Intellectual life notes
My ancient attempts to declare who I was never felt right, so this is a
different approach: noting what I consider the interesting points in my life
(at least those I can honorably reveal) and thus allowing any who care to
discover some idea of who I am and what shapes me. The very attempt reveals
one thing: my preference for evolution and growth over construction and
design, at least in the realm of complex objects. Spontaneous order within
fixed rules rather than planned organization.
3 May 1998
Began playing Go again, and have won twice. People say it is harder than
chess; I think that may be more true for computers than for humans. Generally
I play perceptually, looking at the board and making what feels like the right
move, and thinking carefully only in close combat. But I also play faster
than any of the local players. I also have the joy of winning while playing
'reasonably': outlining territory and defending it, and ending with a bit more
than half the territory, unless a very agressive attack has forced me into
the enemy realm.
Playing more agressively, as I did just now, lost, although not by much.
Constant Reader, by Dorothy Parker. I've known of Parker for
years as a source of nasty quotes; reading her book reviews was good fun. The
end of her take on The House on Pooh Corner had me laughing for
minutes.
Emma by Jane Austen. I'd read this before seeing "Clueless",
and thus could feel superior to those who had not read the book. Reading it
after the movie gave me a different experience. I tend to give Austen's
heroines the voice I conjured up for Elizabeth Bennet, unless wholly
inappropriate (q.v. Fanny Price). Emma has had that voice, but this time she
had an echo of Cher. "Frank Churchill will be such a sensation!"
Law and Economics, by Cooter and Ulen. I've been interested in
law and economics for a while -- largely an offshoot of my interest in
economics, and then in the evolutionary nature of the common law. A friend
told me he wanted to study the philosophical relationship between law and
economics, and I jibed at him, saying I wanted to study something practical.
I feel like an ignorant cad now; the philosophy in this book has been both
interesting and practical, and inseparable from a proper study of the
material.
One point they made was the distinction between the "reasonable man" of
the law and the "rational man" of economics. Reasonableness generally assumes
rationality, which can be described simply as the pursuit of consistent ends
through efficient means, but economists have been unable to derive
reasonableness directly from rationality; the reasonable man depends upon
social norms. I suppose this is what is meant by the failure of reductionism.
New Studies in philosophy, politics, economics and the history of
ideas, by Friedrich Hayek. I now have the idea that modern libertarians
are reactionary classical liberals, which is a disturbing thought. I'm also
calling myself a classical liberal, for some odd reason. Reading In
Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell at the same time was odd, what
with Russell writing in advocacy of central planning at the same time Hayek
says economists were demolishing the theoretical basis for it.