I'm turning off anonymous comments, starting now, for the trip to New York.The kids defacing my blog don't bother me too much, but I'd prefer being ableto clean it up easily while they're doing it, and they're also doing otherthings that are drawing a lot of new eyeballs to my blog, which is actually insome ways good (although it needs to be managed). Anyhow, this should be a greatweekend! Opera, concert, and other fun stuff.
I was re-reading my book on the Sokal Hoax, in particular theattack on postmodernist philosophy and "value neutrality", and got to thinkingabout the value-neutrality posited by the postmodernist camp, and its classiccriticism. It is, at risk of oversimplification, stated in the book thatpostmodernist philosophy is unable to advocate its views as being better,because in order to do so, it must be able to make value judgements, which isexactly what it says are unreliable. I'm not certain if this is valid -- itcertainly rules out the *advocacy based on pure principle* that such groupscan do, but it does not rule out the defense -- saying "my position is just asvalid" has little weight when trying to convince someone else to give up theirperspective, but it does have significant weight when attacked. Is this a fairaccessment? I need to think about it, and not being in their camp, I riskmisapplying their ideas. Such is life though.