[Inquiry] Re: Kaina Stoicheia -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

KS.  Discussion Note 10

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

JP = Jim Piat

Re: KS-DIS 2.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-December/003296.html
In: KS-DIS.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-December/thread.html#3272

JP: An early response to an early response.  Ah yes, of course, I've read your paper
    on interpretation as action before -- but apparently now I'm ready to read it
    with more understanding and profit.  Strange how some things that I just
    glossed over before (thinking them unnecessary filler) now jump out at
    me as key concepts!  Reminds me of Joe's recent comments about how
    successive iterations of philosophical inquiry (in this case my
    own) legitimately must keep revisiting old "settled" issues in
    the light of new understandings.  So I'm going to give your
    paper a fresh slow read -- and thanks for the re-minder!
    I look forward to any further comments you may wish
    to add.

Jim, Peirce List,

A random response to a random distribution.
Thanks for the once or thrice over.  And I
will not reguard it a hermeneutic violence
if you look beneath the subtitles and risk
the wine-dark see-change of look-out-world
that every old grit of your hermenaut wits.

But serially, folks, things take care of themselves as far as raising new doubts.
It's what we do to after that that makes all the difference in styles of inquiry.
Does our peerage into the skies open eyes, or refuse to peer through the 'scopes?
Does our revistation of old friends and familiars bring about a truly new vision,
or merely the sort of apologetic revisal that led Henry Ford to say that History
is post hoc revisionary casuistry of a specious quo, or something to that effect?
Think of a real example, say Galileo, Bellarmine, Descartes.  In what sense were
they peers, in what sense not?  More to the point, how would it have been viewed
at the time, how sundry and variously, by who?  Now let's imagine in our darkest
imaginings that the "Continuous Young Creation" (CYC) theory of the universe can
win out in the next "Tribunal Of The Inquisition" (TOTI), and prevail over minds
for the remains of the Third Millennium.  Will not people then not look backward
on a wholly different "Topology Of Peers" (TOP) than what now transits sic, what
the Scientism of the future will chastise as our benighted age of seculahilarity?
These dim reflections make it clear that the notion of peerage is no explanation,
but concocted after the fact to rationalize whatever fashion or fascism preveils.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o