I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Sorry, but NYC is a bit out of the way.
ReplyDeleteHow about tell us what your answer is?
But of course constitutions are political compromises and not the product of a "design team" The (in)effectiveness of a constitution depends less on what it says than on the existence of political institutions/players willing to enforce it.
I'm there (possibly).
ReplyDelete'But of course constitutions are political compromises and not the product of a "design team"'
ReplyDeleteThis is one of my (Oakeshott's) opints -- people think they are designing a constitution, but they are really just cobbling one together from bitsand pieces of traditions, customs, precepts, ideologies, etc.
How will I know it's you, Sidney?
ReplyDelete(Oh, and contact me as to how to get in the building if you're coming.)
Runescape money, I'm glad you're interested as well.
ReplyDelete