Tuesday, January 04, 2005

salubrious emetic

In a post entitled "Finally," AKMA applies a sense of emergence to the notion of truth within a community:
such a firm conscience will leave little room for the unexpected, and (to belabor a point) “unexpectedness” constitutes one of the touchstone features by which we recognize emergent phenomena.
But what would Rush do?


Blogger Tom Matrullo said...

I share your wonder - that "widespread sense" puts the kibosh on imaginative possibilities, and seems an entirely passive mode, as if we were watching tv and it was always the same show, and it didn't occur to us to change the channel. But to be fair, it's not easy to live in a mode of constant expectation of the unexpected - in certain forms it can seem like a sense of the miraculous, or at least a kind of magical thinking, and thereby become accused of a nonserious irrationalism. How does one, after all, "reasonably" maintain expectations of the unreasonable?

1/05/2005 11:08 PM  
Blogger Tom Matrullo said...

Would Canadian courts be a good place to study whether what a reasonable person would expect can be determined to be identical inthe cases of French and English persons, in their respective courts and contexts?

1/06/2005 5:09 PM  
Blogger Tom Matrullo said...

Interesting. I'd be curious to know whether there is a single national Supreme Court that addresses cases from both judicial systems, and what model of reasonableness they use, or how they deal with the differences in legal systems.

1/06/2005 11:55 PM  
Blogger Tom Matrullo said...

I'm tempted to suspect, dear Sem, that Sur's book got away from him. Neither is aggregation, which is necessary, analyzed much at all, nor does there emerge much of a theory. Just today I was thinking, perhaps Mr. Sur. surrendered the attempt at theory because at some level his thesis works against the option of successful unified understanding. The book sort of seems like a small astral squid staring us in the face, daring us to make sense of it. Scientific method would hope to include the most thoroughgoing critique of its own bases that it can imagine, no? (I lean to Popper, who sees only error, but also the rigor to detect it, a kind of Chaplinesque silly walk that we might at once find both risible and admirable.) Your researches seem wonderfully open, like a lotus flower.

1/07/2005 1:17 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home