<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (Vaguery)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from Vaguery</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.noemamag.com/why-science-hasnt-solved-consciousness-yet/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-019-1800-6"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635738"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://dorian.substack.com/p/fact-checking-is-table-stakes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/01/10/the-processual-book-how-can-we-move-beyond-the-printed-codex/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/machine-sensation/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/the-interfact/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/the-democracy-of-objects/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/the-being-of-analogy/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophy-2nd-Blackwell-Brown-Lectures/dp/1119616670/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;qid=1631113446&amp;refinements=p_27%3ATimothy+Williamson&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2021/05/five-easy-pieces-for-social-sciences.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/realist-magic/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/gathering-ecologies/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/digital-humanities-and-digital-media/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/death-of-the-posthuman/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/being-up-for-grabs/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-021-09742-1"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://blog.mrmeyer.com/2019/real-world-math-is-everywhere-or-its-nowhere/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://languagehat.com/max-muller-as-a-solar-myth/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&amp;v=V8QZ4RYWI9s"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/the-history-of-the-devil"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538147061/Contingent-Computation-Abstraction-Experience-and-Indeterminacy-in-Computational-Aesthetics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6778-hyperthematics.aspx"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6708-pragmatism-applied.aspx"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6711-the-real-metaphysical-club.aspx"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6879-american-aesthetics.aspx"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12850?campaign=woletoc&amp;ai=-1&amp;ui=4zbui&amp;af=H"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://aeon.co/essays/aztec-moral-philosophy-didnt-expect-anyone-to-be-a-saint"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://academic.oup.com/mind/article-abstract/128/510/367/4850765?redirectedFrom=fulltext"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.jehsmith.com/1/2018/08/more-on-the-internet-of-snails.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.07404"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://mathenchant.wordpress.com/2020/01/24/what-proof-is-best/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1958"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsgLk5AObao"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFmLZFJ5mfQ"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.versobooks.com/books/2852-against-creativity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16202/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://philpapers.org/rec/NGUGAT-2"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://objectionable.net/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://aeon.co/essays/can-you-stop-yourself-being-infected-with-other-peoples-desires"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://gukira.wordpress.com/2018/03/02/fragments-toward-freedom/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/07/the-philosopher-redefining-equality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://lithub.com/what-if-all-writing-is-just-drafts-forever/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol83/iss1/2/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://status451.com/2018/06/18/tales-from-underwater/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USF1H70bRl0"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_article_2018_Spring_Weatherby.php"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1473"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7efd/0c0bcbde96fed232069e1015df7fe2ccd8aa.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4ChzesrWKI&amp;list=PLPeStI124dee1ByfcDzRvPxKDNb0GQjmo"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://ajps.org/2018/01/30/author-summary-political-stability-in-the-open-society/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/end-times-philosophy-interviews-first-302/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://garybasin.com/reason-as-attentional-prosthesis/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/13/1/001.editorial"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://voices.norwich.edu/daniel-mcquillan/2017/08/03/proofs-are-not-only-often-beautiful-but-also-necessary/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.00696"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ianwelsh.net/screw-optimism-and-screw-sanity/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://tedunderwood.com/2017/07/13/were-probably-due-for-another-discussion-of-stanley-fish/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.07785"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://machinemachine.net/portfolio/kipple-and-things/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://geepawhill.org/?p=237"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://sophiavanruth.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/the-power-of-doing-things-just-for-fun/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/true-enough"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://aeon.co/ideas/imagination-is-a-powerful-tool-why-is-philosophy-afraid-of-it"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.08971"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://aeon.co/ideas/descartes-was-wrong-a-person-is-a-person-through-other-persons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://indalogenesis.com/2017/03/07/ambiguity-detected/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://aeon.co/essays/why-foucaults-work-on-power-is-more-important-than-ever"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="https://www.noemamag.com/why-science-hasnt-solved-consciousness-yet/">
    <title>Why Science Hasn’t Solved Consciousness (Yet)</title>
    <dc:date>2025-08-10T11:54:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.noemamag.com/why-science-hasnt-solved-consciousness-yet/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[There is new and exciting science to be done here. My colleagues and I are exploring a view of the physics of life that recognizes organisms as the only physical system that uses information; for example, by storing, copying, transmitting and processing it. Rather than reducing life to “nothing but” a computer, this view emphasizes the semantic nature of life’s information use. The project aims to understand the autopoietic, organizationally closed information architecture of organisms. Instead of explaining away the sentience or consciousness of autonomous agents, this work might give us an empirically validated perspective on the specific structures and processes occurring within experience. These kinds of investigations can also go beyond conscious organisms like us and may help understand how experience, or something like it, can appear in other forms, including silicon. If nothing else, they will help us push past the hype surrounding our current discussions of AI to see the real issues surrounding what makes something intelligent.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy cognition subjective-experience philosophy-of-mind pragmatism by-the-back-door embodied-cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:32bc66fac1e2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:subjective-experience"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:by-the-back-door"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:embodied-cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-019-1800-6">
    <title>Night science | Genome Biology | Full Text</title>
    <dc:date>2025-04-16T22:23:20+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-019-1800-6</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[If we are woken up in the middle of the night and asked “How does science work?!?”, we rattle off a coherent answer: you have a hypothesis, you use it to make predictions, you test those by comparing them to data, and you throw out or modify the hypothesis if predictions and data disagree. That’s what our teachers taught us. And it’s not wrong. But this description hides the workings of the most exciting part of science, ignoring the most creative and arguably most significant part of our work. By focusing on the structured, rational testing of hypotheses through experiments—day science—this description leaves out night science, as François Jacob called it. Night science is where we explore the unstructured realm of possible hypotheses, of ideas not yet fully fleshed out. In day science, we falsify hypotheses and observe which are left standing; in night science, we create them. The workings of night science are rarely discussed, as they seem abstract and less concrete compared to the logical description of the formal scientific method. Yet, we believe that there is a method to the madness, and that its conscious study may add an important dimension to our development as scientists. In future installments of this mini-series, we will shed more light on the properties and dependencies of this dark side of science.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy-of-science delightful philosophy branch-and-bound to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:262c24c5fca2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:delightful"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:branch-and-bound"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635738">
    <title>Realism for Realistic People: A New Pragmatist Philosophy of Science</title>
    <dc:date>2024-07-16T23:22:56+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635738</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["In this innovative book, Hasok Chang constructs a philosophy of science for 'realistic people' interested in understanding and promoting the actual practices of inquiry in science and other knowledge-focused areas of life. Inspired by pragmatist philosophy, he reconceives the very notions of reality and truth on the basis of his concept of the 'operational coherence' of epistemic activities, and offers new pragmatist conceptions of truth and reality as operational ideals achievable in actual scientific practice. Rejecting the version of scientific realism that is concerned with claiming that our theories correspond to an ultimate reality, he proposes instead an 'activist realism': a commitment to do all that we can actually do to improve our knowledge of realities. His book will appeal to scholars and students in philosophy, science and the history of science, and all who are concerned about the place of science and empirical truth in society."

--- Because I am a mean and _very_ academic person, I expect to extract a certain amount of comedy from seeing the author try to insert a wedge between "correspond[ing] to an ultimate reality" (bad) and "knowledge of realities" (good).  (I also expect to learn a lot.)]]></description>
<dc:subject>to-read philosophy-of-science via:cshalizi pragmatism philosophy known-author</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:de9b15d1a6d0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:cshalizi"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:known-author"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://dorian.substack.com/p/fact-checking-is-table-stakes">
    <title>Fact-Checking is Table Stakes - by Dorian Taylor</title>
    <dc:date>2022-07-03T10:55:53+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://dorian.substack.com/p/fact-checking-is-table-stakes</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Facts and figures will never beat stories on persuasiveness. Bullshit will always be cheaper than reality. That said… (⚠ These claims are disputed.)
]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:twitter cultural-dynamics argumentation philosophy rather-good sociology</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:223d12403ef8/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:twitter"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:argumentation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-good"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/01/10/the-processual-book-how-can-we-move-beyond-the-printed-codex/">
    <title>The Processual Book. How Can We Move Beyond the Printed Codex? | Impact of Social Sciences</title>
    <dc:date>2022-03-07T17:28:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/01/10/the-processual-book-how-can-we-move-beyond-the-printed-codex/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Processual books can, for example, make the various contributors to scholarly research more visible and the different ways they shape research as it comes into being. They can also highlight the material agency of publications and how it matters whether research is published as a blogpost or an academic monograph, openly or closed, and how different media and the various cultural practices established around them enact different forms of interaction and call into being different communities of engagement.

When boundaries between research and publishing become less clear-cut, this has direct implications for the role of the publisher too. Instead of publishing being ‘outsourced’ to a publisher when a research project ends, processual publishing might ask authors and publishers to collaborate more and earlier in the research cycle and to reconsider at what point publishing expertise (e.g., reviewing, copy-editing, marketing) is most useful. Yet processual publishing practices also make visible how scholars are increasingly taking on publishing functions, having to present themselves as ‘academic brands’ online and through their academic networks to create engagement around their work. Many of the platforms that scholars publish their research-in-progress on (including academic social networking sites such as Academia.edu) are also extractive, building their business models around this engagement.

Processual publishing will continue to be faced with these kinds of questions and new forms of extraction and solidification (around the claiming of ownership, the creation of marketable commodities, and the metrification of engagement) will continue to be introduced as these practices become more widespread. But remaining aware of when and for what reason research is made public might help scholars and publishers make more informed publishing decisions and might help them envision and create a different—and perhaps better—scholarly communication system.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>printing publishing openness philosophy humanities living-texts change-the-words</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:38a8025ce396/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:printing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:openness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:living-texts"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:change-the-words"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/machine-sensation/">
    <title>Open Humanities Press– Machine Sensation</title>
    <dc:date>2021-10-28T14:01:44+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/machine-sensation/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The title of this book is designed to provoke two lines of thought. First, there is the incredible effect of anthropomorphic machines on human imagination and culture. Anthropomorphism has a power to direct attention away from the alien nature of a technological object. Second, the philosophical study of the way machines sense and act in their worlds is essential for breaking free of the anthropomorphic effect. Tessa Leach argues that this is the foundation upon which we must base a study of technologies without undue emphasis on their human origins, which often means breaking free of the way that we group different objects under human-imposed naming systems. Object-oriented ontology is used as a way of of insisting upon the unhuman nature of technology while still acknowledging its immense power and significance in human life. Machine Sensation discusses such remarkable objects as natural user interfaces, artificial intelligence, and sex robots.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy-of-engineering philosophy object-oriented-ontology artificial-life to-read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:81bacf2072c0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-engineering"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:object-oriented-ontology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:artificial-life"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/the-interfact/">
    <title>Open Humanities Press– The Interfact</title>
    <dc:date>2021-10-28T13:56:16+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/the-interfact/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Objects in object-oriented ontology (OOO) are mysterious and inexhaustible entities. But since OOO grants ontological priority to objects, it should have an easy time referring to objects. But this is not the case.

In The Interfact, Yoran researches the question of how OOO refers to an object’s haecceity, its “thisness.” He starts with an investigation into OOO’s eponymous practice, object-oriented programming (OOP) and identifies not just a plethora of parallels, but finds OOP’s concept of interfaces (as structured ways of object confrontation in time) a promising tool to describe both the rift between all objects and their relative stability.

Yoran then extends Harman’s fourfold diagrams to reflect the linkages between fourfolds, revealing that objects necessarily are parts of other objects. This phenomenon, which he calls out-of-phase objects, reveals links to Simondon’s notion of compatibilisation.

Yoran argues that objects are necessarily integrated into a fabric of interconnected fourfolds as well as component-compound relations. This structure solves the problem of object identification, by recognizing the object-fourfolds as overlaps, a mutually stabilizing structure which allows for reproducible object confrontation in time, or facts.

The complexity of the ideas in this book are challenging to the intellect, just as the argument itself represents a worthy challenge to some well-regarded philosophical positions. One of the most exciting things about this argument is that it takes seriously the ways in which object-oriented programming can inform object-oriented philosophy, and vice-versa, demonstrating significant, practical connections between the two..
]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy object-oriented-ontology define-your-terms to-understand to-read consider:WTF</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:37c2cf8253f6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:object-oriented-ontology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:define-your-terms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-understand"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:WTF"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/the-democracy-of-objects/">
    <title>Open Humanities Press– The Democracy of Objects</title>
    <dc:date>2021-10-28T13:54:30+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/the-democracy-of-objects/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Since Kant, philosophy has been obsessed with epistemological questions pertaining to the relationship between mind and world and human access to objects. In The Democracy of Objects, Bryant proposes that we break with this tradition and once again initiate the project of ontology as first philosophy. Drawing on the object-oriented ontology of Graham Harman, as well as the thought of Roy Bhaskar, Gilles Deleuze, Niklas Luhman, Aristotle, Jacques Lacan, Bruno Latour and the developmental systems theorists, Bryant develops a realist ontology that he calls “onticology”. This ontology argues that being is composed entirely of objects, properties, and relations such that subjects themselves are a variant of objects. Drawing on the work of the systems theorists and cyberneticians, Bryant argues that objects are dynamic systems that relate to the world under conditions of operational closure. In this way, he is able to integrate the most vital discoveries of the anti-realists within a realist ontology that does justice to both the material and cultural. Onticology proposes a flat ontology where objects of all sorts and at different scales equally exist without being reducible to other objects and where there are no transcendent entities such as eternal essences outside of dynamic interactions among objects.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy object-oriented-ontology to-read define-your-terms</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:73c0015d0192/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:object-oriented-ontology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:define-your-terms"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/the-being-of-analogy/">
    <title>Open Humanities Press– The Being of Analogy</title>
    <dc:date>2021-10-28T13:53:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/the-being-of-analogy/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Similarity has long been excluded from reality in both the analytical and continental traditions. Because it exists in the aesthetic realm, and because aesthetics is thought to be divorced from objective reality, similarity has been confined to the prison of the subject. In The Being of Analogy, Noah Roderick unleashes similarity onto the world of objects. Inspired by object-oriented theories of causality, Roderick argues that similarity is ever present at the birth of new objects. This includes the emergent similarity of new mental objects, such as categories—a phenomenon we recognize as analogy. Analogy, Roderick contends, is at the very heart of cognition and communication, and it is through analogy that we can begin dismantling the impossible wall between knowing and being.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>books philosophy rather-interesting analogy to-read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:31b6d0cd3422/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:books"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:analogy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophy-2nd-Blackwell-Brown-Lectures/dp/1119616670/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;qid=1631113446&amp;refinements=p_27%3ATimothy+Williamson&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1">
    <title>The Philosophy of Philosophy, 2nd Edition (The Blackwell / Brown Lectures in Philosophy): Amazon.co.uk: Williamson, Timothy: 9781119616672: Books</title>
    <dc:date>2021-09-08T15:04:40+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophy-2nd-Blackwell-Brown-Lectures/dp/1119616670/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;qid=1631113446&amp;refinements=p_27%3ATimothy+Williamson&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>to-watch-for books philosophy new-editions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:85963647fce0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-watch-for"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:books"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:new-editions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2021/05/five-easy-pieces-for-social-sciences.html">
    <title>Understanding Society: Five easy pieces (for the social sciences)</title>
    <dc:date>2021-09-05T11:28:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2021/05/five-easy-pieces-for-social-sciences.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[1. What is involved in "explaining" a social event or circumstance?

We explain a social event when we show how it arose as a result of the actions and interactions of multiple social actors, engaged within a specified social, economic, political, and natural environment, to accomplish their varied and heterogeneous purposes. Sometimes the thrust of the explanation derives from discovering the surprising motives the actors had; sometimes it derives from uncovering the logic of unintended consequences that developed through their interactions; and sometimes it derives from uncovering the features of the institutional and natural environment that shaped the choices the actors made.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>sociology explanation epistemology social-dynamics history philosophy rather-interesting cultural-dynamics contingency</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e3251c596d85/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:explanation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:epistemology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:contingency"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/realist-magic/">
    <title>Open Humanities Press– Realist Magic</title>
    <dc:date>2021-09-03T13:36:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/realist-magic/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Object-oriented ontology offers a startlingly fresh way to think about causality that takes into account developments in physics since 1900. Causality, argues, Object Oriented Ontology (OOO), is aesthetic. In this book, Timothy Morton explores what it means to say that a thing has come into being, that it is persisting, and that it has ended. Drawing from examples in physics, biology, ecology, art, literature and music, Morton demonstrates the counterintuitive yet elegant explanatory power of OOO for thinking causality.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>object-oriented-ontology philosophy aesthetics to-read causality</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:34346b9da612/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:object-oriented-ontology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:aesthetics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:causality"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/gathering-ecologies/">
    <title>Open Humanities Press– Gathering Ecologies</title>
    <dc:date>2021-09-03T13:32:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/gathering-ecologies/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[What might an interactive artwork look like that enabled greater expressive potential for all of the components of the event? How can we radically shift our idea of interactivity towards an ecological conception of the term, emphasising the generation of complex relation over the stability of objects and subjects? Gathering Ecologies explores this ethical and political shift in thinking, examining the creative potential of differential relations through key concepts from the philosophies of A.N. Whitehead, Gilbert Simondon and Michel Serres. Utilising detailed examinations of work by artists such as Lygia Clark, Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, Nathaniel Stern and Joyce Hinterding, the book discusses the creative potential of movement, perception and sensation, interfacing, sound and generative algorithmic design to tune an event towards the conditions of its own ecological emergence.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>interactivity philosophy criticism rather-interesting the-mangle-in-practice define-your-terms generative-art</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:18e474bded5e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:interactivity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-in-practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:define-your-terms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:generative-art"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/digital-humanities-and-digital-media/">
    <title>Open Humanities Press– Digital Humanities and Digital Media</title>
    <dc:date>2021-09-03T13:26:41+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/digital-humanities-and-digital-media/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[There is no doubt that we live in exciting times: Ours is the age of many ‘silent revolutions’ triggered by startups and research labs of big IT companies; revolutions that quietly and profoundly alter the world we live in. Another ten or five years, and self-tracking will be as normal and inevitable as having a Facebook account or a mobile phone. Our bodies, hooked to wearable devices sitting directly at or beneath the skin, will constantly transmit data to the big aggregation in the cloud. Permanent recording and automatic sharing will provide unabridged memory, both shareable and analyzable. The digitization of everything will allow for comprehensive quantification; predictive analytics and algorithmic regulation will prove themselves effective and indispensable ways to govern modern mass society. Given such prospects, it is neither too early to speculate on the possible futures of digital media nor too soon to remember how we expected it to develop ten, or twenty years ago.

The observations shared in this book take the form of conversations about digital media and culture centered around four distinct thematic fields: politics and government, algorithm and censorship, art and aesthetics, as well as media literacy and education. Among the keywords discussed are: data mining, algorithmic regulation, sharing culture, filter bubble, distant reading, power browsing, deep attention, transparent reader, interactive art, participatory culture. The interviewees (mostly from the US, but also from France, Brazil, and Denmark) were given a set of common questions as well specific inquiries tailored to their individual areas of interest and expertise. As a result, the book both identifies different takes on the same issues and enables a diversity of perspectives when it comes to the interviewees’ particular concerns.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>digital-humanities social-media philosophy cultural-studies collection to-read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:28575e4e7d66/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:digital-humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-studies"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:collection"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/death-of-the-posthuman/">
    <title>Open Humanities Press– Death of the PostHuman</title>
    <dc:date>2021-09-03T13:24:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/death-of-the-posthuman/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Death of the PostHuman undertakes a series of critical encounters with the legacy of what had come to be known as ‘theory,’ and its contemporary supposedly post-human aftermath. There can be no redemptive post-human future in which the myopia and anthropocentrism of the species finds an exit and manages to emerge with ecology and life. At the same time, what has come to be known as the human - despite its normative intensity - can provide neither foundation nor critical lever in the Anthropocene epoch. Death of the PostHuman argues for a twenty-first century deconstruction of ecological and seemingly post-human futures.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>posthumanism philosophy to-read essays</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:ed2e40ea4b67/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:posthumanism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:essays"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/being-up-for-grabs/">
    <title>Open Humanities Press– Being Up For Grabs</title>
    <dc:date>2021-09-03T13:23:20+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/being-up-for-grabs/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This is a book on the metaphysics of contingency. It looks at what could be otherwise, at what lacks the weight of necessity, at what is up for grabs. Aristotle maintained that there could be no knowledge of the impermanent. Since then, metaphysics has endeavored to find out what really is permanent, non-accidental and resilient – substances that endure, substrata underneath different qualities, fixed principles, necessary connections. In contrast, Bensusan draws on the growing philosophical attention to the contingent. It explores how we can counter Aristotle and develop a metaphysics of what ain’t necessarily so. The endeavor renegotiates the accepted familiarity between ontology and the search for an arché. Being Up For Grabs explores this in connection to what is up in the air, what is out of the blue and what is up for grabs. It is a metaphysical exercise that dialogues with several philosophical resources. It is also a speculative and anarcheological effort, as it tries to reach a broad and encompassing view of the sensible world while conceiving it as lacking any arché. The book emerges as an exercise in speculative anarcheology.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy rather-interesting contingency the-ephemeral to-read consider: the-mangle-in-practice</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:972abd602f78/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:contingency"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-ephemeral"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-in-practice"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-021-09742-1">
    <title>How artworks modify our perception of the world | SpringerLink</title>
    <dc:date>2021-05-28T13:52:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-021-09742-1</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Many artists, art critics, and poets suggest that an aesthetic appreciation of artworks may modify our perception of the world, including quotidian things and scenes. I call this Art-to-World, AtW. Focusing on visual artworks, in this paper I articulate an empirically-informed account of AtW that is based on content-related views of aesthetic experience, and on Goodman’s and Elgin’s concept of exemplification. An aesthetic encounter with artworks demands paying attention to its aesthetic, expressive, or design properties that realize its purpose. Attention to these properties make percipients better able to spot them in other entities and scenes as well. The upshot is that an aesthetic commerce with artworks enlarges the scope of what we are able to see and has therefore momentous epistemic consequences.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>aesthetics philosophy to-read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:5bed79d77f86/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:aesthetics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://blog.mrmeyer.com/2019/real-world-math-is-everywhere-or-its-nowhere/">
    <title>“Real-World” Math Is Everywhere or It’s Nowhere – dy/dan</title>
    <dc:date>2021-05-23T11:38:34+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://blog.mrmeyer.com/2019/real-world-math-is-everywhere-or-its-nowhere/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[It makes the mathematical modeler’s job harder. The tasks mathematical modelers enjoy are not categorically different from Polygraph. The early ideas that teachers need to elicit, provoke, and develop in those tasks differ from Polygraph only in their degree of contextual complexity. Instead of telling teachers, “Here is how this task is similar to everything else you’ve done this year,” and benefiting from pedagogical coherence, they tell teachers, “This task is categorically different from everything else you’ve done this year and why aren’t you doing more of them?”

I’m trying to convince mathematical modelers that their process is the same one by which anyone learns anything, that they should spend much less time patrolling borders that don’t exist, and instead apply their processes to every area of the world, every last bit of which is “real.”

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy-of-science mathematics pedagogy philosophy rather-interesting good-point models define-your-terms</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:f271b56f664b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:mathematics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pedagogy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:good-point"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:models"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:define-your-terms"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://languagehat.com/max-muller-as-a-solar-myth/">
    <title>languagehat.com : Max Müller as a Solar Myth.</title>
    <dc:date>2021-04-07T20:51:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://languagehat.com/max-muller-as-a-solar-myth/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The symbolical name by which the hero was deified, even in our own days, is Max Müller. The purely imaginative and typical character of this title appears at the first glance of a philologist. Max is, of course, Maximus, μέγιστος, identical with the Sanskrit maha. Müller, applied in the late High German dialects to the mere grinder of corn, denotes in its root-form a pounder or crusher. It comes from the radical mar, ‘grinding,’ or ‘crushing.’ At once, then, we see that the hero’s name means simply ‘Chief of Grinders.’ There are two explanations of this given. The more popular, but less correct one, identifies grinder and teacher (1)— a metaphor borrowed from the monotonous routine whereby an instructor of the young has to pulverize, as it were, the solid grains of knowledge, that they may be able to assimilate it. The more scientific aspect of the question recognizes here the Sun-God, armed with his hammer or battle-axe of light, pounding and crushing frost and clouds alike into impalpability. We are not left to conjecture in such a matter, for the weapon of Thor or Donar, wherewith he crushes the Frost-giants, in Norse mythology is named Mjölnir, from at mala, ‘to crush’ or ‘mill.’

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy history-of-ideas infighting wry-is-putting-it-mildly what's-good-for-the-goose</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:8a435b26ee6b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history-of-ideas"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:infighting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:wry-is-putting-it-mildly"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:what's-good-for-the-goose"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&amp;v=V8QZ4RYWI9s">
    <title>Rawls, A Game Theoretic Analysis and Critique, Robert Paul Wolff - YouTube</title>
    <dc:date>2020-12-18T15:15:36+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&amp;v=V8QZ4RYWI9s</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Rawls, A Game Theoretic Analysis and Critique, Robert Paul Wolff]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy game-theory to-watch via:twitter</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:be07690109bd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:game-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-watch"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:twitter"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/the-history-of-the-devil">
    <title>The History of the Devil — University of Minnesota Press</title>
    <dc:date>2020-11-15T12:10:07+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/the-history-of-the-devil</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A fascinating exploration into the early work of the celebrated philosopher of media culture and technology, Vilém Flusser

Considered by many to be his first significant work, Vilém Flusser’s The History of the Devil frames the human situation from a pseudo-religious point of view. Flusser provocatively leads the reader through an existential exploration of nothingness as the bedrock of reality, where “phenomenon” and “transcendence,” “Devil” and “God” become fused and confused. 
]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy posthumanism book to-read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:de9c10cecb38/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:posthumanism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:book"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538147061/Contingent-Computation-Abstraction-Experience-and-Indeterminacy-in-Computational-Aesthetics">
    <title>Contingent Computation: Abstraction, Experience, and Indeterminacy in Computational Aesthetics - 9781538147061</title>
    <dc:date>2020-11-08T23:13:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538147061/Contingent-Computation-Abstraction-Experience-and-Indeterminacy-in-Computational-Aesthetics</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In Contingent Computation, M. Beatrice Fazi offers a new theoretical perspective through which we can engage philosophically with computing. The book proves that aesthetics is a viable mode of investigating contemporary computational systems. It does so by advancing an original conception of computational aesthetics that does not just concern art made by or with computers, but rather the modes of being and becoming of computational processes. Contingent Computation mobilises the philosophies of Gilles Deleuze and Alfred North Whitehead in order to address aesthetics as an ontological study of the generative potential of reality. Through a novel philosophical reading of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and of Turing’s notion of incomputability, Fazi finds this potential at the formal heart of computational systems, and argues that computation is a process of determining indeterminacy. This indeterminacy, which is central to computational systems, does not contradict their functionality. Instead, it drives their very operation, albeit in a manner that might not always fit with the instrumental, representational and cognitivist purposes that we have assigned to computing. 
]]></description>
<dc:subject>books computer-science philosophy representation to-read nonstandard-computational-frameworks</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:73dc8198f1bd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:books"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:computer-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:representation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:nonstandard-computational-frameworks"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6778-hyperthematics.aspx">
    <title>Hyperthematics</title>
    <dc:date>2020-10-29T00:34:57+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6778-hyperthematics.aspx</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In this innovative work, Marc M. Anderson presents an account of value and value creation, which both defines value and introduces a method to manipulate value practically. Using this new methodology, Anderson first explores where value lies in experience, both human and otherwise, uncovering tendencies in human action and the natural world that create and destroy value. From that analysis, he generates practical principles to be applied in creating value in any region or discipline of human experience, at any scale, including corporate organization and product design, economics, the sciences, the arts, urban and architectural design, and sustainable development. He tests this methodology by focusing on the organization and production of commercial corporations in particular, suggesting ways to rethink and transform organization, product creation, and the contemporary currency system. He considers the implications for the many intersections of corporate production with human life, from urban planning, medicine, and food production to pornography, weaponry, and environmental engagement, with corresponding suggestions for transformation toward value. Throughout, Hyperthematics examines complexity, the nature of objects, the inevitable future intermingling of science and ethics, and assumptions driving the contemporary culture wars.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>books philosophy cultural-theory aesthetics to-read not-in-library-tho</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:ef39283e6426/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:books"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:aesthetics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:not-in-library-tho"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6708-pragmatism-applied.aspx">
    <title>Pragmatism Applied</title>
    <dc:date>2020-10-29T00:24:16+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6708-pragmatism-applied.aspx</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[William James, one of America’s most original philosophers and psychologists, was concerned above all with the manner in which philosophy might help people to cope with the vicissitudes of daily life. Writing around the turn of the twentieth century, James experienced firsthand, much as we do now, the impact upon individuals and communities of rapid changes in extant values, technologies, economic realities, and ways of understanding the world. He presented an enormous range of practical recommendations for coping and thriving in such circumstances, arguing consistently that prospects for richer lives and improved communities rested not upon trust in spiritual or material prescriptions, but rather on clear thinking in the cause of action. This volume seeks to demonstrate how James’s astonishingly rich corpus can be used to address contemporary issues and to establish better ways for thinking about the moral and practical challenges of our time. In the first part, James’s theories are applied directly to issues ranging from gun control to disability, and the ethics of livestock farming to the meaning of “progress” in race relations. The second part shows how James’s theories of ethics, experience, and the self can be used to “clear away” theoretical matters that have inhibited philosophy’s deployment to real-world issues. Finally, part three shows how individuals might apply ideas from James in their personal lives, whether at work, contemplating nature, or considering the implications of their own habits of thought and action.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>pragmatism history philosophy to-read not-in-library-tho</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:324eda23923e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:not-in-library-tho"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6711-the-real-metaphysical-club.aspx">
    <title>The Real Metaphysical Club</title>
    <dc:date>2020-10-29T00:23:32+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6711-the-real-metaphysical-club.aspx</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The Metaphysical Club, a gathering of intellectuals in the 1870s, is widely recognized as the crucible where pragmatism, America’s distinctively original philosophy, was refined and proclaimed. Louis Menand’s bestseller about the group was a dramatic publishing success. However, only three actual members—Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Charles S. Peirce, and William James—appear in the book, alongside other thinkers who were never in the Club. The Real Metaphysical Club tells the full story of how this influential group shifted the course of philosophy in America. In addition to pioneering pragmatism, the group explored radical empiricism and idealism, and formulated personalism and process philosophy, equally important developments. This volume contains the important writings dating from 1870 to 1885 by the real members of the Metaphysical Club. The first section centers on pragmatism and science; the second part collects writings of the lawyers; and the third part covers idealist and personalist philosophers. Many of these writings have never been reprinted before, and nothing like this impressive collection has ever been attempted. A general introduction provides a narrative history, and the editors’ three introductions to the volume’s sections vividly bring to life the intense meetings, sustained debates, and pioneering thought of the Metaphysical Club.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy history transcendentalism to-read not-in-library-tho</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:17aa65ab3d54/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:transcendentalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:not-in-library-tho"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6879-american-aesthetics.aspx">
    <title>American Aesthetics</title>
    <dc:date>2020-10-29T00:22:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6879-american-aesthetics.aspx</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Although there are distinctly American artists—Walt Whitman, Herman Melville, Grandma Moses, Thomas Hart Benton, and Andy Warhol, for example—very little attention has been devoted to formulating any distinctively American characteristics of aesthetic judgment and practice. This volume takes a step in this direction, presenting an introductory essay on the possibility of such a distinctly American tradition, and a collection of essays exploring particular examples from a variety of angles. Some of the essays in this collection extend pragmatist and process insights about the important place aesthetics has in molding and assessing experience. Other essays examine the place of American aesthetics in relation to such particular forms of art as painting, literature, music, and film. Three essays attend to the aesthetic aspects of a flourishing life. In each of the essays, American aesthetics is understood to arise out of deeply felt personal, historical, and cultural backgrounds. Consequently, not only are such relatively abstract notions as harmony, fit, elegance, proportion, and the like involved in aesthetic judgment, but also religious, political, and social factors become embroiled in aesthetic discernment. Thus the ongoing pattern of American aesthetics is shown to be distinguishable from such other varieties of aesthetic thought as analytic aesthetics, New Criticism, and postmodern approaches to aesthetics.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>aesthetics philosophy to-read not-in-library-tho</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:90fb019fcfe2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:aesthetics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:not-in-library-tho"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12850?campaign=woletoc&amp;ai=-1&amp;ui=4zbui&amp;af=H">
    <title>Expert or Esoteric? Philosophers Attribute Knowledge Differently Than All Other Academics - Starmans - 2020 - Cognitive Science - Wiley Online Library</title>
    <dc:date>2020-08-29T12:43:34+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12850?campaign=woletoc&amp;ai=-1&amp;ui=4zbui&amp;af=H</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Academics across widely ranging disciplines all pursue knowledge, but they do so using vastly different methods. Do these academics therefore also have different ideas about when someone possesses knowledge? Recent experimental findings suggest that intuitions about when individuals have knowledge may vary across groups; in particular, the concept of knowledge espoused by the discipline of philosophy may not align with the concept held by laypeople. Across two studies, we investigate the concept of knowledge held by academics across seven disciplines (N = 1,581) and compare these judgments to those of philosophers (N = 204) and laypeople (N = 336). We find that academics and laypeople share a similar concept of knowledge, while philosophers have a substantially different concept. These experiments show that (a) in contrast to philosophers, other academics and laypeople attribute knowledge to others in some “Gettier” situations; (b) academics and laypeople are much less likely to attribute knowledge when reminded of the possibility of error, but philosophers are not affected by this reminder; and (c) non‐philosophy academics are overall more skeptical about knowledge than laypeople or philosophers. These findings suggest that academics across a wide range of disciplines share a similar concept of knowledge, and that this concept aligns closely with the intuitions held by laypeople, and differs considerably from the concept of knowledge described in the philosophical literature, as well as the epistemic intuitions of philosophers themselves.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>sociology philosophy sociology-of-philosophy academic-culture worldview looking-to-see</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:fd4014136698/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology-of-philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worldview"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:looking-to-see"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://aeon.co/essays/aztec-moral-philosophy-didnt-expect-anyone-to-be-a-saint">
    <title>Aztec moral philosophy didn’t expect anyone to be a saint | Aeon Essays</title>
    <dc:date>2020-07-21T17:18:45+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://aeon.co/essays/aztec-moral-philosophy-didnt-expect-anyone-to-be-a-saint</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[While Plato and Aristotle were concerned with character-centred virtue ethics, the Aztec approach is perhaps better described as socially-centred virtue ethics. If the Aztecs were right, then ‘Western’ philosophers have been too focused on individuals, too reliant on assessments of character, and too optimistic about the individual’s ability to correct her own vices. Instead, according to the Aztecs, we should look around to our family and friends, as well as our ordinary rituals or routines, if we hope to lead a better, more worthwhile existence.

This distinction bears on an important question: just how bad are good people allowed to be? Must good people be moral saints, or can ordinary folk be good if we have the right kind of support? This matters for fallible creatures, like me, who try to be good but often run into problems. Yet it also matters for questions of inclusivity. If being good requires exceptional traits, such as practical intelligence, then many people would be excluded – such as those with cognitive disabilities. That does not seem right. One of the advantages of the Aztec view, then, is that it avoids this outcome by casting virtue as a cooperative, rather than an individual, endeavour.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:? philosophy ethics history Aztec</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:188ebc99a1ce/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:?"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ethics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Aztec"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://academic.oup.com/mind/article-abstract/128/510/367/4850765?redirectedFrom=fulltext">
    <title>Epistemic Trespassing | Mind | Oxford Academic</title>
    <dc:date>2020-05-02T11:51:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://academic.oup.com/mind/article-abstract/128/510/367/4850765?redirectedFrom=fulltext</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Epistemic trespassers judge matters outside their field of expertise. Trespassing is ubiquitous in this age of interdisciplinary research and recognizing this will require us to be more intellectually modest.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy sociology expertise interdisciplinarity system-of-professions to-write-about consider:goldilocks</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:5d03142ee560/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:expertise"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:interdisciplinarity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:system-of-professions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:goldilocks"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.jehsmith.com/1/2018/08/more-on-the-internet-of-snails.html">
    <title>More on the Internet of Snails - Justin Erik Halldór Smith</title>
    <dc:date>2020-03-19T15:57:42+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.jehsmith.com/1/2018/08/more-on-the-internet-of-snails.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This is a talk I gave last year in Marseille, under circumstances that, to be honest, I'm still not sure I understand. You'll notice anyhow that the production values are unusually high. 

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy philosophy-of-engineering to-watch video</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:f99d9311b9b2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-engineering"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-watch"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:video"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.07404">
    <title>[1902.07404] The Provability of Consistency</title>
    <dc:date>2020-03-08T21:27:16+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.07404</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Hilbert's program of establishing consistency of theories like Peano arithmetic PA using only finitary tools has long been considered impossible. The standard reference here is Goedel's Second Incompleteness Theorem by which a theory T, if consistent, cannot prove the arithmetical formula ConT, 'for all x, x is not a code of a proof of a contradiction in T.' We argue that such arithmetization of consistency distorts the problem. ConT is stronger than the original notion of consistency, hence Goedel's theorem does not yield impossibility of proving consistency by finitary tools. We consider consistency in its standard form 'no sequence of formulas S is a derivation of a contradiction.' Using partial truth definitions, for each derivation S in PA we construct a finitary proof that S does not contain 0=1. This establishes consistency for PA by finitary means and vindicates, to some extent, Hilbert's consistency program. This also suggests that in the arithmetical form, consistency, similar to induction, reflection, truth, should be represented by a scheme rather than by a single formula.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>formal-logic mathematics representation proof philosophy rather-interesting the-mangle-in-practice</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:0655a0f645cc/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:formal-logic"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:mathematics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:representation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:proof"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-in-practice"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547">
    <title>[1911.01547] On the Measure of Intelligence</title>
    <dc:date>2020-03-08T21:21:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[To make deliberate progress towards more intelligent and more human-like artificial systems, we need to be following an appropriate feedback signal: we need to be able to define and evaluate intelligence in a way that enables comparisons between two systems, as well as comparisons with humans. Over the past hundred years, there has been an abundance of attempts to define and measure intelligence, across both the fields of psychology and AI. We summarize and critically assess these definitions and evaluation approaches, while making apparent the two historical conceptions of intelligence that have implicitly guided them. We note that in practice, the contemporary AI community still gravitates towards benchmarking intelligence by comparing the skill exhibited by AIs and humans at specific tasks such as board games and video games. We argue that solely measuring skill at any given task falls short of measuring intelligence, because skill is heavily modulated by prior knowledge and experience: unlimited priors or unlimited training data allow experimenters to "buy" arbitrary levels of skills for a system, in a way that masks the system's own generalization power. We then articulate a new formal definition of intelligence based on Algorithmic Information Theory, describing intelligence as skill-acquisition efficiency and highlighting the concepts of scope, generalization difficulty, priors, and experience. Using this definition, we propose a set of guidelines for what a general AI benchmark should look like. Finally, we present a benchmark closely following these guidelines, the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC), built upon an explicit set of priors designed to be as close as possible to innate human priors. We argue that ARC can be used to measure a human-like form of general fluid intelligence and that it enables fair general intelligence comparisons between AI systems and humans.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>machine-learning deep-learning philosophy philosophy-of-science a-quick-way-to-start-an-argument Geralt-says-hm</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:aa3d834d95c4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:machine-learning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:deep-learning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:a-quick-way-to-start-an-argument"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Geralt-says-hm"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://mathenchant.wordpress.com/2020/01/24/what-proof-is-best/">
    <title>What Proof Is Best? |</title>
    <dc:date>2020-02-18T22:37:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://mathenchant.wordpress.com/2020/01/24/what-proof-is-best/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A great illustration of this “Let a hundred proofs bloom” point of view is provided by an article by Stan Wagon called “Fourteen Proofs of a Result About Tiling a Rectangle”. Here’s the result his title refers to (a puzzle posed and solved by Nicolaas de Bruijn): Whenever a rectangle can be cut up into smaller rectangles each of which has at least one integer side, then the big rectangle has at least one integer side too. (Here “at least one integer side” is tantamount to “at least two integer sides”, since the opposite sides of a rectangle always have the same length.)

]]></description>
<dc:subject>mathematics philosophy solution-spaces diversity proof to-write-about to-simulate consider:surprise</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:080300918eb5/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:mathematics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:solution-spaces"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:diversity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:proof"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-simulate"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:surprise"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1958">
    <title>[1305.1958] The Dynamically Extended Mind -- A Minimal Modeling Case Study</title>
    <dc:date>2020-02-12T12:08:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1958</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The extended mind hypothesis has stimulated much interest in cognitive science. However, its core claim, i.e. that the process of cognition can extend beyond the brain via the body and into the environment, has been heavily criticized. A prominent critique of this claim holds that when some part of the world is coupled to a cognitive system this does not necessarily entail that the part is also constitutive of that cognitive system. This critique is known as the "coupling-constitution fallacy". In this paper we respond to this reductionist challenge by using an evolutionary robotics approach to create a minimal model of two acoustically coupled agents. We demonstrate how the interaction process as a whole has properties that cannot be reduced to the contributions of the isolated agents. We also show that the neural dynamics of the coupled agents has formal properties that are inherently impossible for those neural networks in isolation. By keeping the complexity of the model to an absolute minimum, we are able to illustrate how the coupling-constitution fallacy is in fact based on an inadequate understanding of the constitutive role of nonlinear interactions in dynamical systems theory.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>the-mangle-in-practice rather-interesting philosophy philosophy-of-science to-write-about to-wander-its-citations</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e921dee450e0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-in-practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-wander-its-citations"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsgLk5AObao">
    <title>Inhumanism Rising - Benjamin H Bratton - YouTube</title>
    <dc:date>2019-11-26T22:44:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsgLk5AObao</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>have-watched to-read posthumanism the-mangle-in-practice technology philosophy political-economy political-ecology</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:d234a0b7fea0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:have-watched"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:posthumanism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-in-practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-ecology"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFmLZFJ5mfQ">
    <title>Benjamin H. Bratton: Automation Automates Autonomy / Automation as Ecology / The Terraforming - YouTube</title>
    <dc:date>2019-11-26T22:43:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFmLZFJ5mfQ</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Benjamin Bratton presenting a chapter Automation as Ecology from The Terraforming (Strelka Press, 2019).
]]></description>
<dc:subject>have-watched to-read posthumanism the-mangle-in-practice technology philosophy political-economy political-ecology</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:163fb0c98fbe/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:have-watched"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:posthumanism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-in-practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-ecology"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.versobooks.com/books/2852-against-creativity">
    <title>Verso</title>
    <dc:date>2019-11-05T10:55:45+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.versobooks.com/books/2852-against-creativity</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[From line managers, corporate CEOs, urban designers, teachers, politicians, mayors, advertisers and even our friends and family, the message is “be creative’. Creativity is heralded as the driving force of our contemporary society, celebrated as agile, progressive and liberating. It is the spring of the knowledge economy and shapes the cities we inhabit. It even defines our politics. What could possibly be wrong with this?

In this brilliant, counter-intuitive blast, Oli Mould demands that we rethink the story we are being sold. Behind the novelty, he shows that creativity is a barely hidden form of neoliberal appropriation. It is a regime that prioritises individual success over collective flourishing. It refuses to recognise anything—job, place, person—that is not profitable. And it impacts on everything around us: the places where we work, the way we are managed, how we spend our leisure time.

Is there an alternative? Mould offers a radical redefinition of creativity, one embedded in the idea of collective flourishing, outside the tyranny of profit. Bold, passionate and refreshing, Against Creativity, is a timely correction to the doctrine of our times.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:mymarkup books political-economy art philosophy to-read startup-culture-must-die</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:71f85c929479/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:mymarkup"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:books"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:art"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:startup-culture-must-die"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16202/">
    <title>The theory of games as a tool for the social epistemologist - Philsci-Archive</title>
    <dc:date>2019-07-29T10:42:28+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16202/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Traditionally, epistemologists have distinguished between epistemic and pragmatic goals. In so doing, they presume that much of game theory is irrelevant to epistemic enterprises. I will show that this is a mistake. Even if we restrict attention to purely epistemic motivations, members of epistemic groups will face a multitude of strategic choices. I illustrate several contexts where individuals who are concerned solely with the discovery of truth will nonetheless face difficult game theoretic problems. Examples of purely epistemic coordination problems and social dilemmas will be presented. These show that there is a far deeper connection between economics and epistemology than previous appreciated.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>economics philosophy political-economy models-and-modes pragmatism utility rather-interesting science-studies to-read game-theory social-psychology</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:b30777c21f35/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:models-and-modes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:utility"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science-studies"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:game-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-psychology"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://philpapers.org/rec/NGUGAT-2">
    <title>C. Thi Nguyen, Games and the art of agency - PhilPapers</title>
    <dc:date>2019-07-06T11:31:03+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://philpapers.org/rec/NGUGAT-2</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Games may seem like a waste of time, where we struggle under artificial rules for arbitrary goals. I suggest that the rules and goals of games are not arbitrary at all. They are a way of specifying particular modes of agency. This is what make games a distinctive art form. Game designers designate goals and abilities for the player; they shape the agential skeleton which the player will inhabit during the game. Game designers work in the medium of agency. Game-playing, then, illuminates a distinctive human capacity. We can take on ends temporarily for the sake of the experience of pursuing them. Game-play shows that our agency is significantly more modular and more fluid than we might have thought. It also demonstrates our capacity to take on an inverted motivational structure. Sometimes we can take on an end for the sake of the activity of pursuing that end.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>games philosophy aesthetics rather-interesting the-mangle-as-art the-mangle-in-practice agency to-write-about consider:pedagogic-exercises consider:coding-kata consider:introspection</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:27f45166e8f1/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:games"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:aesthetics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-as-art"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-in-practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:agency"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:pedagogic-exercises"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:coding-kata"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:introspection"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://objectionable.net/">
    <title>Objectionable</title>
    <dc:date>2019-07-06T11:27:36+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://objectionable.net/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[My paper, Games and the art of agency, is now forthcoming at Philosophical Review. The paper argues that games are the art form of agency. Game designers don’t just create worlds, or stories. They tell us who we will be in the game. They design for us an alternative agency, which we submerge ourselves during the game. Games work in the medium of agency.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy games agency pragmatism to-write-about to-read maybe-in-that-order critical-theory</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:9e6fe092bae7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:games"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:agency"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:maybe-in-that-order"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:critical-theory"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://aeon.co/essays/can-you-stop-yourself-being-infected-with-other-peoples-desires">
    <title>Can you stop yourself being infected with other peoples’ desires? | Aeon Essays</title>
    <dc:date>2019-06-26T09:58:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://aeon.co/essays/can-you-stop-yourself-being-infected-with-other-peoples-desires</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Our desires change. The question is, what changes them? We acquire many of our desires by means of desire infection, and there is no real screening of these desires. But this means that many of our desires are, in some sense, inherited from the people around us.

A radical consequence of this argument concerns the way we should think about the self in light of these considerations. A widespread way of thinking about the self, going at least as far back as the 18th century and David Hume, is that it consists of the set of all our desires (besides some other mental states). But if this is so, then who we are (or the self) is a result, to a large extent, of random desire infection.

We know that we systematically ignore the possibility that our future self could be different from our present self. This is called the ‘end of history illusion’: we have a tendency to consider our self a finished product, but it is blatantly not. And this ‘end of history illusion’ makes it even more likely that we will try to give post-hoc rationalisations for any desires we might acquire by means of direct desire infection.

So the self changes. The question is, how much of this change is under our control? Some of it is: we have pretty good control over what new beliefs we acquire. And we might even have control over really wild, crazy desires. But we have no full control. Direct desire infection can have a real effect on who we are and whom we become – it is a phenomenon we should take very seriously.]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy social-dynamics culture rather-interesting sociology define-your-terms reflection</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:4bae9adc678d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:define-your-terms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:reflection"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://gukira.wordpress.com/2018/03/02/fragments-toward-freedom/">
    <title>fragments toward freedom – Gukira</title>
    <dc:date>2019-06-24T10:31:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://gukira.wordpress.com/2018/03/02/fragments-toward-freedom/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We now inhabit two governing temporalities: the hustle and the grind

the hustle is the gig economy, the sharing economy, the precarious economy, the anxiety economy: it is frantic and fragmented, unstable, frustrating, and disciplinary—“we all have to hustle”; it is the hurry up and work and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait to get paid, or never paid; it is less about getting and staying ahead, but perhaps it is, but with the knowledge-feeling that getting and staying ahead means just keeping your head above water; it is the loan economy, the credit economy, the debt economy, the “waiting for something to come through and I’ll sort you out” economy; it’s faking it while you fake it; it’s a survival economy; it’s Kenya’s increasing dollar millionaires, paid with your hustle

the grind economy—I listened to 90s R&B—wears down and convinces us that being worn down is pleasurable; “I’m on my grind”; the seduction of the grind—why capitalism loves it—is because it convinces us that we choose to grind and to be worn down, worn out, worn away; “I’m on my grind”; a misrecognition: that you own the grind; “stop interrupting my grinding”; “bump and grind,” a song created by a sexual abuser, who sees “nothing wrong”; kikulacho

What did we have to lose—or never know—to transform hustle and grind into objects of desire and even love?

]]></description>
<dc:subject>worklife philosophy political-economy links-and-connections</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:5d6c9a6fa78d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:links-and-connections"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/07/the-philosopher-redefining-equality">
    <title>The Philosopher Redefining Equality | The New Yorker</title>
    <dc:date>2019-04-17T10:00:17+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/07/the-philosopher-redefining-equality</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In general, Anderson is outgoing when conversation turns to ideas and shy about other things. (“If you want to make her totally uncomfortable, tell her she has to go to a fancy function in a cocktail dress,” her husband says.) Now she cleared her throat noisily. “If you look back at the origins of liberalism, it starts first with a certain settlement about religious difference,” she said. “Catholics, Protestants—they’re killing each other! Finally, Germany, England, all these places say, We’re tired of these people killing each other, so we’re going to make a peace settlement: religious toleration, live and let live.”

She spread her hands wider. “Then something remarkable happens,” she said. “People now have the freedom to have crosscutting identities in different domains. At church, I’m one thing. At work, I’m something else. I’m something else at home, or with my friends. The ability not to have an identity that one carries from sphere to sphere but, rather, to be able to slip in and adopt whatever values and norms are appropriate while retaining one’s identities in other domains?” She paused. “That is what it is to be free.”

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy cultural-norms cultural-dynamics economics social-philosophy to-read to-meet</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:a346a1cd4f54/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-meet"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://lithub.com/what-if-all-writing-is-just-drafts-forever/">
    <title>What If All Writing is Just Drafts, Forever? | Literary Hub</title>
    <dc:date>2019-03-01T13:35:49+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://lithub.com/what-if-all-writing-is-just-drafts-forever/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Every writer who I studied with in grad school said that the students of theirs who go on to publish aren’t necessarily the people who radiate with the most readily perceptible levels of laser-like talent. Sometimes they are. But no matter what, the writers who publish are always the ones who demonstrate enormous work ethic—who commit to concentrated periods of work, who practice receptivity, who read widely and enthusiastically—who have, it might be said, a talent for working their asses off.
The secret ingredient, if there is one, is the willingness to spend what time you’ve got.
In this country, and in many others, not everyone is permitted the same access to the same quantity or quality of time.
It’s true that not all hardworking writers publish. Often the circumstances that drive the industry are out of our control. But the willingness to write through what might seem to be an unending succession of drafts—however you define “draft”—is one factor that you can control.
A draft is a single step. Your steps—how they look, what they do, how you take them—don’t have to be like anybody else’s. They don’t have to be beautiful or memorable or brave. They can be awful or ridiculous. They can even be unsure. But they have to help you trick yourself into spending the time and doing the work. And you have to take them, all of them, one by one.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>the-mangle-in-practice workalike drafts philosophy same</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:25c8945c8af3/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-in-practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:workalike"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:drafts"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:same"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol83/iss1/2/">
    <title>&quot;Created Facts and the Flawed Ontology of Copyright Law&quot; by Justin Hughes</title>
    <dc:date>2018-12-30T18:25:32+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol83/iss1/2/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[It is black letter doctrine that facts are not copyrightable: facts are discovered, not created—so they will always lack the originality needed for copyright protection. As straightforward as this reasoning seems, it is fundamentally flawed. Using the “social facts” theory of philosopher John Searle, this Article explores a variety of “created facts” cases—designation systems, systematic evaluations, and privately written laws—in which original expression from private individuals is adopted by social convention and generates facts in our social reality. In the course of this discussion, the paper places facts in their historical and philosophical context, explores how courts conflate facts with expressions of fact, and explains the difference between social facts created by expression and the “facts” of literature and fiction. Having established that the copyrighted works discussed in these cases produce facts, the question arises whether copyright's merger doctrine eliminates the copyright protection—a result that is both seemingly harsh and seemingly necessary. This Article proposes a recalibration of the merger doctrine to acknowledge that “created facts” are a unique situation in which the incentive of copyright is needed not just to generate the expression, but also needed to generate the facts. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>law pragmatism philosophy rather-interesting to-understand</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:9a8ff289166c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:law"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-understand"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://status451.com/2018/06/18/tales-from-underwater/">
    <title>Tales from Underwater | Status 451</title>
    <dc:date>2018-10-14T12:18:29+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://status451.com/2018/06/18/tales-from-underwater/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[“If you’re wondering whether it feels a little weird to have had someone you don’t clearly remember being make potentially life-altering decisions about you, the answer is yes.”]]></description>
<dc:subject>essay depression cognition the-mangle-is-coming-from-inside-the-house philosophy introspection resonant identifiable-in-the-extreme</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:d784d5e60723/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:essay"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:depression"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-is-coming-from-inside-the-house"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:introspection"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:resonant"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:identifiable-in-the-extreme"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USF1H70bRl0">
    <title>Brian Cantwell Smith The philosophy of computation meaning, mechanism, mystery - YouTube</title>
    <dc:date>2018-09-20T11:37:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USF1H70bRl0</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>philosophy philosophy-of-engineering rather-interesting to-watch to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:dc3d0b1b0d94/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-engineering"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-watch"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_article_2018_Spring_Weatherby.php">
    <title>IASC: The Hedgehog Review - Volume 20, No. 1 (Spring 2018) - Digital Metaphysics: The Cybernetic Idealism of Warren McCulloch -</title>
    <dc:date>2018-06-30T11:22:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_article_2018_Spring_Weatherby.php</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Kant famously stated that he had “awoken from his dogmatic slumber”30 by reading the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume. Hume maintained a bright line between “matters of fact” and “relations of ideas.” This meant that mental habit was central. If one wanted to form a meaningful sentence about the world (“this causes that”), then one would have to habituate the mind by noticing common correlations and regularly drawing the conclusion that one thing “caused” another. Kant disagreed. Cause, he reasoned, could not just be a mental habit, because it had a hidden premise: not that one thing followed another in time, but that it necessarily did so. To conceive of a necessity in the world was to add something more than habit to observation—to contribute a law to nature.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy-of-science philosophy neural-networks representation cultural-assumptions machine-learning le-sigh familiar-refrains-again-again</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e51abbc493f4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:neural-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:representation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:machine-learning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:le-sigh"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:familiar-refrains-again-again"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1473">
    <title>Nnedi Okorafor’s Binti series – The Pinocchio Theory</title>
    <dc:date>2018-03-20T12:40:41+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1473</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The Binti series is Afrofuturist science fiction. The eponymous protagonist and narrator is a young woman from the Himba people of Namibia. This group is known today for the way that they strongly maintain their traditional practices and ways of life, while at the same time engaging fully with social and technological modernity, and the other peoples with whom they interact. This is still the case in the future world of the novellas: the Himba rarely leave their desert territory, and they keep to something like their traditional ways of life; but at the same time they are known for their cutting edge technology, which they sell to other peoples on Earth, and even to beings from other planets.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>have-read reviews good-reviews philosophy literary-criticism to-share</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:0ba651df2d42/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:have-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:reviews"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:good-reviews"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:literary-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-share"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7efd/0c0bcbde96fed232069e1015df7fe2ccd8aa.pdf">
    <title>Varieties of Self-references (PDF)</title>
    <dc:date>2018-03-20T11:33:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7efd/0c0bcbde96fed232069e1015df7fe2ccd8aa.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>philosophy representation mathematics via:? ambiguity pragmatics</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:72851cd94cf3/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:representation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:mathematics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:?"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ambiguity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4ChzesrWKI&amp;list=PLPeStI124dee1ByfcDzRvPxKDNb0GQjmo">
    <title>Chapter 1.1: Introduction to logic - YouTube</title>
    <dc:date>2018-03-02T14:05:15+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4ChzesrWKI&amp;list=PLPeStI124dee1ByfcDzRvPxKDNb0GQjmo</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>philosophy lectures video to-watch</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:d3feb33ca1de/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:lectures"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:video"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-watch"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://ajps.org/2018/01/30/author-summary-political-stability-in-the-open-society/">
    <title>Author Summary: Political Stability in the Open Society – American Journal of Political Science</title>
    <dc:date>2018-02-04T13:30:39+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://ajps.org/2018/01/30/author-summary-political-stability-in-the-open-society/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Given these challenges, we distinguish two different kinds of stability that apply at different levels of social organization. The first kind of stability applies to constitutional rules that set out the general legal rules within which our lower-level institutional rules operate. These constitutional rules must remain in equilibrium despite challenges and threats in order to preserve the social conditions that foster experimentation. But we reject a similar form of stability for lower-level legal and institutional rules. Experimentation at that level can be productive in ways that constitutional experimentation is not. Instead, lower level legal and institutional rules need to be robust in the sense that, when challenged, old rules can be replaced by stable new rules without undermining the system of rules as a whole.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy social-norms public-policy cultural-dynamics political-economy to-read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:1c8ab0cff32d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:public-policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/end-times-philosophy-interviews-first-302/">
    <title>End Times Philosophy Interviews: The First 302 - 3:AM Magazine</title>
    <dc:date>2018-02-03T16:05:50+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/end-times-philosophy-interviews-first-302/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[end times philosophy interviews: the first 302
]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy interviews to-read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:ed0d08c77545/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:interviews"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://garybasin.com/reason-as-attentional-prosthesis/">
    <title>Reason as Attentional Prosthesis – Gary Basin's words</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-27T14:28:33+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://garybasin.com/reason-as-attentional-prosthesis/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Reason seems to serve as a kind of attentional prosthesis. By default, humans, and pigeons, are responding reflexively — according to habit. When reflexes aren’t good enough, we need some way to explore pieces of past experiences and recombine them in new ways. In the process, we need help navigating our attention away from what is often the most attractive stimulus. Reason functions as such a mechanism. We recall memories of situations where only certain aspects (“abstractions” or “concepts”) are attended to. For each aspect, we trigger a re-cognition — a re-experiencing — of previous experiences that are somehow related. The relation can be a similarity of stimulus, but also, crucially, similarity of outcome or response. This is also known as functional or mediated generalization. By compressing into relevant aspects, the mind seems to be more capable of chaining together previously unrelated “sub-experiences”. If a chain is conceivable to an emotionally-appealing outcome, action can follow.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>reason psychology philosophy cognition to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:5ab63119eb14/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:reason"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:psychology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/13/1/001.editorial">
    <title>Vörös S. &amp; Riegler A. (2017) A Plea for not Watering Down the Unseemly: Reconsidering Francisco Varela’s Contribution to Science. Constructivist Foundations 13(1): 1–10</title>
    <dc:date>2017-12-26T12:44:45+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/13/1/001.editorial</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Context: In the past three decades, the work of Varela has had an enormous impact on current developments in contemporary science. Problem: Varela’s thought was extremely complex and multifaceted, and while some aspects - notably his contributions to the autopoietic theory of living and enactivist approach to cognition - have gained widespread acclaim, others have been ignored or watered down. Method: We identify three dimensions of Varela’s thought: (i) anti-realism of the “middle way”; (ii) anti-foundationalism of the circular/recursive onto-epistemology; and (iii) ethical/social implications of the circularity/recursivity. The discussion of these dimensions is followed by a concise overview of the individual target articles in this issue and the topics they cover. Finally, we discuss in what ways the articles extend and relate to Varela’s work. We do this by means of a concrete example: the relation between “enaction” and “enactivism. Results: We show that the ignoring-cum-watering-down process of Varela’s contributions to science is at least partly linked to the three dimensions of Varela’s thought. Based on our examination we also find that the more narrow research topics are always interrelated with broader philosophical reflection. Researching into ignored and watered-down aspects of Varela’s work enables us to not only gain fresh insights into Varela’s overall philosophy and rekindle interest in the topics and themes that have been brushed aside, but also cast a fresh light on those that are currently in full bloom. Implications: Reviving interest in Varela’s work in toto could lead to fruitful research and discussion in numerous scientific fields. To illustrate this idea, we delineate, tentatively, three domains - theoretical, empirical, and existential - where Varela’s contribution to philosophy and science could instigate prolific exchange of views. Constructivist content: All three dimensions of Varela’s philosophy have strong affinities with radical constructivist critique of realism and some of its epistemological and ethical implications.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>complexology philosophy-of-science philosophy rather-interesting cannot-read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:39ce445e6939/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:complexology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cannot-read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://voices.norwich.edu/daniel-mcquillan/2017/08/03/proofs-are-not-only-often-beautiful-but-also-necessary/">
    <title>Proofs are not only often beautiful but also necessary | Dan McQuillan</title>
    <dc:date>2017-11-09T16:56:36+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://voices.norwich.edu/daniel-mcquillan/2017/08/03/proofs-are-not-only-often-beautiful-but-also-necessary/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[I hope you get the idea. When mathematicians seem obsessed with rigor, it is at least in part due to our history of making mistakes, seemingly every time we tried to jump to a conclusion. But perhaps there’s something more. So for that, we end with a quote from William Thurston:

what we are doing is finding ways for people to understand and think about mathematics… what they really want is usually not some collection of of ‘answers’-what they want is understanding.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>mathematics proof philosophy to-write-about consider:representation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:44f350a1eca3/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:mathematics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:proof"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:representation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.00696">
    <title>[1701.00696] A pre-semantics for counterfactual conditionals and similar logics</title>
    <dc:date>2017-11-06T12:27:47+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.00696</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The elegant Stalnaker/Lewis semantics for counterfactual conditonals works with distances between models. But human beings certainly have no tables of models and distances in their head. We begin here an investigation using a more realistic picture, based on findings in neuroscience. We call it a pre-semantics, as its meaning is not a description of the world, but of the brain, whose structure is (partly) determined by the world it reasons about. In the final section, we reconsider the components, and postulate that there are no atomic pictures, we can always look inside.]]></description>
<dc:subject>artificial-intelligence philosophy philosophy-of-science semantics rather-interesting to-write-about to-understand modeling-is-not-mathematics</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:617580b90f64/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:artificial-intelligence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:semantics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-understand"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:modeling-is-not-mathematics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.ianwelsh.net/screw-optimism-and-screw-sanity/">
    <title>Screw Optimism and Screw “Sanity” | Ian Welsh</title>
    <dc:date>2017-10-22T12:02:29+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.ianwelsh.net/screw-optimism-and-screw-sanity/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Likewise, I am beyond tired of the excessive stigmatization of anger and hatred. It is appropriate to hate some people. If you don’t hate a man who has killed tens to hundreds of thousands of people (you don’t know because he refused to count) for a war based on lies, while gutting your civil rights, you are either a saint or your values are so fucked up I don’t even know what to say. You hate some people (yes, you do, don’t deny it), why don’t you hate the people who are actually doing evil on an industrial scale and who directly threaten your prosperity and your good life? And why, exactly, aren’t you angry? Again, don’t tell me you don’t get angry (unless you’re a saint), so why aren’t you angry at the people who are destroying your future and the future of your children?

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy I-agree depression management to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:4e485eb7523f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:I-agree"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:depression"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:management"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://tedunderwood.com/2017/07/13/were-probably-due-for-another-discussion-of-stanley-fish/">
    <title>We’re probably due for another discussion of Stanley Fish | The Stone and the Shell</title>
    <dc:date>2017-10-08T01:49:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://tedunderwood.com/2017/07/13/were-probably-due-for-another-discussion-of-stanley-fish/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Of course, if you pursue that approach systematically enough, it will lead you away from topic modeling toward methods that rely more explicitly on human judgment. I have been leaning on supervised algorithms a lot lately—not because they’re easier to test or more reliable than unsupervised ones—but because they explicitly acknowledge that interpretation has to be anchored in human history.

At a first glance, this may seem to make progress impossible. “All we can ever discover is which books resemble these other books selected by a particular group of readers. The algorithm can only reproduce a category someone else already defined!” And yes, supervised modeling is circular. But this is a circularity shared by all interpretation of history, and it never merely reproduces its starting point. You can discover that books resemble each other to different degrees. You can discover that models defined by the responses of one interpretive community do or don’t align with models of another. And often you can, carefully, provisionally, draw explanatory inferences from the model itself, assisted perhaps by a bit of close reading.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>digital-humanities machine-learning reasonableness it's-more-complicated-than-you-think modeling philosophy criticism to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:df931316753a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:digital-humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:machine-learning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:reasonableness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:it's-more-complicated-than-you-think"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:modeling"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.07785">
    <title>[1701.07785] Probabilistic inferences from conjoined to iterated conditionals</title>
    <dc:date>2017-09-29T14:25:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.07785</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[There is wide support in logic, philosophy, and psychology for the hypothesis that the probability of the indicative conditional of natural language, P(if A then B), is the conditional probability of B given A, P(B|A). We identify a conditional which is such that P(if A then B)=P(B|A) with de Finetti's conditional event, B|A. An objection to making this identification in the past was that it appeared unclear how to form compounds and iterations of conditional events. In this paper, we illustrate how to overcome this objection with a probabilistic analysis, based on coherence, of these compounds and iterations. We interpret the compounds and iterations as conditional random quantities which, given some logical dependencies, may reduce to conditional events. We show how the inference to B|A from A and B can be extended to compounds and iterations of both conditional events and biconditional events. Moreover, we determine the respective uncertainty propagation rules. Finally, we make some comments on extending our analysis to counterfactuals.]]></description>
<dc:subject>probability-theory rather-interesting representation to-understand analytical-expressions linguists define-your-terms philosophy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:d87dc42061fe/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:probability-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:representation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-understand"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:analytical-expressions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:linguists"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:define-your-terms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://machinemachine.net/portfolio/kipple-and-things/">
    <title>Kipple and Things: How to Hoard and Why Not To Mean</title>
    <dc:date>2017-09-23T12:28:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://machinemachine.net/portfolio/kipple-and-things/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In the collection, function is replaced by exemplification. The limits of the collection dictate a paradigm of finality; of perfection. Each object – whether wrist-watch or butterfly – exists to define new orders. Once the blue butterfly is added to the collection it stands, alone, as an example of the class of blue butterflies to which the collection dictates it belongs. Placed alongside the yellow and green butterflies, the blue butterfly exists to constitute all three as a series. The entire series itself then becomes the example of all butterflies. A complete collection: a perfect catalogue. Perhaps, like Borges’ Library of Babel, or Plato’s ideal realm of forms, there exists a room somewhere with a catalogue of everything. An ocean of examples. Cosmic disorder re-constituted and classified as a finite catalogue, arranged for the grand cosmic collector’s singular pleasure.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>collection philosophy rather-interesting via:? to-write-about criticism collecting archives value economics consider:individuation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:f355e64b2c39/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:collection"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:?"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:collecting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:archives"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:value"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:individuation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://geepawhill.org/?p=237">
    <title>Idols of the Schema: Ignoring Data While Overvaluing Ideas | GeePawHill.Org</title>
    <dc:date>2017-09-20T12:51:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://geepawhill.org/?p=237</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Mike Hill on "Idols of the Schema"; good stuff

> in comparsion w/free-roaming ideas, bound ideas are muddy complex beasts. hard to draw. hard to consider. hard to flex & fit.]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy philosophy-of-engineering define-your-terms to-write-about cognition ontology</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:ca2180a0b14e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-engineering"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:define-your-terms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ontology"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://sophiavanruth.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/the-power-of-doing-things-just-for-fun/">
    <title>the power of doing things just for fun – Navigating Complexity</title>
    <dc:date>2017-09-20T11:59:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://sophiavanruth.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/the-power-of-doing-things-just-for-fun/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[I recently watched a documentary called The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (1981) which focussed on the life of Richard Feynman, a physicist who has widely been called a scientific genius. I was delighted to hear him describe how valuable ‘doing things just for fun’ was to his work. He told of how, at a certain moment, he let go of trying to make his work ‘useful’ and started doing things ‘just for the fun of it’. It was then that the insights started to flow which eventually led him to winning the Nobel Prize.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:? ludic-impulse looking-to-see cultural-norms philosophy-of-science philosophy psychology social-norms</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:82d79ea72d80/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:?"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ludic-impulse"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:looking-to-see"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:psychology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/true-enough">
    <title>True Enough | The MIT Press</title>
    <dc:date>2017-09-14T11:59:30+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/true-enough</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Philosophy valorizes truth, holding that there can never be epistemically good reasons to accept a known falsehood, or to accept modes of justification that are not truth conducive. How can this stance account for the epistemic standing of science, which unabashedly relies on models, idealizations, and thought experiments that are known not to be true? In True Enough, Catherine Elgin argues that we should not assume that the inaccuracy of models and idealizations constitutes an inadequacy. To the contrary, their divergence from truth or representational accuracy fosters their epistemic functioning. When effective, models and idealizations are, Elgin contends, felicitous falsehoods that exemplify features of the phenomena they bear on. Because works of art deploy the same sorts of felicitous falsehoods, she argues, they also advance understanding.

Elgin develops a holistic epistemology that focuses on the understanding of broad ranges of phenomena rather than knowledge of individual facts. Epistemic acceptability, she maintains, is a matter not of truth-conduciveness, but of what would be reflectively endorsed by the members of an idealized epistemic community—a quasi-Kantian realm of epistemic ends.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:? books philosophy-of-science truth epistemology philosophy to-read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e8c08f54d999/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:?"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:books"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:truth"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:epistemology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://aeon.co/ideas/imagination-is-a-powerful-tool-why-is-philosophy-afraid-of-it">
    <title>Imagination is a powerful tool: why is philosophy afraid of it? | Aeon Ideas</title>
    <dc:date>2017-09-10T13:16:06+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://aeon.co/ideas/imagination-is-a-powerful-tool-why-is-philosophy-afraid-of-it</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In both these modes, the secret to success seems to lie in the application of a kind of imaginative constraint. But what’s right for one use might not be fitting for the other. Perhaps the reason why philosophers have been conflicted about the imagination is that they haven’t grasped how limitations need to be tailored to circumstances. When we are writing fiction, or playing games of pretend, or making art, arguably we do our best imagining by setting the boundaries widely or removing the shackles entirely. In contrast, when we employ imagination in the context of scientific or technological discovery, or any other real-world problem-solving, we must allow our imaginations to be framed by the situation at hand.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy imagination rather-interesting to-write-about history-of-science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:8e35de859a68/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:imagination"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history-of-science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/">
    <title>How America Went Haywire - The Atlantic</title>
    <dc:date>2017-08-27T13:41:20+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The great unbalancing and descent into full Fantasyland was the product of two momentous changes. The first was a profound shift in thinking that swelled up in the ’60s; since then, Americans have had a new rule written into their mental operating systems: Do your own thing, find your own reality, it’s all relative.

The second change was the onset of the new era of information. Digital technology empowers real-seeming fictions of the ideological and religious and scientific kinds. Among the web’s 1 billion sites, believers in anything and everything can find thousands of fellow fantasists, with collages of facts and “facts” to support them. Before the internet, crackpots were mostly isolated, and surely had a harder time remaining convinced of their alternate realities. Now their devoutly believed opinions are all over the airwaves and the web, just like actual news. Now all of the fantasies look real.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>cultural-dynamics politics philosophy cultural-criticism to-write-about it's-more-complicated-than-you-think</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:f792b4dbcf93/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:it's-more-complicated-than-you-think"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.08971">
    <title>[1705.08971] Optimal Cooperative Inference</title>
    <dc:date>2017-08-12T12:40:43+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.08971</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Cooperative transmission of data fosters rapid accumulation of knowledge by efficiently combining experience across learners. Although well studied in human learning, there has been less attention to cooperative transmission of data in machine learning, and we consequently lack strong formal frameworks through which we may reason about the benefits and limitations of cooperative inference. We present such a framework. We introduce a novel index for measuring the effectiveness of probabilistic information transmission, and cooperative information transmission specifically. We relate our cooperative index to previous measures of teaching in deterministic settings. We prove conditions under which optimal cooperative inference can be achieved, including a representation theorem which constrains the form of inductive biases for learners optimized for cooperative inference. We conclude by demonstrating how these principles may inform the design of machine learning algorithms and discuss implications for human learning, machine learning, and human-machine learning systems.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>hey-I-know-this-guy machine-learning relevance-theory philosophy rather-interesting to-write-about pedagogy communication-and-learning</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:b76f087f006d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:hey-I-know-this-guy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:machine-learning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:relevance-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pedagogy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:communication-and-learning"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://aeon.co/ideas/descartes-was-wrong-a-person-is-a-person-through-other-persons">
    <title>Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons’ | Aeon Ideas</title>
    <dc:date>2017-06-21T03:05:38+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://aeon.co/ideas/descartes-was-wrong-a-person-is-a-person-through-other-persons</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The emerging fields of embodied and enactive cognition have started to take dialogic models of the self more seriously. But for the most part, scientific psychology is only too willing to adopt individualistic Cartesian assumptions that cut away the webbing that ties the self to others. There is a Zulu phrase, ‘Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu’, which means ‘A person is a person through other persons.’ This is a richer and better account, I think, than ‘I think, therefore I am.’

]]></description>
<dc:subject>cognition philosophy Cartesianism context social-construction-of-self to-write-about the-mangle-in-practice</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:22badd29fb75/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Cartesianism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:context"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-construction-of-self"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-in-practice"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://indalogenesis.com/2017/03/07/ambiguity-detected/">
    <title>Ambiguity detected | IndaloGenesis</title>
    <dc:date>2017-03-21T11:39:02+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://indalogenesis.com/2017/03/07/ambiguity-detected/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Yet, for all that, there is something appealing about this investigative figure. Or at least those who have ventured into the labyrinth and either conquered or integrated the Minotaur. Their thirst for knowledge, inherent curiosity, pattern recognition and sense-making capabilities, as well as their aptitude for narration, for working out loud, have much to commend them. What they lead us to in most cases, though, is not resolution of ambiguity but rather an acceptance of and comfort with it. They are not heroes, just regular folk, like you and me, deriving temporary and contextually convenient understanding of an ever-changing world. Civilians retaining a hint of the chivalric, the romantic, in the modern day. As ambiguous as the ambiguities they detect.

Ambiguity asks: Where is the border between this and that? … But ambiguity is inherently contradictory and insoluble, a bewildering truth of fogs and mists and the unrecognizable figure or phantom or memory or dream that can’t be contained or held in my hands or kept because it is always flying away, and I cannot tell what it is or if it is anything at all.
— Siri Hustvedt, Living, Thinking, Looking

]]></description>
<dc:subject>literary-criticism ambiguity philosophy essay to-write-about consider:robustness and-also-fragility</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:fa5e3a63ddaf/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:literary-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ambiguity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:essay"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:robustness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:and-also-fragility"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://aeon.co/essays/why-foucaults-work-on-power-is-more-important-than-ever">
    <title>Why Foucault's work on power is more important than ever | Aeon Essays</title>
    <dc:date>2017-03-15T13:19:45+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://aeon.co/essays/why-foucaults-work-on-power-is-more-important-than-ever</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[For identifying and so deftly analysing the mechanisms of modern power, while refusing to develop it into a singular and unified theory of power’s essence, Foucault remains philosophically important. The strident philosophical skepticism in which his thought is rooted is not directed against the use of philosophy for the analysis of power. Rather, it is suspicious of the bravado behind the idea that philosophy can, and also must, reveal the hidden essence of things. What this means is that Foucault’s signature word – ‘power’ – is not the name of an essence that he has distilled but is rather an index to an entire field of analysis in which the work of philosophy must continually toil.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy cultural-dynamics power politics</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:6e3f07316c98/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:power"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:politics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>