I would say "prices" are not things, but rather "pricing" is stuff. Not in the sense that it flows with demand, and especially not with demands. But rather, pricing is more like fog, obscuring cost. "Prices" then segment the fog into the illusion of things traded for things.
I would also say that the assembly line turns 'process' into 'procedures,' while analytic philosophy (a disassembly line of sorts) turns wisdom into knowledge sos science can turn knowledge into facts, and then glue facts into 'new knowledge.'
I also misread "...as any hipster will tell you..." as "...as many hipster will tell you..." I was going to correct your error with "...as much hipster will tell you..."
Also also, I thought you'd find it amusing that the dialectical model I was going to call "Hammock's Razor," I decided to instead call "Hume's Spork." The dialectical relations along the north/south axis, with the synthesis of "coherence" at center, are "cohesion" and "comprehensiveness." Which one is thesis/antithesis depends on your (stereoarchetypical) pragmatic or philosophical predisposition.
The "tradeoff" (pragmatist-speak for "dialectical," [otherwise they run away screaming]) between efficient&actionable and deliberative&intelligible is proposed as the source of both "logistics" (higher order logic of moving real stuff and turning it into things) and the process of "dialectics." The former prevents 'critical mass' of local optima through decompression of scale, and the latter prevents the escape velocity of aesthetic speculation by compressing paradigmatic commitments toward pairwise choice of actionable framings.
At the outter edge ("the affordance horizon") are the "near enemies" of cohesion and comprehensiveness. "Isolation" creates apparent cohesion, but is really just pseudo-comprehension masquerading as a real boundary. "Conflation" creates apparent comprehensiveness, but is really just pseudo-cohesion masquerading as "a thing" when it's stuff, or as stuff when it's things. The idea of the affordance horizon is that, given human boundedness, cohesion is always partly afforded on isolation, and comprehension always partly on conflation. However, as the active ingredients lean more toward isolation and conflation, you are cooking more with adherence, the near enemy of coherence.
Anyway, sorry for the length. It's much shorter in my head, and the visual has all of 9 words.
Well, there can be no things, one thing (stuff), or many things. But maybe you're picking up on the fluidity of it all -- how every thing is also stuff in the same way that every part is also its own whole.
if existence is this continuous stuff, flux, blobject, gunk... this One stuff, it is still somehow; it has distinguishable states, the way it is, is patterned, non-homogeneous. i just don't see the problem with parts & wholes. nothing is a whole, nothing is a part, if stuff is gunky. there's just difference, dishomogeneity, patterns, but all the same one existent.
Fascinating stuff (or thing?)!!
This is marvellous Misha
Thanks!
https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExMXJhY2ZhZWc5YTZnNjM2Nm5lcTEwZ3JndWJoN2JtMDZneDEyNDJxMyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/AhQev1suy32mWdFNcq/giphy.gif
Brilliant! A few jots:
I would say "prices" are not things, but rather "pricing" is stuff. Not in the sense that it flows with demand, and especially not with demands. But rather, pricing is more like fog, obscuring cost. "Prices" then segment the fog into the illusion of things traded for things.
I would also say that the assembly line turns 'process' into 'procedures,' while analytic philosophy (a disassembly line of sorts) turns wisdom into knowledge sos science can turn knowledge into facts, and then glue facts into 'new knowledge.'
I also misread "...as any hipster will tell you..." as "...as many hipster will tell you..." I was going to correct your error with "...as much hipster will tell you..."
Also also, I thought you'd find it amusing that the dialectical model I was going to call "Hammock's Razor," I decided to instead call "Hume's Spork." The dialectical relations along the north/south axis, with the synthesis of "coherence" at center, are "cohesion" and "comprehensiveness." Which one is thesis/antithesis depends on your (stereoarchetypical) pragmatic or philosophical predisposition.
The "tradeoff" (pragmatist-speak for "dialectical," [otherwise they run away screaming]) between efficient&actionable and deliberative&intelligible is proposed as the source of both "logistics" (higher order logic of moving real stuff and turning it into things) and the process of "dialectics." The former prevents 'critical mass' of local optima through decompression of scale, and the latter prevents the escape velocity of aesthetic speculation by compressing paradigmatic commitments toward pairwise choice of actionable framings.
At the outter edge ("the affordance horizon") are the "near enemies" of cohesion and comprehensiveness. "Isolation" creates apparent cohesion, but is really just pseudo-comprehension masquerading as a real boundary. "Conflation" creates apparent comprehensiveness, but is really just pseudo-cohesion masquerading as "a thing" when it's stuff, or as stuff when it's things. The idea of the affordance horizon is that, given human boundedness, cohesion is always partly afforded on isolation, and comprehension always partly on conflation. However, as the active ingredients lean more toward isolation and conflation, you are cooking more with adherence, the near enemy of coherence.
Anyway, sorry for the length. It's much shorter in my head, and the visual has all of 9 words.
Thanks! I agree about price. I was going for a Kantian price/dignity contrast, but I'm not sure it came across.
Interesting point about assembly lines. Maybe analytic philosophy is an assembly line in reverse -- a disassembly line, if you will?
Hammock's Razor vs, Hume's Spork -- I love it!
I think I see where you're going with the "dialectical" but I'm not sure I'm getting all the nuance -- I think I'd need to see a lengthier treatment.
idk, this initial distinction seems dubious. why think that existence is fundamentally distinct 'stuff' and 'things'?
Well, there can be no things, one thing (stuff), or many things. But maybe you're picking up on the fluidity of it all -- how every thing is also stuff in the same way that every part is also its own whole.
if existence is this continuous stuff, flux, blobject, gunk... this One stuff, it is still somehow; it has distinguishable states, the way it is, is patterned, non-homogeneous. i just don't see the problem with parts & wholes. nothing is a whole, nothing is a part, if stuff is gunky. there's just difference, dishomogeneity, patterns, but all the same one existent.