And are we supposed to be sympathetic to a 2k mile booty call at company Christmas Party in a high-rise that also contains a bank vault with hundreds of millions in bearer bonds? Sometime I feel like the Christmas spirit is dead.
I think the word 'proof' actually diminishes the 'power' of the logic.
In a different age it would have been more accurately described as: The Ontological Subversion of Disbelief. Proof enables Disbelief to take purchase and snap things back; but continual contemplation of the ontological question is unending.
I don't think Aliens present an a priori problem. That is, for all we know, the aliens confirm the fall/redemption narrative that is particular to earth/humanity.
Perhaps they also interact with God and we're delving deeper into theological narratives with different types of theological histories. In fact, my default assumption would be that these advanced aliens believe 'something' and it's ahistorical/idiosyncratic to assume they believe nothing. More likely "we're doing it wrong" than some sort of Kantian disembodied rational animal.
CS Lewis explored what salvation history might look like outside the bounds of planet earth. And Tolkien in his unpublished works (some of his best writing) dives quite deeply into the way in which different sentient beings might interact with God... specifically the Ainur, Elves and Men. It's truly great stuff, if one is inclined to contemplate such things.
There's a fascinating dialog between an Elf and an old woman loremaster (of the house of Haleth) in which he attempts to understand mortality and whence it came... she relates a tale reminiscent of a fall and some sort of sundering of the understanding of death and life. I used to be able to google to refresh my memory of which book/chapter... but it seems google is besotted with Tolkien searches owing to some Jackson fellow.
No, I don't think that's the point of originalism, nor Vermuele's critique of it.
I'm just inserting it here where he'd likely agree that you "push the button" because the next time it comes up it will be over an issue where folks here don't think there's an obvious common good being preserved.
Ultimately it's asking the court to rule not adjudicate... and I think that's increasingly a bi-partisan consensus. We *want* that. Until we get it.
This is slightly oblique... but I feel obliged to point out in a context such as this how Adrian Vermeule (of Catholic Integralist fame) would argue precisely as you reason thus:
"And there are now people standing in front of the Supreme Court saying “hey, to put that feature in, all you have to do is press this button”.
I am arguing that they should press the button."
The anti-Originalist position of the Vermeule faction is the converse of the anti-Originalist position of the liberal faction on the Court... you always push the button in favor of the Common Good.
Preempting the, if you didn't like Originalist Conservative jurists, just wait until...
Pretty sure Gorgias did not actually believe in ontological negation; but instead used it to demonstrate he could prove anything. Whether he really wanted to rehabilitate Helen of Troy? Well, even Melania has her apologists.
It was nearly the perfect murder... but the pickled beets were too clever by half. In Saint Mary Mead we pickle many things, but only a sociopath would pickle a beet.
~Miss Marple
I'm not too concerned... in the event that the restrictions are neutrally applied *and* draconian... you'll see the 'proper' people rebelling at the nonsense of 10 people per Costco and it will be abandoned right quick.
I can't speak for every church everywhere, obviously... but among the churches I've been to during coronatide... no-one has been shoulder to shoulder in months. Churches have implemented all the other common sense requirements such as distancing, extra sanitizing, special rules for communion, minor changes to the rituals to suppress certain person-to-person contact (like the sign of peace) and choirs are generally absent.
I'm personally campaigning for a silent service with a single chanter... but I'll confess here to using the virus as an attempt to impose my aesthetics on everyone else... for their own good, of course.
On the other hand, at Costco you have a bottleneck where every single person passes in contact with a small number of people who are there for hours and hours... I don't blame you for imagining that Costco is reducing your risk... it's a story we're telling ourselves to manage our risk. And this story that NY was telling didn't pass the test.
Just reading part of Justice Breyer's dissent, the obvious bad part of the law is the 10 persons or 25% of capacity whichever is lower. In my experience, people might grumble about 25% capacity, but we'd see broad compliance... as long as that 'Redzone' is enforced neutrally. But that's what makes it not-neutral.
Try enforcing 10 persons or 25% (whichever is lower, mind) capacity at Costco - which if a redzone is a redzone... then the point is that any 10 random people will have x% likelihood of being sick. So... either it's about capacity and space or it's about % likelihood of encountering a sick person regardless of capacity or space.
We can either attempt to build a program to try to manage the spread, or we can try to pretend we are but legislate economic activity (or other activities) as if they don't also spread the virus. The political problem is we're not attempting to limit the spread - because there's no real consensus on how to do that - so we're performing theatrical regulations that are so obviously porous that they fail as both theater and spread reductions. And we haven't even gotten to the obvious defections of the regulating class.
On the one hand, I agree that this would end the problem overnight. On the other hand, the shock to the existing business and operating model would would be extreme and not entirely predictable.
Sed contra, extreme and unpredictable shocks might be necessary, but they will have predictable opposition and strange and unintended impacts.
Which is to say, I think we need multiple steps and a bit of a rebuild/reinvest/realign approach that will alter the nature of college education and make it a shared public/private project on a different model than the current poorly aligned incentives model.
Yeah... this is the basic point that I find un-addressed.
As Step 4 of a 4 Step plan to address College education, it's role and costs? Absolutely appropriate (assuming Steps 1-3 address College education's role and costs).
As Step 1 of a 1 Step plan via Executive Order?
Political malpractice and it will cost the Dems electorally in ways I don't think they've fully calculated. If the remedy is "blame McConnell" well, godspeed.
We get asked this a lot... can we implement your solution Agile or Waterfall or whatever. The true answer is, of course, sure. But I confess I'm tempted to ask whether they want to fail spectacularly a year from now or enjoy the failure daily for the next 18 months. Because the one thing I know for sure is that the method you pick has 0 correlation with the success of your IT projects.
Alas, I have many mouths to feed and no one pays me for pithy observations.
Well now we're wandering into my neighborhood. My oldest and best pal from Grad School edited and translated Critics of the Enlightenment which is an anthology of texts from François-René de Chateaubriand, Louis de Bonald, Joseph de Maistre, Frédéric Le Play, Émile Keller, and René de La Tour du Pin.
I think it's a bit of misdirection to say the 'conservative' tradition is anti-philosophy when in this context it is anti-Philosophe. But that's rather the heart of the matter, the Enlightenment wasn't the liberation of philosophy it was (among other things) the substitution of a new method of rational inquiry that carries within it the seeds of own critique. It ultimately isn't better, and itself falls victim to its own successor rationality. We think ourselves Enlightenment thinkers, but we're not. But here I'm mostly following MacIntyre.
I do, however, take your point that most of the plain writing was in defense of the order of society and its natural antecedents; I wish I could point to Bonald and say he nailed it... but best I can do is say one should read Bonald et. al. to understand the Enlightenment and why it failed the way it did.
Heh... I'm not sure what the ethical requirements are regarding payment mid-suit... but assuming you could walk at any time for services in arears that would strike me as a fine point to make.
I would assume so... but there's context here isn't there? The context is the post about defecting from norms, there's context about the fact that any support for Trump is being tracked, there's context that the Lincoln Project specifically targeting PorterWright and JonesDay and context in this thread that PorterWright is no longer the paragon of "commie faggot" defenders, but toadies and sycophants.
I guess that's what's doubly interesting to me... I'm saying that PorterWright pulling out should be a really solid signal to build consensus around... if we hadn't undermined our confidence that they are pulling out for principled reasons rather than being craven toadies cowed by outside pressure - that they rightfully ought to bow to.
I'm staying in context here, not making a Law School 101 point, no?
On “Stop Ruining Christmas”
And are we supposed to be sympathetic to a 2k mile booty call at company Christmas Party in a high-rise that also contains a bank vault with hundreds of millions in bearer bonds? Sometime I feel like the Christmas spirit is dead.
On “What Does God Need With a Political Starship?”
I think the word 'proof' actually diminishes the 'power' of the logic.
In a different age it would have been more accurately described as: The Ontological Subversion of Disbelief. Proof enables Disbelief to take purchase and snap things back; but continual contemplation of the ontological question is unending.
"
I don't think Aliens present an a priori problem. That is, for all we know, the aliens confirm the fall/redemption narrative that is particular to earth/humanity.
Perhaps they also interact with God and we're delving deeper into theological narratives with different types of theological histories. In fact, my default assumption would be that these advanced aliens believe 'something' and it's ahistorical/idiosyncratic to assume they believe nothing. More likely "we're doing it wrong" than some sort of Kantian disembodied rational animal.
CS Lewis explored what salvation history might look like outside the bounds of planet earth. And Tolkien in his unpublished works (some of his best writing) dives quite deeply into the way in which different sentient beings might interact with God... specifically the Ainur, Elves and Men. It's truly great stuff, if one is inclined to contemplate such things.
There's a fascinating dialog between an Elf and an old woman loremaster (of the house of Haleth) in which he attempts to understand mortality and whence it came... she relates a tale reminiscent of a fall and some sort of sundering of the understanding of death and life. I used to be able to google to refresh my memory of which book/chapter... but it seems google is besotted with Tolkien searches owing to some Jackson fellow.
On “From The Jerusalem Post: Former Israeli space security chief says aliens exist, humanity not ready”
If MiB taught me one thing...
"
Pretty sure this is a nonagenarian grudgematch somehow involving Buzz Aldrin.
On “From SCOTUSblog: Argument analysis: Justices send mixed messages on corporate liability for allegedly aiding child slavery abroad”
No, I don't think that's the point of originalism, nor Vermuele's critique of it.
I'm just inserting it here where he'd likely agree that you "push the button" because the next time it comes up it will be over an issue where folks here don't think there's an obvious common good being preserved.
Ultimately it's asking the court to rule not adjudicate... and I think that's increasingly a bi-partisan consensus. We *want* that. Until we get it.
"
This is slightly oblique... but I feel obliged to point out in a context such as this how Adrian Vermeule (of Catholic Integralist fame) would argue precisely as you reason thus:
"And there are now people standing in front of the Supreme Court saying “hey, to put that feature in, all you have to do is press this button”.
I am arguing that they should press the button."
The anti-Originalist position of the Vermeule faction is the converse of the anti-Originalist position of the liberal faction on the Court... you always push the button in favor of the Common Good.
Preempting the, if you didn't like Originalist Conservative jurists, just wait until...
"
I suppose the Zyklon B reference is supposed to be the moral zinger... but honestly the deadly words are "competitive disadvantage"
Unpack that and you'll get solidarity.
On “Scott Adams and Me”
As well they should.
Or conversely, 21st century scholar: Why Gorgias was a sh*tposter.
On “LA County Fadeaway: 3 Week Lockdown Coming Monday”
Well that should go swimmingly.
On “Scott Adams and Me”
Pretty sure Gorgias did not actually believe in ontological negation; but instead used it to demonstrate he could prove anything. Whether he really wanted to rehabilitate Helen of Troy? Well, even Melania has her apologists.
On “LA County Fadeaway: 3 Week Lockdown Coming Monday”
See, that's why the US needs Concordats to determine what's a religion and what's merely a sect.
[he said half joking, half suppressing a maniacal laugh]
On “Non-Doomsday Prepping: In a Jam”
It was nearly the perfect murder... but the pickled beets were too clever by half. In Saint Mary Mead we pickle many things, but only a sociopath would pickle a beet.
~Miss Marple
On “Supreme Court Strikes Down Cuomo Executive Order on Religious Service Attendance”
I'm not too concerned... in the event that the restrictions are neutrally applied *and* draconian... you'll see the 'proper' people rebelling at the nonsense of 10 people per Costco and it will be abandoned right quick.
"
I can't speak for every church everywhere, obviously... but among the churches I've been to during coronatide... no-one has been shoulder to shoulder in months. Churches have implemented all the other common sense requirements such as distancing, extra sanitizing, special rules for communion, minor changes to the rituals to suppress certain person-to-person contact (like the sign of peace) and choirs are generally absent.
I'm personally campaigning for a silent service with a single chanter... but I'll confess here to using the virus as an attempt to impose my aesthetics on everyone else... for their own good, of course.
On the other hand, at Costco you have a bottleneck where every single person passes in contact with a small number of people who are there for hours and hours... I don't blame you for imagining that Costco is reducing your risk... it's a story we're telling ourselves to manage our risk. And this story that NY was telling didn't pass the test.
"
Just reading part of Justice Breyer's dissent, the obvious bad part of the law is the 10 persons or 25% of capacity whichever is lower. In my experience, people might grumble about 25% capacity, but we'd see broad compliance... as long as that 'Redzone' is enforced neutrally. But that's what makes it not-neutral.
Try enforcing 10 persons or 25% (whichever is lower, mind) capacity at Costco - which if a redzone is a redzone... then the point is that any 10 random people will have x% likelihood of being sick. So... either it's about capacity and space or it's about % likelihood of encountering a sick person regardless of capacity or space.
We can either attempt to build a program to try to manage the spread, or we can try to pretend we are but legislate economic activity (or other activities) as if they don't also spread the virus. The political problem is we're not attempting to limit the spread - because there's no real consensus on how to do that - so we're performing theatrical regulations that are so obviously porous that they fail as both theater and spread reductions. And we haven't even gotten to the obvious defections of the regulating class.
On “Harsh Your Mellow Monday: What Did You Expect? Edition”
I like the Cruz/Dad reference... I still laugh every time I remember that. Douthat made a similar observation.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Work From Home”
Very sorry for your loss. That's a lovely tribute to Deann; will remember her at Mass this evening.
On “But It’s Not Fair: Student Loans and the Growing Demand of Debt”
On the one hand, I agree that this would end the problem overnight. On the other hand, the shock to the existing business and operating model would would be extreme and not entirely predictable.
Sed contra, extreme and unpredictable shocks might be necessary, but they will have predictable opposition and strange and unintended impacts.
Which is to say, I think we need multiple steps and a bit of a rebuild/reinvest/realign approach that will alter the nature of college education and make it a shared public/private project on a different model than the current poorly aligned incentives model.
"
Yeah... this is the basic point that I find un-addressed.
As Step 4 of a 4 Step plan to address College education, it's role and costs? Absolutely appropriate (assuming Steps 1-3 address College education's role and costs).
As Step 1 of a 1 Step plan via Executive Order?
Political malpractice and it will cost the Dems electorally in ways I don't think they've fully calculated. If the remedy is "blame McConnell" well, godspeed.
On “Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Post-election Intramurals Edition”
Ok, that was funny.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Agilely Sprinting”
We get asked this a lot... can we implement your solution Agile or Waterfall or whatever. The true answer is, of course, sure. But I confess I'm tempted to ask whether they want to fail spectacularly a year from now or enjoy the failure daily for the next 18 months. Because the one thing I know for sure is that the method you pick has 0 correlation with the success of your IT projects.
Alas, I have many mouths to feed and no one pays me for pithy observations.
On “Book Notes: “Enemies of the Enlightenment” by Darrin M McMahon”
Well now we're wandering into my neighborhood. My oldest and best pal from Grad School edited and translated Critics of the Enlightenment which is an anthology of texts from François-René de Chateaubriand, Louis de Bonald, Joseph de Maistre, Frédéric Le Play, Émile Keller, and René de La Tour du Pin.
I think it's a bit of misdirection to say the 'conservative' tradition is anti-philosophy when in this context it is anti-Philosophe. But that's rather the heart of the matter, the Enlightenment wasn't the liberation of philosophy it was (among other things) the substitution of a new method of rational inquiry that carries within it the seeds of own critique. It ultimately isn't better, and itself falls victim to its own successor rationality. We think ourselves Enlightenment thinkers, but we're not. But here I'm mostly following MacIntyre.
I do, however, take your point that most of the plain writing was in defense of the order of society and its natural antecedents; I wish I could point to Bonald and say he nailed it... but best I can do is say one should read Bonald et. al. to understand the Enlightenment and why it failed the way it did.
On “Let’s Just Let This Play Out”
Heh... I'm not sure what the ethical requirements are regarding payment mid-suit... but assuming you could walk at any time for services in arears that would strike me as a fine point to make.
"
I would assume so... but there's context here isn't there? The context is the post about defecting from norms, there's context about the fact that any support for Trump is being tracked, there's context that the Lincoln Project specifically targeting PorterWright and JonesDay and context in this thread that PorterWright is no longer the paragon of "commie faggot" defenders, but toadies and sycophants.
I guess that's what's doubly interesting to me... I'm saying that PorterWright pulling out should be a really solid signal to build consensus around... if we hadn't undermined our confidence that they are pulling out for principled reasons rather than being craven toadies cowed by outside pressure - that they rightfully ought to bow to.
I'm staying in context here, not making a Law School 101 point, no?