Sexist Quantification

Quantification is a key concept, modern and still only partially developed: Galileo timed things with his pulse: most people still don’t get it, not even if they’re in a science department at Harvard.

Wimbledon is coming, the tennis world, the civilized world, is about to retest its enthusiasms: who’s number 1? (on grass) Who’s #2? Who’s 1 and 2 among the women …

Johnnie Mac, a good tennis player but an even better stand-up (or sit-down) commentator, had said that Serena Williams was one of the greatest athletes of all time. He’d also said that she was the best female tennis player ever seen publicly. Ah, but people, people who don’t know their ass from their elbow, were saying that he said she was one of the greatest, period; so he had to qualify: greatest female tennis player. He qualified further: if we were talking about tennis players worldwide, without regard to gender, he estimated she’d be able to play competitively among the males at a level around 700 world-wide: the top 699 male tennis players would beat her off the court; she might split sets with players #700, 701.

Serena didn’t thank him for the compliment. Until we actually test such claims in a series of tournaments, it’s neither a compliment nor an insult. It would become a compliment if we knew, from rational testing, how other great female tennis players would have faired against the top several hundred men. Ask yourself, you can’t “look it up”: how deep among the males would Chrissie have had to play before she won, ever? before she won consistently? How deep would Navrotalova have had to play? Lenglen? Hengis? When would Sharapova have started to win a set now and then playing against males? 800? 900? Would Martina Hingis have been able to beat ranked males while the number was still three-figures? Played the 700th ranked male Hingis loses 0-6, 0-6? How about Court? Lenglen?
How many women players would win a single game before we got to male #1,000? #3,015?

Myth must not be tested.

No, no. Notice. Civilization doesn’t know the answer. We’ve been protected from the answer. We’re in the realm where reason is forbidden, myth rules. Myth must not be tested, no quantification for religious beliefs.

Serena’s reply to Mac was was cute: please limit yourself to things knowable!

Wait: no imagining allowed? Notice, the web interviews celebrities; no scientists, no philosophers. No, no. Our prejudices are far too important to us to allow rational inquiry: no testing allowed.

Chrissy’s responses to such speculations decades ago were right on the moneh: playing about John, her husband, Lloyd, she wouldn’t have won a single point! the best woman player in the world, multiply tested, not one point!!

later Tuesday afternoon
Wow, Mac got a lot of people’s goat. Now he’s said he wished that men and women did compete together: then we’d “know”; “We wouldn’t have to guess!”

Whatever John’s point; that’s my point: Guessing is all we’re allowed because myth is involved.

It’s too late to test the past; but we could try to figure out how to test the future: next Wimbledon women’s champ: schedule her against the men, figure her place: then, Always test.
Or, don’t: but then admit that you don’t want to know.

Knowledge isn’t easy, but some knowledge ought to be possible: at least more possible than it’s been.

Thinking Tools

first draft,
2017 06 26 -27

John McEnroe called Serena Williams one of the greatest athletes he’s ever seen. He ameded that to The greatest female tennis players, etc. Now Mac says that if she played on the men’s tour she’d be ranked maybe 700th. That’s very good: has any female player ever been likely to do better than that? It’s a surprise only to those who don’t know or understand a thing about it.

I’m reminded of an interview with Chrissie Everett from decades ago, she was married to tennis player John Lloyd at the time. Lloyd was a pro but was wasn’t top dozen or two. An interviewer asked Chrissie how she’s fare if whe played singles against her husband. “I wouldn’t win a single point,” Chrissie answered.
No. She was just the best female player in the world. The best.
And we fans loved her.

PS Would Chrissie have been around 700 among the men? I doubt it. That’s Serena’s accomplishment.
And of course she would have shellacked Bobby Riggs, the conning old drunk. But until it can be quantified, tested, it’s just bullshit. And “Bobby Riggs” isn’t a real test: he was the top male pro once upon a time, a long time ago. That was tested, quantified. But tests would have to be regular, and unregulated, that is not regulated by church or crown, to be rationally meaningful. I like to see Serena, at her best, say age twenty-five, tested against the top males, the top several hundred males, for lots of money, before we judge whether “700” is a compliment or an insult. I read it as a compliment, but what do I know? same as Mac knows: next to nothing.

There was a story today right on the money where Mrs. Mac said to John Why don’t you and I play mixed doubles together at Wimpledon. Johm replied, But you’re not a tennis player! She responded, “Exactly.”
You need a tradition of quantification, continuous testing.

I’m also reminded of the days when Nixon’s White House was acusing Times journalists of being “self-appointed.” And actual Times journalist mocked, “Hello, I’d like to appoint myself Nixon-critic at the New York Times“!
No, the jounalists are hired and promoted by the editors who are hired and promoted by the owners who are hired and promoted by the advertizers, the university journalism departments. … Right, Mrs. Mac, exactly, you don’t just walk into Wimbledon and appoint yourself to the qualies, then to the final sixteen …

If Mac is right, and Serena would really be able to play @ 70 +-, then where would Martina fit? and where Martina Hingis? and where Margaret Court? Evonne … If there are really difference between males adn females let us know rationally what they are, and not by court of no-data-allowed.

I would really like it if you’re average fan could instantly retort, Yeah, Serena can play at 700; could Martina have played anywhere near 700? or Hingis or Suzanne Lenglen?

Suzanne Lenglen

PS I was able to track down pix of the divine Suzanne Lenglan because since age 15, wandering MOMA, I’ve been a huge fan of her cousin, Jacques Henri Lartigue.

Posted in culture | Leave a comment

Job Offer

/ Teens /

My poor mother threw our father out not because he was a drunk but because of his philandering. Once Mom saw that Dad was not doing what she’d thought he was supposed to do, love and support her and her alone, Mom, with Utter naivte, continued to believe that Christian American society would do what it was supposed to do: force him to continue to support us even after he’d been thrown out. Next thing we know Mom is ready to scrub floors in order to feed us. No matter how hard she worked she would have needed luck to get $40 a week for humiliating labor; but, she was a gorgeous red head, learned shorthand, and got a job as a secretary for an insurance broker who specialized in matters marine. So Mom takes dictation and is also the decoration on the boss’s series of yachts, using his 30 footer and his 50 footer to display his wares. Next thing I know Mom is making friends with thrice-married millionaires who buy each grown kid a Cadillac for his birthday: while wife #4 totally redecorates the mansion. This story is about one such, guy with a thirty foot yacht who piled up the money selling cork for Armstrong. His secretary was a whiz, maiing out birthday presents and Christmas presents to a long list of customers, friends, and colleauges. Wally was a runt, always laughing in his throat: a prinkster: Do you want to see a hair stand on end, he asked me. He guided me to my knees at his side, told me to look at the wet drink ring on the coffee table surface, put my eye right next to it. Wally yanked a hair from my scalp, dropped it on the drunk righ. Splash! har har har. Wally had flicked the drink ring in my eye.

Then he asked if I was born again, told me that Jesus was the greatest salesman who ever lived. “He had something to sell,” I commented.
“Oh, I’m not going to worry about you, quoth the practical joking salesman.
Mom dismissed me. Wally asked what I planned to do for a living as I stood once again. “Don’t know,” I said, still uncomfortable with this clown. “Well, go to college, then come see me,” advised Wally.

I think that was my first job offer: and the first job I ever knew for sure I didn’t want. YoYo.

Wally had a huge mansion on the ocean in Bayshore. I always thought of him as we drove to our weekend beer parties in the Hamptons. There the ocean is held offshore by barrier islands; in Bayshore is think it was ocean directly on Long Island. Wally had multiple acres and the whole ocean. His wife was in there, all alone.

Stories by Theme by Age
Posted in teen | Leave a comment

Fallacies

/ Thinking Tools /

The School Fallacy

I’ve never been a fan of named fallacies: The Pathetic Fallacy, the Ad Hominem Fallacy. I don’t trust fallacies we’re schooled about: but I’m about to jot notes about a common error of human thinking that ought to be named, in fact I’ll name it: I’ll name it The School Fallacy. The School Fallacy is particularly dangerous because it’s assigned to us, typically by experts, by institutions, by priests. It could also be called the Church Fallacy: or the Institutional Fallacy. It could also be called the White House Fallacy, or the Polonius Fallacy:

You get a bill from a lawyer: it’s implicit that you got a legal service, perhaps legal advice. Institutions want you to encumber yourself with the School Fallacy: the lawyer wants you to believe that you got good legal advice. The school teacher, the school, want you to assume that your got a valuable lesson from the school, from the teacher; not just an expensive lesson: a good lesson.

You get a call, the voice says it’s from the White House, the President’s office. Is it Trump on the line? or some bureaucrat telling you to do something as though Trump is telling you?
Should Hamlet believe that Polonius speaks for the king? Should Danes believe that Polonius speaks wise counsel? or palace gibberish?

The priest tells you something, he wants you to assume that it’s God speaking, that what you hear from him is biblical.

The confusion I’ve always been ready to believe is that when I hear from God I’m hearing the truth. God’s word has authority. Not only does God’s word have authority, but it’s right!

If you see a weather report, if the report predicts rain for Wednesday, and it’s Wednesday, is it raining? Are you wet?

If God tells you to circumcise your kid, should you do it? If the kid bleeds to death, is it your fault? or the Temple’s, the rabi’s?

Institutions insist that you make generous mistakes: generous to them, harmful, toxic to you.

Thinking Tools

Posted in thinking tools | Leave a comment

Monthly

Monthly: scrapbook: reborn each month
(Monthly Note follows below)

God is a Contradiction in Terms
2017 06 27, dup @ Monthly, delete there 2017 08 01

If your god is not a contradiction in terms, then your god is not the god the temples and churches and so forth and so on have been quarreling about, killing each other over.

For instance, I’ve long defined my god as the truth, defined god out loud, right her at Knatz.com. Whereas god is normally defined (implicitly) as the magic that renders us superior (the god who in advance determines that we can get away with murder! (He tells us not to kill, but then closes his eyes.)

Serena Mac Sexism Update
2017 06 26 John McEnroe called Serena Williams one of the greatest athletes he’s ever seen. He ameded that to The greatest female tennis players, etc. Now Mac says that if she played on the men’s tour she’d be ranked maybe 700th. That’s very good: has any female player ever been likely to do better than that? It’s a surprise only to those who don’t know or understand a thing about it.

I’m reminded of an interview with Chrissie Everett from decades ago, she was married to tennis player John Lloyd at the time. Lloyd was a pro but was wasn’t top dozen or two. An interviewer asked Chrissie how she’s fare if whe played singles against her husband. “I wouldn’t win a single point,” Chrissie answered.
No. She was just the best female player in the world. The best.
And we fans loved her.

PS Would Chrissie have been around 700 among the men? I doubt it. That’s Serena’s accomplishment.
And of course she would have shellacked Bobby Riggs, the conning old drunk. But until it can be quantified, tested, it’s just bullshit. And “Bobby Riggs” isn’t a real test: he was the top male pro once upon a time, a long time ago. That was tested, quantified. But tests would have to be regular, and unregulated, that is not regulated by church or crown, to be rationally meaningful. I like to see Serena, at her best, say age twenty-five, tested against the top males, the top several hundred males, for lots of money, before we judge whether “700” is a compliment or an insult. I read it as a compliment, but what do I know? same as Mac knows: next to nothing.

There was a story today right on the money where Mrs. Mac said to John Why don’t you and I play mixed doubles together at Wimpledon. Johm replied, But you’re not a tennis player! She responded, “Exactly.”
You need a tradition of quantification, continuous testing.

I’m also reminded of the days when Nixon’s White House was acusing Times journalists of being “self-appointed.” And actual Times journalist mocked, “Hello, I’d like to appoint myself Nixon-critic at the New York Times“!
No, the jounalists are hired and promoted by the editors who are hired and promoted by the owners who are hired and promoted by the advertizers, the university journalism departments. … Right, Mrs. Mac, exactly, you don’t just walk into Wimbledon and appoint yourself to the qualies, then to the final sixteen …

If Mac is right, and Serena would really be able to play @ 70 +-, then where would Martina fit? and where Martina Hingis? and where Margaret Court? Evonne … If there are really difference between males adn females let us know rationally what they are, and not by court of no-data-allowed.

I would really like it if you’re average fan could instantly retort, Yeah, Serena can play at 700; could Martina have played anywhere near 700? or Hingis or Suzanne Lenglen?

Suzanne Lenglen

PS I was able to track down pix of the divine Suzanne Lenglan because since age 15, wandering MOMA, I’ve been a huge fan of her cousin, Jacques Henri Lartigue.

Dangerous Treasure
2017 06 22 Guy buried treasure, lots of people went looking, from Montana to New Mexico. Now two people have died in the search, now the cops want the search called off: matter of public safety. Why should people be safe looking for treasure? People “should” be safe crossing Wall Street or Bond Street to go to work, but not hunting treature, not in sailing from Spain to the New World, not in looking for emeralds and rubies in the Rockies: not snooping around in North Korea, not when North Korea is run by maniacs.

Kung Fu & All That Jazz
2017 06 19 I sample a video or two almost daily on YouTube. The menu apparently customizes itself using your history there as feedback. Thus the base page offers me tennis and basketball, WC Fields and Graucho, Clint and Mitchum …Bruce Lee and Steven Seagal … I just allowed myself to be tempted by a segment of Kung Fu: TV at its most whorish: Bruce Lee conceived it, demonstrated it to the Green Lanturn producers; they thought Hmm, but we can’t have a chink: or, we’ll have David Caradinze play the chink, and we’ll mask his incompetence with slo-motion.

Makes me puke. But where is kleptocracy more purely kleptocratic than in Hollywood? Maybe in Tin Pan Alley: whitewashing black music. Jazz in inspired by the clash of blacks and whites on the bandstand: the blacks get some of the money now, but they didn’t for a long time.

Trouble with WASPS is we’re so used to stealing everything we don’t know what’s stolen and what’s paid for. And we can’t tell paying the right contributor from paying royalties to the WASP thieves.

In my case the thefts are state-supervised, the school system, the media explain it away.

Cosby Crime
2017 06 17 So Cosby got a mistrial, the jury failed to agree 100% on a verdict. Here’s my 2%:
Christian theology has taught for millennia, man is not rational.
Christian theology teaches that God is rational, is true, knows the truth, but doesn’t demonstrate it rationally. I’m not always sure about God, but I’ sure about man: we are not rational.

Never, nowhere, are we less rational than when we claim that the US founding fathers were rational or enlightened. To me it’s ridiculous for legal systems to claim that juries can decided the truth. American epistemology is fully as ridiculous as the epistemology of secular states. I think Stalin, Nixon, Trump should simply say we can’t prove shit, we don’t know if Bill Cosby is guilty or innocent: as Christians we could just decide that everybody is guilty, there’s nothing to prove: kill him. Did he do it? I don’t know. We certainly believe that he — or any one — could have done it: drugged women, then put our fingers in their twat: any doubt? kill him, kill everybody.

But note: Cosby is a great man. Cosby was a great comedian. Cosby’s show where he played Doctor Huxtable is the great family show: it modeled morality, citizenship, love, cooperation … But so, still, the guy could have committed these multiple rapes.
I was in highschool, Friday night beer parties. One night in Don’s basement, half in the bag, one of us played a Cosby LP: Funny? We laughed our ass off. A great talent.
Did he commit all those rapes? Why not? He certainly could have.
But even if he did, should white slave masters, kleptocrats, slave masters, hypocrites, embarrassments to God put him on trial? No, no, no, no, no.

Communes
2017 06 08 Jared Diamond, The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn From Traditional Societies?, 2013
Inventing New Religions
I dreamed of founding communes as a child, didn’t we all? My mother subscribed to the Book of the Month Club in the 1940s, ’50s. I read the dust cover-spines as they sat on the shelf: War and Peace, Man and Superman. Sometimes Mom read her books with me: The Republic … a book on ideal-religion experiments in America: the Shakers, the Oneida Community. In grade school the teacher told us about Wordsworth and Coleridge and their Pantisocracies … In grad school, after the army, a commune-founding meeting was organized to take place in my mother-in-law’s apartment in Manhattan. Oh, it would be so nice: two or three people with shit jobs could earn enough money to feed a half-a-dozen couples. No body was estimating the number of children we’d soon have, no body was anticipating how couples would soon be murdering each other over adulteries among the members.

Phil was one of the organizers: I remember his Rugers friend Joe Unmasking what it was really about: And there’s Phil, at the bottom of a flesh pile! Actually, that’s exactly what happened: Phil and Carold married, she was hired as a violist by the Toronto Symphony Orchestra: Carol proved to be a dyke once they landed in Toronto: that was OK with Phil at first: the girls were soon piling up orgies, and yes, Phil was regularly the one male at the bottom of the pile: as Joe so perceptively saw: until the unending stream of dykes thought they’d like their orgies better if there were no male, no Phil, down in the orgy basement. Phil got out with his nuts still attached, moved in with girlfriend #2, then moved in girlfriend #2’s sixteen year old sister … Another mess.
Actually the Rutgers group did form a commune around Priceton. Boy, am I glad Hilary and I were never a part of it: what I heard was that Phil was the target of some nasty assessments of the group’s resources … Of course, no body wanted to be the two or three adults with actual money earning jobs.

And I pause right there to identify one of my perceptions about communes these fifty-odd years later: The dreaming was being done by people with graduate degrees but no jobs, no job experience. actually starving any of us might have founded a Fuller Brush company or a WalMarts; but not if there was food on our table no matter what we did.
And we hadn’t worked out the kinks of food and money production. !Kung hunters know how to hunt, !Kung gatherers know what to gather. They know how much huntring and gathering they have to do on average to feed a village of 30 !Kung … We didn’t know shit: we didn’t know how to do anything but sit in a room talking about Hamlet.

My President
Ho boy, talk about impeaching Trump: for dong what he’s famous for: firing somebody. Talk about impeachment should allow him to rest easy: if we didn’t impeach Nixon then we’ll never impeach anybody. [Wait a minute: Clinton got impeached: a pussyfoot impeachment: what I say can be trusted, but not literally.]
Now I itch to tell a story that alas no one will get: Phil was my army buddy, early 1960s. We met when stationed at Whitehall Street, we became inseparable. Nothing was simple, nothing stayed still for very long, we do-si-do’d on a number of things influencing each other in ways even we didn’t perceive, but: in simple: Phil was the moral commie — goods should be shared; I was the moral Christian — EveryThing should be shared, evolution should be respected: existence should have an upward tilt: no, it was not alright to kill all the capitalists, no matter how evil we all are.
Well, we both thought we were moral, we both thought we were on the side of good, God … evolution … enlightenment … But the next thing I knew Phil was meditating, and eating no meat, and touting Jesus to beat the band: while chanting Rama, Rama, while Nixon was smudging fingerprints from bomb-bay-doors all over the world.
Check out my political satire letters here at K. to see what I did about it: I cite where what Phil said that still haunts me today: Phil said that Richard Nixon would forevermore be

his president!

That is, he, Phil, said “my”, that is, his, Phil’s, “president”: proprietary irony! Phil, the chairman of public shame.
Yes, very good, me too. Except now I don’t know: anything that Nixon was, power-mad hypocrite, war criminal, mass murderer, evil incarnate, Trump seems to be in spades.
It fits like an old shoe:, an old straw hat, a suit of overalls, to be talking about impeaching Trump.

(It was super comfy the other evening for Jan and me to see Shirley Temple, 1938, with Randolph Scott! The old straw hat is her song.)

2017 01 04 My in-season neighbor Elaine Sutphin snapped my wrinkly pic!

pk by gardenia

pk by gardenia

Continues as reverse chronology: Monthly Archive

Such archives date backwards: counter chronological: today, yesterday, the day before …

Posted in pk Personal, pk Teaching | Tagged

Bible Law

Reading Notes /

Re: Robert Wright, The Evolution of God
Jared Diamond, The World Until Yesterday

(I’m reading the former, wow; rereading the latter: also wow, very.)

Moses gave the Jews Ten Commandments: laws if you will. Jesus gave us two laws (love God, love your neighbor).
(Note: those are prescriptive, not descriptive laws.) (Jesus was not prescribing adultery; he was recommending social behavior.)

Something I missed as a child (that every child misses): Jesus preached to the most law bloated of ancient societies, the Hebrew. The Hebrews at the time were ruled, like much of the rest of the civilized (cough,, gag, barf) world, by the Romans. The Romans were conspicuously law-obsessed. The Romans didn’t just enforce laws that told others what to do; the Romans chiseled laws for their own behavior: and they obeyed them!

warming up

Reading Notes A — L By Author M — Z
Posted in law | Leave a comment

Universe as Theater

/ Cosmology … Theology /

When I was a kid it seemed to me that the congregation of my church was on the same page as my Sunday School teacher: God would judge us, our sins would be exposed. God would be right. Human institutions –media, government, academia — would serve God, serve judgment, serve the truth. We’d all see it, we’d all understand it. If we hadn’t understood our sins before we’d understand them then, at judgment, we’d see that God was right, we were wrong; but we’ve got it right now. Now we understand what Jesus was forgving us for. We woudn’t be worthy of the forgiveness, but we never thouht we would be: that’s what’s so miraculous about divine forgiveness.

After judgment people who didn’t know shit from Shinola would get out of the way of those who did. Society would finally work. Science, history — future history if not past history — would agree. The philosopher might have a better understanding of the details the way this or that commentator might have a penetrating understanding of Hamlet; but it wasn’t a situation where Hamlet alone understood .01% of things while the bosses committed every sin but understood nothing.

Hamlet was tricky: but we all understood what was what: a little course correction and we’d be fine, forever. It wasn’t one of these things where no one, including Shakespeare, has a clue what the play is about: especially not Polonius or Rosencrantz: and certainly not poor Ophelia! But Poloniuys-etc. are the ones in charge of church, state … State, state, and more state. Shakespeare knew and we knew too, even if less well. The playwright knew perfectly, like God. The teacher knew too: better than the student, but not as well as Shakespeare: Student-A knew better than Student-B …

Now I believe that Beckett knew, so did Billie Whitelaw: Phil and I knew better than Rosencrantz or Guildenstern: the New York Times critic knew enough to bullshit a few paragraphs. Newton understood part, Halley understood more than anyone except Newton, but after a few years, the whole Royal Society, greedy for funding, was back to shit on Shinola.

Billie Whitelaw
Billie Whitelaw
thanx blogspot

How ‘about that for an actress!

Reality Theater scrapbook scribble

Steven Johnson has been presenting us with a magnificent series of books on culture, markets and evolution: I love his image of Darwin bumping near a major invention at a reef in India. Darwin discussed some of his ideas with his ship’s captain, Fitzroy. But he knew to tread lightly, not to go too far: not to let himself see more than a fraction of where the evidence seemed to be pointing. A century and a half later Johnson still has to be careful how he says what he says. (You want proof? just see that he absolutely doesn’t know who I am, who Illich was, what Illich (and pk) said! or tried to say: and least tried to bring up!

I still haven’t make my title point as clearly as I intend, but a little thought will show you a bulk of it.
more in a sec

Cosmology, Theology

Posted in social epistemology | Leave a comment

Shaman US

/ Reading Notes /
Wright, Robert: The Evolution of God

(Understand: Shame on US is a domain I registered 27 or so years ago.)
People pay the shaman to caste evil spirits from their sick child. People do the same — pay the bishop — to caste out spirits within the hierarchy of this or that church. Wright points out that people pay the stock analyst for investment advice. Sometimes the kid gets better, sometimes the stock goes up. Sometimes Houdini casts out the caster-out from the seance. Some shamans live a whole career without more than a little embarrassing exposure. Etc.

Recently I’ve been claiming that I can prove that church-members are actually atheists: would real believers really be so careless about epistemology?

For example, and all I mean is here implicit: I announce in 1970 that God told me to offer the world an internet: in 1970 I repeat. Anyone who wanted unregulated information should have paid attention, contributed resources: money, labor … real estate, services. The bishops and priests who did not assign their staffs to help should at least summon testimony from God: did he or didn’t he say anywuch thing to pk? Hadn’t he already said very much such things to (and through) Ivan Illich?
I got it from God: I very much got it from Ivan Illich getting it from God.
I recognized God’s spirit in what Illich said: shouldn’t you have recognized God’s spirit in what I said?

Ponder this analogy:
Wasn’t it obvious to monotheists that God was speaking through Jesus? a hell of a lot more clearly that God had supposedly spoken through Moses. shouldn’t God’s testimony be solicited?

What makes people believe that a priest to whom God has obviously never spoken should be an authority on what God has said subsequently to Boho-A, B, C?

Relate all this to the fraud of governments who’ve never understood a word said by Jesus, Illich, or me claim to “represent” me? ! or you.

more, scrapbook, all relates to Wright & Illich & pk …

Wright Notes: Evolution of God, Robert Wright

War puts a premium on social efficiency

On the one hand, the ruling class, consisting as it does of human beings, will try, consciously or unconsciously, to steer culture, including religious belief, toward its selfish ends.

revolution, military defeat, or economic eclipse

Every religion, to survive elementary logical scrutiny, has to have its explanatory loopholes.

law of unintended symmetry

Religion is a feature of cultural evolution that, among other things, addresses anxieties created by cultural evolution; it helps keep social change safe from itself.

Reading Notes A — L By Author M — Z
Posted in reading notes | Leave a comment