<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Basis #2 Statements about statements about society</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.xxory.com/2009/10/23/basis-2-statements-about-statements-about-society/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.xxory.com/2009/10/23/basis-2-statements-about-statements-about-society/</link>
	<description>Pronounced &#039;Sorry&#039; &#62;&#62; &#039;So many ideas and so little lifetime&#039; please Vote X or ask Y</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 23:42:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.xxory.com/2009/10/23/basis-2-statements-about-statements-about-society/comment-page-1/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:23:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xxory.com/?p=19#comment-5</guid>
		<description>Could this be a feature of all social facts?  I&#039;m thinking of some examples of John Searle&#039;s (you may know the Chinese Box Room thought experiment) from his &#039;The Construction of Social Reality&#039;.  Facts like &#039;X+Y are married&#039;, &#039;These discs are legal tender&#039; or &#039;Obama is President&#039; require a capacity for shared meanings.  Might you be unable to know these facts as facts without knowing that others are able (at least in principle) to know them as well?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Could this be a feature of all social facts?  I&#8217;m thinking of some examples of John Searle&#8217;s (you may know the Chinese Box Room thought experiment) from his &#8216;The Construction of Social Reality&#8217;.  Facts like &#8216;X+Y are married&#8217;, &#8216;These discs are legal tender&#8217; or &#8216;Obama is President&#8217; require a capacity for shared meanings.  Might you be unable to know these facts as facts without knowing that others are able (at least in principle) to know them as well?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Max Kanat-Alexander</title>
		<link>http://www.xxory.com/2009/10/23/basis-2-statements-about-statements-about-society/comment-page-1/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Max Kanat-Alexander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:02:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xxory.com/?p=19#comment-3</guid>
		<description>So, this is an interesting point, but is it more about the communication of the idea or the idea itself? Because if we actually just used different sets of words (instead of putting &quot;not&quot; in front of words or repeating the same word) then the communication would be easier.

Then, if the idea itself is too complex, then I&#039;d say that&#039;s a problem in and of itself--that the basic solution would be to find a simpler idea that underlies it and can be understood and communicated more easily.

-Max</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, this is an interesting point, but is it more about the communication of the idea or the idea itself? Because if we actually just used different sets of words (instead of putting &#8220;not&#8221; in front of words or repeating the same word) then the communication would be easier.</p>
<p>Then, if the idea itself is too complex, then I&#8217;d say that&#8217;s a problem in and of itself&#8211;that the basic solution would be to find a simpler idea that underlies it and can be understood and communicated more easily.</p>
<p>-Max</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

