Recreating (and advancing) pk’s censored domains:
Knatz.com / Teaching / Society / Social Survival / Semantics /
I was in my early thirties before I first heard that phrase: from the lips of my mother-in-law: 1971ish. Etta smiled in a grimace and said, “Then let us agree to disagree”. Man, that did not sit well with Christian me in those early years of running the Free Learning Exchange (which I’d founded the year before (in her apartment!) (she was in Geneva for the year.) I wanted right to be distinguished from wrong. I wanted Right to have objective backing, legitimate authority. I thought there was a God, I thought I was serving this God. I thought that positive could be distinguished from negative, progress from regress.
|Etta, an economist, worked for the UN. Etta was a liberal, in the sense that the UN was liberal, in the sense that the US was liberal: meaning: take people’s money without their consent or even knowledge and give it to experts: let them manage further what they’ve already mismanaged (so long as they’re all really under the thumb of the information managers, the marketplace warlords.)|
There: first blurt. I’ll put it up, but the important part, to come, concerns duality of purpose in a judiciary: Are the judges deciding right from wrong? or are the judges seeking procedures by which adversaries can coexist? See Jared Diamond, The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn From Traditional Societies?, Dec 2012. Yay. pk comments under Reading Notes.
Problems come where the girl says, “You raped me”, and the rapist, who by now has also pawned her ring, says, “Let us agree to disagree”.
(And the cop says, “Oh, there’s controversy here: I’m gonna go have a doughnut”.)
A policeman is someone who writes down your name after you’ve been robbed.