I think the universe in which it’s possible to refer to a series of posts and discussions involving someone who does not exist – and yet blogs. Which is mind-bloggling. (Another compound “mind-” adjective also occurs to me.)
Great idea Palin fans! Try to make a big deal out of unknown journalists being caught on hot mikes talking up the “dumbness” of her “nothing” speech! That’ll show them Palin-haters fersure!
Pelosi is an idealist working in the practical now.
She genuinely sees her party as a vehicle for good
and her pragmatism is not the least bit cynical.
Wondering in what universe that belongs.
She is the most powerful woman in the country,
Eclipsing Lady Gaga?
the most fearless person on Capitol Hill and on track to be one of the most productive speakers in history.
I don’t know about you, but that kind of knocks me out.
Speaking as a pragmatist working in the ideal, I think you got one thing right. You don’t know about me. Now, I know what you want to say, but we are all confident that even if there were something to know about me, you wouldn’t know that either.
One symptom of “epistemic closure” may be the failure to comprehend what was meant by the term, and to proceed with a self-interestedly reductive definition. Another symptom might be a tendency to approve of such incomprehension upon encountering its manifestations: If epistemic closure means anything at all (an open question), it can’t merely refer to the not terribly astounding phenomenon of people thinking alike within groups formed to bring together like-minded people. What encloses an “episteme” wouldn’t be the mere presence of a sympathetic community, but the shared commitment to modes of thought antithetical to thought, and to reception of the speech that an audience is so accustomed to hearing, it hardly qualifies as speech. It’s the forest in which all trees have already fallen. Not that “closure” is a danger only on the political right, but intellectualism is only often as or more dangerous to thought than anti-intellectualism, and, for a society if not for an individual, for intellectuals who work for a living if not for every thoughtful person, “often” will tend to win out over “almost always.”