OK. The only way I can make that work in my head is to argue that capitalism is
not merely one of many things a capitalist can think/believe, but a kind of
ethic or arching way of being ... a whole philosophy. *If* I can do that and
claim that a Capitalist (big C) derives from the simple princip
Glen writes:
> Instead, they prioritize against pluralism and put all their eggs in their
> pet GUI.
Whether this is laziness depends on whether their GUI works hard to unify
pluralistic observations, or simply truncates observations or doesn't make
observations.It is also lazy to model a
The existence of, and ability to register, the observations is the important
part. Along with people's ability to *not see* (which is different from
"ignore") information that contradicts their held positions, potential
observations may be plentiful but unavailable to the potential observer. I
Glen writes:
"But re: avoiding modeling the space between the -isms, I'd argue that
sometimes (only sometimes), it's best to leave the interstitial space unmodeled
to avoid biasing the integration."
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."The space unmodeled
could contain a co
I'm not sure I agree. Even without unification into a singular whole, we can
register novelty by clustering. Clustering in a space, obviously, requires a
space of some sort. But spaces are defined by bases that are often only tiny
slices/aspects of the things arranged in the space. E.g. we can o
