The Return of Wabulon!

By -
The legendary Wabulon, who, contrary to rumors, was probably not with Aaron Hernandez the night Odin Lloyd was shot, has resumed blogging!

Meaning you can't blame me for everything!

Comments

  1. Anonymous1:57 AM

    I don't know that I've ever read a post by Wabulon, I think I began reading your blog during his hiatus, so I guess that I look forward to what he/she has to say in future posts. I'm always seeking out different perspectives, so I hope that this will be somewhat refreshing.

    Since I am unfamiliar with Wabulon (other than seeing the name listed as a contributor), I wonder if you could give me a brief description of what to expect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah10:41 AM

      See his post on a^b and b^a.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous12:24 AM

      Ha, somehow I missed that. If that post is any indication, I can look forward to posts that challenge the borders of my comprehension. Great!

      BTW, I finally got to reading that Voegelin book that you recommended, but I unfortunately only had time to read the first chapter yesterday.

      I must say that I am finding it very interesting even with only having read a small portion. Much of what he is saying with regard to symbols, representatives, agents, articulation, etc run very parallel to my own thinking, I just had never thought of it in a formalized system in which he is approaching it. I also liked how he understood that time and place-- the true historical context-- was very important in understanding politics.

      Obviously, I still have a ways to go, but thus far I think that you've made a good recommendation. Once I finish this I will then move on to the other book that you recommended (by Oakeshott).

      Of course, I think that there was a method behind your recommending of these two particular books to me ... both were conservatives, both rejected libertarianism, both had certain aspects of pluralism, both had similar conclusions, and they had different philosophical groundings (relativist vs realist). Let me know if I am onto something, or if I am out to left field ...

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 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
Read more