h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Personally, I'd add a bit to the paragraph on fate/fatalism to indicate that the entry will focus on determinism rather than fatalism.

You've taken out the bit about Job! What gives? I guess the 'Divine Logic' bit covers that, though.

If you're going to have a silly idea in quitting smoking, couldn't you make it sillier than that?

I don't suppose Tolstoy was nice enough to include chapters so you don't have to leave it at 'the bit towards the end'?

You could move some of the footnotes into the text to have it flow a little better. #10 and #11, for example.

In your summary, I'd have it more as:


Social Level - Free Will can exist, but whether the individual exercises it depends partly on social circumstances, and partly on the individual's willpower.
(etc)


With the name of each level in Bold, and without the paragraph breaks between each bullet point. But that's a stylistic thing.

Another style point is the way you do a lot of first person plural in the entry. I'm guilty of the same, no doubt. While it's fine, I guess, there are a few places where it seems that it's not needed and you could do without it. It feels a bit 'Mathsy', and rather dodging the restriction on first-person in some cases. EG:
"Before performing this vivisection, it will be good to clarify what we mean by 'levels of analysis'" -> "Before performing this vivisection, it will be good to clarify what IS MEANT by 'levels of analysis'"

Using "we" to mean "all of mankind" is fine, though.

There are still a few bits which are slightly un-necessary, to my mind. Totally opinion this, though, and probably wrong. For EG:
"Before leaping into the fray, let us look a little more closely..." -> "Let's look a little more closely..."
"Basically, it is the belief that things that happen in the world are..." -> "This is the belief that events are..."
"Before performing this vivisection, it will be good to clarify what we mean by 'levels of analysis'." -> nothing
"It should be clear from the above that life can be greatly simplified..." -> "Life can be greatly simplified..."

Oh, here's your pinch of salt...
-Martin

>>Personally, I'd add a bit to the paragraph on fate/fatalism to indicate that the entry will focus on determinism rather than fatalism.<<

Sounds fair. What's another sentence, more or less?



>>You've taken out the bit about Job! What gives? I guess the 'Divine Logic' bit covers that, though.<<

That section was long! Divine Logic and Divine Justice together cover it, IMHO.



>>If you're going to have a silly idea in quitting smoking, couldn't you make it sillier than that?<<

I'll work on that.



>>I don't suppose Tolstoy was nice enough to include chapters so you don't have to leave it at 'the bit towards the end'?<<

He may have been. It's been a couple of years since I read it, and I was stoned, and dealing with a messy relationship. I don't have a copy handy, but I'll research. (What the hell do I look like, a researcher?!?)



>>You could move some of the footnotes into the text to have it flow a little better. #10 and #11, for example.<<

I'll have a look.



>>In your summary, I'd have it more as:

Social Level - Free Will can exist, but whether the individual exercises it depends partly on social circumstances, and partly on the individual's willpower.
(etc)

With the name of each level in Bold, and without the paragraph breaks between each bullet point. But that's a stylistic thing.<<

Speaking as a Sub, I can assure you that ... is insisted upon for list items that are longer than mere noun phrases. I agree about the bold, though.



>>Another style point is the way you do a lot of first person plural in the entry. I'm guilty of the same, no doubt. While it's fine, I guess, there are a few places where it seems that it's not needed and you could do without it. It feels a bit 'Mathsy', and rather dodging the restriction on first-person in some cases. EG:
"Before performing this vivisection, it will be good to clarify what we mean by 'levels of analysis'" -> "Before performing this vivisection, it will be good to clarify what IS MEANT by 'levels of analysis'"<<

That one's a good suggestion.



>>Using "we" to mean "all of mankind" is fine, though.<<

I especially like it in the bit about quitting smoking. "...someone has a gun to our head...", only sillier, right?



>>There are still a few bits which are slightly un-necessary, to my mind. Totally opinion this, though, and probably wrong. For EG:
"Before leaping into the fray, let us look a little more closely..." -> "Let's look a little more closely..."
"Basically, it is the belief that things that happen in the world are..." -> "This is the belief that events are..."
"Before performing this vivisection, it will be good to clarify what we mean by 'levels of analysis'." -> nothing
"It should be clear from the above that life can be greatly simplified..." -> "Life can be greatly simplified..."<<

Like you said, probably wrong. I'll consider these.


, thanks

I incorporated most of those suggestions. I still need to find Tolstoy's chapter numbers, and....

>>"Before performing this vivisection, it will be good to clarify what we mean by 'levels of analysis'." -> nothing<<

Without that, there's no transition at all. I rephrased it, though.

>>"It should be clear from the above that life can be greatly simplified..." -> "Life can be greatly simplified..."<<

This is actually an attempt at irony, which I don't think would work as well with the shorter phrasing. Does the joke totally fall flat? If so, I'll just take it out.

Oh - I missed the irony - but I'm sure other people would get it. Don't take it out on my say-so.

-M

Epigraph changed to the Diderot quotation.

I still need to get Tolstoy's chapter number, and I think that's all.

Should the Social or Psychological Level link to A721162 ? (structures in our lives) It does illustrate the PoV that we have little or no free will at these levels.

-myre

Oh, is that Edited now? Yeah, I guess so. Sure, it's worth a link. ZSF () pointed it out a ways up the backlog, but I wasn't sure what to do with it then. I'll find a place to link from right away.

Of course, considering the quality and speed of my current net connction, "right away" means "by August".


anyway

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

I guess Tolstoy will go un-numbered then - I'm sure he won't mind
Congrats, etc...

-Lucinda

, and much thanks to the friendly scout who picked it!

I wonder whether this will replace the old one, or go in alongside it...

to the Peer Reviewers, too. You cats really helped whip this one into shape!

A subject like this was bound to be the subject of a lot of debate. I could add more - about the Kabbalistic viewpoint, for instance. But I won't.

Congratulations on putting this together, GTB.

OK... it's been subedited (although I might put Tolstoy's chapter numbers in if I remember ) and is at A776117.

Any comments before I send it back to the Towers..?



Danny B.

Just one (and it's not something that was changed from the original)

"Psychological Level: Free will exists for those who are able to exercise it and to overcome social circumstances, historical forces and other factors."

surely it'd be more accurate to say "Free will exists for those who are able to exercise it and to overcome their emotions and base desires"?

Looks good, Danny; thanks!

I spotted two typos.

In the Theological section:
"Some more modern thinkers would say that there really isn't a problem, because God is either something far more subtle and interesting than he's [should be capitalized] made out to be in this argument, or doesn't exist at all."

In the Physical section:
"What this other ingredient might be is not certain - not knowing about a force than [that] can make human decisions independent of physical causation doesn't mean that there is no such force, but it makes it very difficult to talk about."

Otherwise, everything looks fine. The footnotes that you worked into the text seem good there. On Lucinda's point, I'm willing to go with that suggestion if you are. It's more appropriate, considering the discussion from the Psychological section.

Thanks again; nice subbin'!



GTB

Glad you approve

I've changed the typos added Lucinda's bit and also noted that Tolstoy's rant is in the 'second epilogue'

If there's nothing else, I'll give it a final once-over and send it back.