This is Jon Cogburn's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Jon Cogburn's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Jon Cogburn
Interests: some
Recent Activity
If you write an academic paper on this (and you should!), the phone calls Hodge preserved will be helpful. Two great ones: The call with the Saint John's Parish Clerk, which is a good sample of him patiently explaining to the Clerk why she should not follow the 25 days strategy (you can hear the clerk move a little bit in the phone call)- West Carroll Parish's (pop. 11,000) Robyn Creech deciding on the phone that she'll begin issuing them (the back-story with the Clerk of Courts Association not telling Hodge who came up with the wait 25 days strategy is pretty interesting too)-
And now marriage licenses issued in Baton Rouge! -
Donald's a treasure. Some of my favorites: -------------- St. John Clerk: "we are waiting on the clerks association." "You don't need to. You have constitutional authority like everyone else issuing them. You got bad legal advice. Call up the other clerks and ask them why they are standing on the right side of history." -------------- Red River Parish: "this is news to me. You mean other parishes are issuing them? " "yes, that's what is happening." -------------- Jackson (Jonesboro-Hodge, my people): "we are waiting on final word. Sir, just a moment. Hold on" (she is clutching pearls and unaware of the reversal by the Clerks Association as I read to her the list of parishes surrounding her issuing them). -------------- Webster Parish, after a day of resistance: "WE WILL BEGIN ISSUING THEM TOMORROW MORNING." Plaquemines: "we will have our clerk call you. Why are you calling? " "Because I want to know which clerks are following the law and which are not." --------------
Femi, This is a fantastic comment with tons to think about. I'm doing a separate post to begin addressing some of it. Jon
Hey, it's great to hear from you. The basic procedure is that each of us that are composing it opens a separate draft post and during the week puts in links to stories that seem interesting. Maybe there is collective wisdom in our internet habits? Different people tend to contribute different things. Mona Rocha does most of the gender stuff (overlapping with LGBT). James Rocha does most of the anarchism, animal, sports, and race stuff as well as a non-trivial portion of the science/technology stuff. John Fletcher does most of the religious stuff. BP Morton does most of the LGBT stuff (overlapping with gender). Debbie Goldgaber does most of the interesting stuff at (or that should be at) the intersection of analytic and continental philosophy. Duncan Richter and I are probably the two who specialize the least, though everyone is encouraged to do idiosyncratic links and comments. All of the philpercs authors can contribute, but just the seven of us have so far, and some of the cast is rotating. Anyhow at noon on Friday I go in and cut and paste out of everyone's stuff for that week to make the linkorama. I also double-check some of the time sensitive stuff ("This week's x. . .") and add any still needed text and videos. It takes around five or six hours on Friday afternoon and night. I've probably put in two hours spread out over the previous week of putting my own links into the master document. I don't know how long it takes the other people for their links. I'd guess anywhere from thirty minutes to three hours. Thusfar, I've picked all the introductory comments and closing poems, but this will surely change as we continue. I hope that covers what you were interested in. Note that I avoided (until now) any gratuitous closing-scene-in-the-Wizard-of-Oz references.
Oops! Fixed it. I'm surprised that I messed up "Sara" instead of "Uckelman." I seem to have this bizarre and highly modular inability to consistently spell Nomy Arpaly's name as well. I think/hope it's getting better though; the reasons for which I find myself spelling both of your names are really cool.
By Phil Percs (with Jon Cogburn, John Fletcher, James Rocha, and Mona Rocha) Navin R. Johnson: Well I'm gonna to go then! And I don't need any of this. I don't need this stuff, and I don't need *you*. I don't need anything. Except this. [picks up an ashtray] Navin... Continue reading
Posted 4 days ago at Philosophical Percolations
Have to run to do stuff with the kids now, but I just wanted to thank you for sharing. I'll think some more and hopefully have a sensible response soon!
Shoot. I meant to also thank you for the helpful and thought provoking comments.
I don't mean to be speaking about all paleo-conservatives, but the human tendency to downplay differences among perceived opponents is particularly manifest when paleo-conservatives talk about feminism. Whenever I read a contemporary paleo-conservative talking about the sexual revolution or pornography, I'm reading footnotes to things that have already been said by feminist thinkers. Feminist scholarship is not a monolithic force but rather an area of research where, like any interesting area of scholarship, people hash out disagreements. Paleos would do much better in all sorts of ways by respectfully interacting with the participants of the debates. As far as gender apartheid, I should note that I think the *only* even nearly plausible argument against gay marriage is the paleo one following from my four premises above and building on the unintended consequences of the pill and making divorce easier. One person's modus ponens is another's modus tollens though. In the Presbyterian tradition we are constrained to read the scripture in terms of the "rule of love." If you are getting something non-loving out of this you are reading it wrong. Denying whole classes of people civil rights (whether ethnic minorities, women, or gay and trans people) does not follow the rule of love. The paleo is right that there are tragic tradeoffs for everything, but a Christian paleo still has to make room for the radical message of Jesus. Moreover, the empirical and philosophical cases wrt to gay and trans issues just completely fail if you examine all of the evidence and arguments with epistemic dispassion and moral seriousness informed by the rule of love. The weirdest thing about gay marriage is that being for it is ultimately conservative (and there is a tradition of left opposition to gay marriage rooted in left opposition to marriage). The gay couples in my church teach me a lot about how to apply Christian virtues such as fidelity, service, and love to my marriage. I'm sorry, but after a lot of reading and prayer about this, I can't help but to think that if the paleos were ultimately serious about this, there would be a lot more Andrew Sullivans and Matthew Vines.
One of the occupational hazards of being a fiction writer is falling in love with your characters. Yes, I know they are not real people, but I really do find myself thinking, when the kids are at school and my husband is at work, "Yes, now I get to spend... Continue reading
Posted 6 days ago at Emily's Pretty Cool Blog
I'm enjoying the embedded video so much that it's very hard to think about Fine's piece.
Cool, thanks. That's really helpful and interesting.
This is interesting to me in part because what I hear you describing is almost exactly what Heidegger means by "world." I wonder if Weininger influenced Heidegger (he actually influenced Wittgenstein). Heidegger is generally terrible about citing his influences (especially Schopenhauer) that there might not be any direct textual evidence, but there might be some biographical evidence somewhere.
Wow. So much great stuff here; I loved this post. These may be dumb questions, or if not dumb they may be occasions for other posts, but: (1) Do you see any connections between personalism and either panpsychism and pantheism? (2) Does personalism possibly have a problem explaining the fact that moral facts such as the wrongness of spontaneous cruelty are in some sense necessary? I find myself attracted to Scheler through your reading, and am trying to connect up what your saying with other places of dialectical space where I'm a little more comfortable moving around.
By Paul J. Ennis (1) Bleak theory is about human fallibility. (2) It exists as a theory about existing in an age when contemporary neuroscience is allowing us to see ourselves in the third person. (3) The objectification of ourselves eliminates the false cut of ourselves from nature whether we... Continue reading
Posted 7 days ago at Philosophical Percolations
It's interesting that he uses a very similar arpeggio at the beginning of Watching the Wheels. I think it shows the song isn't just about his five year break from the recording industry but also about stepping back from being any kind of movement leader too. Of course he was also coked off his gourd and making by far the worse music of his life (the five or so albums after Imagine and before Double Fantasy) when he felt most comfortable embracing his inner political fatuousness. I still like the song Imagine though, as long as it's paired with Watching the Wheels (and the self-lacerating Mother and Working Class Hero without the last line, for that matter).
Agree with what you say 100%. The American Conservative does sometimes present and link to articles that make these same points.
By Jon Cogburn The discussion under a recent post by John Fletcher hit home for me in a possibly idiosyncratic way. One of the things that really, really irritated some of my friends at my old group blog was the fact that sometimes I linked to paleo-conservative websites such as... Continue reading
Posted 7 days ago at Philosophical Percolations
Oops. You're absolutely right. Adding a note above.
By Jon Cogburn This is, as far as I know, the most recent formulation of George Dickie's institutional theory of art: An artist is a person who participates with understanding in the making of a work of art.[i] A work of art is an artifact of a kind created to... Continue reading
Posted Jun 22, 2015 at Philosophical Percolations
I'm sorry, but do you really believe that if we just responded to art in the manner that Aristotle enjoins us that *any* of this would be one whit better? Am I misunderstanding you here? I *think* I understand the conception of our emotional systems as being digestive-like enough to need periodic metaphorical purging via *fictional* depictions of human awfulness. But isn't catharsis a *bad* thing when we're talking about how to respond to actual tragedies? And isn't the inevitable decent into fatuousness exactly what Adorno worried about when he made the quip about poetry and the Holocaust? Please have the last word and I apologize to the extent that being upset about this is making me be insulting or rude. I have nothing to say about this other than to agree with what Femi wrote a few days ago.
By Phil Percs (with Jon Cogburn, John Fletcher, Debbie Goldgaber, BP Morton, Duncan Richter, James Rocha, and Mona Rocha) What if something were to happen? What if something suddenly started throbbing? Then they would notice it was there and they'd think their hearts were going to burst. Then what good... Continue reading
Posted Jun 20, 2015 at Philosophical Percolations
by James Rocha This post is not about Rachel Dolezal. It may be occasioned by certain charges leveled against her. Specifically, there are people who either allege or speculate that Dolezal made up false racist attacks against her. Slate took a good look at those allegations and incidents, here. I... Continue reading
Posted Jun 18, 2015 at Philosophical Percolations
My thought about powersets might be daft. . Take the set of all *logically* possible worlds (mod Etchemendy type worries). Then a set of metaphysically possible worlds will be a member of the powerset of the logically possible worlds, or a subset of the set of logically possible worlds. Normal Lewisian semantics work here by saying that P is possible at world a if P is possible in the set of metaphysically possible worlds in which a is a member (those worlds accessible from a). Lets call a subset of logically possible worlds a modal universe. It seems to me that the modal realist can accommodate advanced modal claims by using different relevant modal universes in a similar way that Leibniz/Lewis uses different possible worlds inside a modal universe. To say that the totality of metaphysically possible worlds might have been different is to say that there exists a relevant modal universe accessible from the set of metaphysically possible worlds relative to a that makes the advanced model. And one can make the corresponding extraordinary necessity claim about the entire set of relevant modal universes. [Remember the set of *relevant* modal universes will be a proper subset of the powerset of modal universes]. So we get truths that are necessary when construed as normal modal truths yet contingent when construed as extraordinary or advanced modal truths, because the move to advanced modal truths ends up moving us to the possible world multiverse (the releveant subset of the powerset of logically possible worlds) and accessibility relations between those entities. In the big book, Lewis makes a lot of noise about how context selects various subsets of possible worlds, and I suspect that Yagasawa is on to this to do something similar to what I'm suggesting, but I just haven't had time to follow it up yet. I think there's still maybe a somewhat paradoxical way around your concern earlier with the empty set playing a role in the contingency of modal realism itself, since the empty set is a member of the powerset of logically possible worlds, but getting it to work might end up involving the powerset of the powerset of the logically possible worlds. And I'm not sure that the original idea isn't half baked enough for it to be worthwhile thinking about that yet. As far as "merely epistemic" I would hope that the modal realist would want to ultimately model epistemic possibility with genuinely existing possible worlds as well, though of course that ends up bringing in counter-possibles pretty quickly.