Re: False quantification to the nth degree

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: nora l ishibashi: "copyright"
• Previous message: Danny Yee: "Broadening the Problem"
• Maybe in reply to: Read, Dwight ANTHRO: "False quantification to the nth degree"
• Next in thread: Bonnie Blackwell,: "Re: False quantification to the nth degree"

Predictability, yes; in the Anglo-American tradition we're
also taught of the importance of conduct determined by
"laws, not men", not so much on the ground of predictability,
but because "flexibility" is a slippery slope that soon
has IU colleagues of Rick Wilks cursing him for having *any*
standards. Acceptance of oppressive tenancy is a rational
tactic for the sufficiently risk-averse. Danny is entirely
right to recommend Scott; for a literary portrait of the
Burkean conservatism I'm trying to explain, enjoy Melville's
minor masterwork, *Billy Budd*.

This is no recent discovery (or conceit or prejudice), of
course; Aristotle advised that "The habit of changing laws
lightly is an evil."

Cameron Laird
claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 267 7966
claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 996 8546

• Next message: nora l ishibashi: "copyright"
• Previous message: Danny Yee: "Broadening the Problem"
• Maybe in reply to: Read, Dwight ANTHRO: "False quantification to the nth degree"
• Next in thread: Bonnie Blackwell,: "Re: False quantification to the nth degree"