Extraordinary Comments

You'll notice that in my post I hardly mention what happened in Charleston. This is because me Charleston is just one violent projection of this problem into the world, one among many, all more or less violent, though some merely symbolically or culturally so. As I said in the post, the obsession with the Confederacy has led to a segregated sense of history and southernness, a segregation enforced in a variety of ways, some of which involve physical violence, some of which merely involve silencing voices or drowning them with signs and symbols of the white southern identity.

I mention this because who I am arguing against are precisely the voices you say we can't hear on that site. You are probably right about that, but since I grew up around and spent my formative years making such arguments, in mostly less well-formed ways, with the sort of people whose ideas wouldn't be welcome at OT (though Bob Cheeks once was, before he wasn't), I wouldn't be averse to them showing up now.

I think Child of Mog is now my favorite of the various options now.

I agree that experimenting with the live production site is generally bad practice, but totally appropriate for what we are doing. I’m still playing with the Commentariat stuff and will get back with my opinions once they are fully formed.

These changes look like they will be fantastic. I already like the ability to go further back. When might we see the lower-left icons?

Now, I could point out that this site is my site. I pay for it. I built it. I maintain it. All of its content appears under my name. There are many sites like it, but this site is mine - so, if you're not interested in what I find interesting, and are instead interested in what I do not find interesting, then you ought to look elsewhere. However, I do find the apparent contradiction in relation to the very concept of "interest" interesting, and I would be happy to investigate it further, time permitting, including by looking up and perhaps re-considering previous remarks on the idea of the non-prejudical or disinterested inquiry and how interesting we do or can or should find it.

I think I still have a copy of I and D in my book boxes, and haven't looked at it in a very long time, so may again. On the face of it, Heidegger puts the matter very well, though I don't think he rises at least in this passage to the challenge of the Neo-Judaic philosophers Cohen, Rosenzweig, Buber, Levinas, each of whom, sharing approximately the same logic, which at least three out of the four insisted was equally an ancient prophetic logic, was able to constitute a concept of the living God neither exclusive of nor excluded by the God of the philosophers. This problem was also central to the Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd debate, with Ghazali on the side of the living God against the causa sui, and Ibn Rushd on the other side, also the Spinozan side, but denying the implications attributed to their position by the faithful and the faithless.