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

System fell over ... time for bed, said ... THUD

G'nite!

Ok, I'm the slowest reader out of everyone I know and with whom I've had occassion to read the same text.

Zebedee?

G'night!

I’m afraid you are deposed, utterly deposed.

Loping along at your own pace behind the sprinters, I’ve no doubt you took Becher’s Brook in your stride, and may even have wondered why there were mishaps. Not so in my case: I confronted it with spirit but then baulked just in time. Brave enough to try I again … I refused: further ‘encouragement’ and I’d have been ill-mannered enough to buck and unseat rider.

Propositional logic, I think they call it. I’ve continued to the next section to see if there’s any reference to heads in gas ovens (there isn’t)

This is all bluster, you've no evidence that you're a slower reader then me, have you?

Propositional logic? Mmm lovely vanilla. Is this in Blackburn?

"This is all bluster … "

Erm, all bluster but on whose part?

All I’ve done is cite my current difficulty, which has all but ground me to a halt, probably temporarily, possibly (but unlikely) permanently.

As it’s you who has always claimed to be such a slow reader – and, I hasten to add, there’s nothing wrong with that as I explained to you some time back – and you now seem to feel threatened by a loss of status, you show me your evidence as to why slow but steady reading makes /less/ progress than having to repeatedly read the same section over and over again.

“ … you've no evidence…, have you?”

Where’s yours, then?

“ … you're a slower reader then me … ”

Oh dear, a parapraxial indication of an IfThen fixation … where’s me knittin’?

“Propositional logic? Mmm lovely vanilla.”

This path leads to victory. It’ll be a hollow one because you could prove black is white using that method, and I’d not know the difference.

“Is this in Blackburn?”

Soz, I know he told me but as I can’t tell the difference between Blackburn and Burnley, I can’t remember what he told me when he told me (and you were there).

(Nothing to be afraid of (page 200))

"Erm, all bluster but on whose part?"

Yours, since I haven't claimed to be the slower reader, just the slowest out of all those with whom I've read the same text. That's empirical is that.

I'm not at all threatened by you being slower than me, I just think it's unlikely based on the evidence I have.

"All I’ve done is cite my current difficulty, which has all but ground me to a halt, probably temporarily, possibly (but unlikely) permanently."
Well you could cure that by just reading on a chair rather than whilst showjumping.

No, seriously, what difficulty? Propositional logic? If it's the same book then you've zinged through 'the self' and 'god'...but if you're stuck on anything just ask, I have an unfair head start.

I should say I only meant reread a couple of pages of Law to see if the style thing still strikes you in the same way, and by 'reading speed' I just mean how long it takes to read if you keep going at your cruising speed.

I just had a look at that section, I can see why it is difficult if you haven't done propositional or predicate logic before.

Just as I was thinking of saying that I was now floundering with other sections of the same chapter, last night, the phone rang ... and I spent an hour nattering to glitz instead (from her: ~~~).

What I'd have meant is that even stuff where I'd previously grasped the principle - such as Bayes - without having a working knowledge, was now confusing. Wisely imo, Law didn't include this stuff in his book.

Confronted with only the last section to go, I thought 'I just can't bear it!' and went to sleep ... woke up about an hour ago, so I must have been very tired indeed (and I hadn't moved, the bookmark was still resting on my midriff).

Ah, well if there's anything I can help with in that chapter, let me know.

On reflection, I've decided to set aside what is not achievable at the present time - I can go back to it later, and maybe by some other means.

Not in that chapter but the previous one, he refers on page 190 to " ... Hume's inert proposition" and I ended up wondering which one that was ... is it what Hume's 'subtle point' quoted on page 181 (all religions can't be right, so they're all ill-founded as the alleged miracles of each go on to discredit the miracles of the other religions (which isn't necessarily true imo)), or something else ... ?

BTW I was in agreement with what Coleridge said, also on p190

G'nite!

Nope, scrap that ... it can't be that, it doesn't make sense. I'll google tomorrow, and see if I can understand what he's referring to ...

G'nite!



Ah ha, the ontological and cosmological propositions are inert, apparently

Deffo, g'nite!

Ok I'll look into it too.

G'night!

"Ah ha, the ontological and cosmological propositions are inert, apparently"
Really? How so?

I thought what was being referenced was most likely the paragraph at the bottom of p172.

"I thought what was being referenced ... "

Until I read p171-2 again, I had no recollection of 'inert' having been used before. Well done, you, for having had the patience and application to find it ... and thank you, as I suspect the second mention was used specifically in this instance.

"Really? How so?"

I did wonder whether the phrase had a precise meaning which I hadn't previously encountered, so I googled 'Hume's inert proposition' and the first search result took me to this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tJ6HEl4_GCIC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=hume%27s+inert+proposition&source=bl&ots=qgtQqAVb5x&sig=h79xm7e1XdbIvd8Cbl0k_sAHOOY&hl=en&ei=rYRpTPzIM8WOjAfU1unUBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hume%27s%20inert%20proposition&f=false

Even though both were published in 1999, I'll still go with the earlier reference you located.

(kk wags tail apologetically and dejectedly, crawls back into kennel, shows no interest in favourite bone, etc ect)

Interesting link. It even has the same Wittgenstein quote. Still you found it without my help so you were back on the right track anyway!

clink

I suppose, all in all, the best thing may be for me to read all the Hume he quotes, whilst skipping the commentary (assuming it is all quoted sequentially), because he thinks that Hume is saying all that really needs to be said.

Anyhoo, I don't think it was kind of him to drop in the 'inert' comment unless he was hoping to persuade the reader of the value of rereading the chapter

Snuck in while the busy server was looking the other way ...

G'nite!

I have read 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' and liked it, but I'm not sure reading all the referenced Hume is the right way to go. I think he might have lapsed into taking his philosophical jargon for granted when he wrote 'inert proposition' but I don't think the sense of the argument is affected too much by missing the reference.

G'night!

You're probably right, I might just as well gone along with not worrying about it until, one day, I realised I knew just what he was referring to.

Apart from which, the point at which one might assert that Hume's proposition is inert, is not fixed. After all, that other book felt this could be said as soon as the ontological and cosmological arguments had been made ... and Blackburn did contribute the opening essay to that volume

So I'm cruising on, having found a gap to slip through in Becher's Brook

Yay, only a few furlongs to go!