Links
Threads
Frank Stuff
- Bluesky
- Real Punks Don't Wear Black (reviewed)
- Death Rock 2000
- Superwords (go to thread and search "superword")
- Legend Of The Glockeater
- The Rules Of The Game
- koganbot YouTube playlists
- Mouthbeats And The Openhearted (long Substack ver.)
- Wan For The Win
- "I Am My Own Mommy, The Fuck!"
- Hallway-Classroom (go to thread and read down and up)
- T-ara
- "You’ve loved me and I’ve only given you disappointment. Please stop now." They don’t stop.
- Dresses Are My Weakness, Seriously
- The Disco Tex Essay
- The Social Butterfly Effect
- Where The Real Wild Things Are
- The Death Of The Cool
- The Spoonie Gee Trilogy
- They put the world off at a distance
- Hero Story
- Why Mucus Slacks (substack)
More Blogs and Such
- rockcritics.com
- Freaky Trigger
- People's Pop Polls at twitter
- People's Pop Polls at freaky trigger
- People's Pop Polls at bluesky
- Dave Moore's bluesky
- Dave Moore's fun Twitter
- Dave Moore's official twitter
- Cure For Bedbugs (Dave Moore)
- Dave Moore on Medium
- Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast
- Gary Gramling's old Sports Illustrated content
- Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality
- Leslie Singer/Girls On Fire
- Duncan J. Watts
- Pinakothek (old) (Lucy Sante)
- Pinakothek (more recent) (Lucy Sante)
- Lucy's Substack (Lucy Sante)
- Freelance Mentalists (Don Allred et al.)
- Don Allred's Village Voice links
- Jessica Doyle's pillowfort
- Jessica Doyle's blog
- Tom Ewing at Freaky Trigger
- Hazel Southwell's Soundcloud
- Andrew Klimeyk's twitter
- Richard Kogan at CBPP
- Bobby Kogan's twitter
- David Kogan's twitter
- Mark Sinker's twitter
- mark sinker is creating a history of the uk music press
- Pinkmoose twitter
- Robert Christgau
- Matt Yglesias's twitter
- Holly Boson's bluesky
- Jonathan Bradley's twitter
- LokpoLokpo's bluesky
- Jel Bugle's bluesky
- Semipop Life (Brad Luen's substack)
- Brad Luen's substack notes
- Brad Luen's bluesky
- Chuck Eddy's bluesky
- Jeff Worrell's bluesky
- Katherine Morayati's twitter
- idca's bluesky
- Jonathan Bogart's bluesky
- Sarah Manvel
- Sarah Manvel's bluesky
- Centuries of Sound bluesky
- The Singles Jukebox
- Jamie Vinnycrackers
Active Entries
- 1: Another Year In America November 19, 2009
- 2: Confirmation
- 3: Rules Of The Game #6: The Boney Joan Rule
- 4: Boney Joan Returns!
- 5: Nathan Chapman
- 6: Ari Falcão
- 7: The Austral-Romanian Empire
- 8: Hoisted from the archives: Athletic R&B comments reconstituted
- 9: Bob Dylan
- 10: Background becomes foreground
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2008-06-28 02:19 pm (UTC)The question starts with Esoteric Philosophical Point: "That's a rather esoteric philosophical point I've made, that you can't get beyond the axiom to a set of facts that are 'independent' of the axiom and that therefore can be used to test the axiom.... My question, therefore, is why do people think that the esoteric philosophical point is a big deal?"
And what my eyes were straining but failing to see in your responses was where the point in question was the source of the potential for institutional instability that you seemed to be taking for granted.
Maybe it would help if I rephrased the question:
Why does point A (Esoteric Philosophical Point that I stated above) appear to have consequences B, C, and D rather than consequences P, Q, and R or, as one might expect, no consequences at all?
And your response wasn't making sense to me, since you seemed to assume, without giving any reason, that point A would have a particular effect: "given the pragmatics of departmental structure, any attempt to banish philosophy from its upper level role is going to seem to like the introduction of a revolutionary barbarian chaos."
So now I'll ask the question again, more specifically: How does Esoteric Philosophical Point A ("you can't get beyond the axiom to a set of facts that are 'independent' of the axiom and that therefore can be used to test the axiom") result in an attempt to banish philosophy from its upper level role?
And it seems to me that YOU have jumped to consequence B: "nothing is decided yet" or "everything is still at issue." Whereas very the question I'm asking is why is the Esoteric Philosophical Point seen to have this consequence, that nothing is decided yet and everything is still at issue? You seem to assume that this is written into point A, but it's not. Point A has no opinion as to what's been decided and what hasn't been. (And what does have to do one way or another with the status of philosophy?)