said above: "the question of what kind of law we speak of must precede the binary judgment." In the case of this paper, I spent so much time considering my audience, that I never gathered the courage to tell them anything. Let me be a lesson to you?) |
>
> | 4. In the alternative, I just never learned to accept that "the rules change as the rules are applied," or as Jesse said above: "the question of what kind of law we speak of must precede the binary judgment." In the case of this paper, I spent so much time considering my audience, that I never gathered the courage to tell them anything. Let me be a lesson to you? |
| | -- AndrewGradman - 06 Apr 2008 |
|
<
< |
"Now, one way to be relevant is to upset as many people as possible."
How/why?
-- DanielHarris - 06 Apr 2008 |
| |
|