Currently reading, well sampling, lots of books. I just finished both books in Ben Tripp's Rise Again duology, for the second time (this time via audiobook). Now I'm trying to focus a bit on The Philosophy of Science: Key Concepts by Steven French. A couple of chapters in, I find it's an interesting blend of academic resources and what you might think of as conversational blog writing. He's quoted Feyerabend already so I'm pretty sure it's legit.
Watched all of each. Pretty good afternoon of football. In light of Brady's struggles hitting targets, I'm not sure Manning was entirely on the hook for the misses. Still, I'm guessing not being able to plant completely is something he still hasn't adjusted to. There were plenty of excellent completions, though, e.g., the first TD to Daniels. I'm hoping the SB is a good game, and I know Kubiak and Manning and the rest of the Broncos team know what to look for, what to prepare for. It'll be pretty impressive to see Carolina struggle, given how much fun they're having and especially how much fun they had beating the Cardinals. I don't know that Palmer's passing index finger wasn't perhaps more problematic than Peyton's foot, though, and so made Carolina look even tougher when the Cardinals had to go all-in on a passing strategy.
I'm impressed by the play in the Denver/Steelers game. I think it was a pretty even battle, and feel it was a success for my team who made it pretty far on 4th- and 5th-string running backs (who were very solid) and without Antonio Brown. It showed they have nice depth. Plus the Steelers defense defended the pass pretty well. I would've liked a win but I feel everything was earned on merit so am not really disappointed.
Confirmed: Steelers fan 4 LIFE OMG LOL FBI! But yeah, some really critical drops on the part of the Denver receiving core. I'll take it but it doesn't bode well for the Steelers defense if they're getting help from the wind and some dropsies. Not going to happen in NE.
Great drive to the end of Seattle/Carolina. Both teams are excellent. I wanted each to win so any result would've been bittersweet, but I'll admit I have a soft spot for Russell Wilson. Watching Pittsburgh/Denver and am pleasantly surprised at how competitive it is. Of course Ben's sacked for the second time just as I type this.
Resolutions, like everything else, are pointless unless they're not. Whatever model of motivation or activity works for you works for you. I do find it interesting that we so preoccupy ourselves with the means and ideals of productivity, as if producing some material good in the world is a universal necessity. I don't even know how to approach that, though, in any systematic way. That said, I don't do resolutions tied to a particular date but I am in need of developing a practice of some sort, a daily ritual structure to hang my obligations on. Otherwise, I list about and fuss and contemplate how much I don't want to be doing whatever it is I'm obliged, typically by my own choice, to do. But these rituals feel as arbitrary as they are so it's a challenge to actually commit to following them. In other words, I don't like being bossed around, least by me.
That was a day of statistically similar games that couldn't have been more different. I only watched the latter half of the fourth quarter of the Arizone/Green Bay game, but having tracked the NE/KC game via the ESPN app, it seems that KC was never really in their game. Oh my, Mr. Fitzgerald. Today's games? I think Carolina's gonna roll, honestly. My impression is that Seattle's O-line is pretty rough and I don't see them getting through with Wilson running around crazy all day. And while I really want the Steelers to win (natch) I think it'll almost require the emergence of new stars. Toussaint and Todman ran fairly well against the Bengals but Denver's had a week to watch film on them. More importantly, no one knows what's up with Ben, which Tomlin might be using strategically. But Manning has, if memory serves, done pretty well against Pittsburgh and the Steelers' pass D is a large reason why they do so well against the run in gross terms: opponents know passing is the path of least resistance.
Do I correctly understand that the attraction noted is to a less-severe (positively or negatively) reaction to a success or failure regarding a particular moral responsibility? I haven't read more than a little bit of Caruso's precis and admit the terminology leaves me a little behind, but I think that's the thrust.
What is particularly attractive about that? That is, assume one has the absolute control, the free will, required for moral responsibility, and an agent (the one him- or herself or some other) is assessing a particular act against the standard of moral responsibility. What is gained by diluting the severity of the response, either the praise or reprobation? Is it merely the dampening effect, the resultant tendency for smaller perturbations of appraisal, or is there something else typically discussed in this domain?
I'm significantly less involved with the NFL this year. No fantasy league, which is a relief. Not watching many games. But I have to say as an auslander I love it when the Steelers come to town, and especially when they show up like they did Sunday. I think I probably prefer this; I'm not sure I'd enjoy being a fan of the home team if I were to live in Pittsburgh.
I'm not sure it's so straightforward. Several of the current era of post-apocalyptic themes rely on the quick end, especially if you include the zombie flavor of apocalypse. I'm listening to The Dog Stars on my commute and while I don't recall if Heller describes the timeline of the fall I gather it was relatively quick. Soft Apocalypse, on the other hand, follows a handful of characters over the--like it says on the tin--slow degrade of human civilization. Danny Boyles' 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later describe a quick fall based on the speed of viral transmission.
Maybe what you're talking about is two strains of cultural zeitgeist that are wrapped in confusingly similar garb. The quick-fall apocalypse that leaves survivors with a quiet earth seems to speak to enthusiasm for some nominally simpler time. I know my particular attraction comes from feeling caged by obligation. Obligation to the state and its bureaucracy. Obligation to nominally future me, to ensure what I do now maximally supports what he will want to do then. Obligation to social tides and eddies, the need for small talk and email etiquette and chatting about the weather. The standard set of obligations modern Western adults sometimes fantasize about escaping, even if, contrarily, we are happy to do all those things with a similar degree of earnestness for people for whom we feel positive connections. E.g., I am happy to engage in small talk with some of my coworkers because I like them in general so it's not very taxing. With others, I feel like a blind man navigating a strange house. This apocalyptical fantasy doesn't want a clean slate, at least in my take; it wants simplicity as an end, not a new beginning. Even if that simplicity is also barbarism, which carries its own brand of catharsis, particularly in the zombie apocalypse in which killing the undead is the simplest moral choice.
Then there is, possibly, another version of the apocalypse of fancy prescribed by sweeping away our troubles and mistakes, personal and societal, and starting over having learned from them. This is nearly the entire conceit of Star Trek: that human race can control weather and invariably all species exist as planet-wide societies rather than as several separate countries with competing resources demands and political systems. It's the homogenizing of the human experience combined with the purging of any of our logistical frustrations. We still want human society in this form, and perhaps we want more of it.
Nevermind that there's no fantasy necessary for the quick apocalypse. People live, today, in settings not terribly unlike that of Fallout or Mad Max, except for the robots and ray pistols of the former. Roving bands of marauders capture, torture, and kill the weak. Lives are lived entirely under the thumb of warlords exploiting hyperlocal economies of slave labor. The poor eat sparely, and not well when they do. This occurred to me one day when I was lost daydreaming about living in Fallout New Vegas' Mojave wasteland, that if I was really that into it I could book a series of planes and boats and vans to various parts of the African continent or parts of Asia or the Australian Outback or maybe even American Appalachia and live out my life in this brutal simplicity. My fantasy was born on my immense privilege. Maybe that's another thing to gain from looking at these themes: an analysis or at least increased sensitivity to how our privileges shape our view.
The Steelers o-line has been the fulcrum of their woes for years. Its quality has degraded consistently since at least the most recent Super Bowl, as suggested by a steady move away from the run to the pass. Big Ben has to scramble more, and after all the hits is less deadly. I thought Jonathan Dyer might take some of the load, to balance the offense, but there's nothing going on there. And Brown is fine but he's not the deep threat--such as he was--that Mike Wallace provided.
When the o-line fails, the defense is over-taxed and it's all downhill.
This reminds me of the days of Mark Malone or Bubby Brister. I hope it doesn't take as long as it did then to turn things around. Maybe the bye week will give them...no, I'm not goin' there.
This deserves a better response when I make the time, but for now, here's the crux: from what state of affairs does our choice cause the present to become? Is the present the collapse of a superposition of alternatives into one phenomenon? If so, does it also hold that our choice not only collapses the superposition to create the present, and the future, but also the past? This seems required if Bob's choice to wear a hat tomorrow makes today's proposition true today.
Welcome aboard, sniper2811. The place has great resources, like the dialogues, which aim to introduce a variety of philosophical language and concepts. I should review them again myself. Arguably the greatest success of TGL is the typical commitment to fully developed, logical arguments. You can get a taste of this in one of davidm's and Timothy's debates on the nature of free will.
I'm still plodding infrequently through Anathem. I took some time to read simpler stuff, like the first two books of the The Hunger Games and Jay Bonansinga's The Walking Dead: Rise of the Governor. The latter makes its deft way through the origin story of TWD's marquee villain thus far. It's humanizing and credibly creepy and tense. I enjoyed both of THG books. For a young-adult popular writer, Suzanne Collins crafts a good story. I know it's derivative, that it owes some specific credit to another book (forget which), and I'm fine with that. I look forward to the third.