tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8708273719674528189.post3856425511808482396..comments2024-03-22T00:20:38.510-07:00Comments on Adam Riggio writes: Soft Serve Determinism: Definitions, Jamming, 31/08/2013Adam Riggiohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14606510835439580828noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8708273719674528189.post-15288442719206804992013-08-31T11:07:00.428-07:002013-08-31T11:07:00.428-07:00Not sure if you are simply pointing to existing us...Not sure if you are simply pointing to existing usage patterns or trying to nail down these concepts for your own purpose. If the latter, a few suggestions:<br /><br />Contingency is often plagued by the confusion over the version that requires an object (contingent on) and the version that doesn't (just contingent). It seems to me that even very educated people only ever think in terms of the former -- things are always "contingent on". My MA thesis was a theory of contingency in modernist aesthetics. At that time, I used exclusively the latter, but now I think it just creates more confusion. If I had my time back, I would just say, "non-necessary" or something like that. Isaiah Berlin's idea of negative liberty vs positive liberty seems to tread the same ground and connects to your notion of free (from determination) vs spontaneously free. <br /><br />Out of curiosity, I wonder if I'm correct in understanding the latent idea here: in everyday terms, the issue is whether things are the way they are because there is so much inertia surrounding existing configurations or whether things are actually quite susceptible to change and alternative arrangements. <br /><br />If that's the case, it seems to me that you can take the strong determinism end of the equation off the table as an unknowable and think more in terms of counterfactuals?Tom Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04942888225118081569noreply@blogger.com