The way I always try to resolve this difficulty for myself is thinking in terms of versions which are or are not relatively equivalent for this or that audience instead of virtual and actual but maybe that puts my mind to enough ease to not worry about it so much anymore.
Yes, that’s how Peirce defines virtual: “a ‘virtual x’, where x stands for a common noun, means something which is not an x, but which has, *for whatever purpose may be uppermost*, the virtue of an x, that is, such properties as make it equivalent to an x.”
Certainly, I leave it open in my reaction that the society for each could end up being a society for all and each.
More formally, you could interpret “Property P holds for ‘all and each’” as “PW and for each x and y if y is not a proper part of x then Px”, where W is the universal object. This way you can see ‘all and each’ is a more restrictive statement than ‘all’ or ‘each’.
As an aside, ‘each and every’ would leave the property for non-atomic objects smaller than the universal object open. For instance, as F&G discuss there is an interest in the Designer Economy is “national developmentalists” who want to build an economy which “ return of the patriarchal, single wage-earning household.”. They would be concerned what is good for the atomic individual and the nation might not be good for the patriarchal family.
F&G are still working on this idea and analysis of political coalitions through the Designer Society lens. I’m sure they will have similar considerations in mind!
Very thought-provoking -- the demand can create the supply. This suggests to me, but I'd need to think over it, that the "right" policy configuration is in part of a function of the potentially available technological innovations in the latent space reasonably accessible to the polity; no use in cavemen starting a space race, etc.
Thank you for the response! I’m glad you found it thought provoking. I tried to talk about this issue in the bit about virtuality. What is possible is what is the virtual, that is to say the actual but repurposed/reinterpreted/etc..
I am not confident about tying a possibilities frontier to technical considerations. As Popper strongly argued in Poverty Of Historicism, fundamental technology is a place where expect our predictive ability to be *poor*, because if the shape of the technical shift could already be divined then why hasn’t it already happened? We have actually discussed historical examples of this danger when we discussed Frederick Soddy’s fear of peak coal (link below). There was a phosphorus shortage during The Depression and Soddy coined the doomsayer slogan “No phosphorus, no thought.”.
This of course only tells us what doesn’t work - I don’t know what does!
So, like, “possibility space”? You know this stuff is challenging for me…
The way I always try to resolve this difficulty for myself is thinking in terms of versions which are or are not relatively equivalent for this or that audience instead of virtual and actual but maybe that puts my mind to enough ease to not worry about it so much anymore.
Yes, that’s how Peirce defines virtual: “a ‘virtual x’, where x stands for a common noun, means something which is not an x, but which has, *for whatever purpose may be uppermost*, the virtue of an x, that is, such properties as make it equivalent to an x.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOcXicuRQrg
In the "for each" vs "for all" mereological dichotomy:
Would "each and every" help bridge that gap?
Certainly, I leave it open in my reaction that the society for each could end up being a society for all and each.
More formally, you could interpret “Property P holds for ‘all and each’” as “PW and for each x and y if y is not a proper part of x then Px”, where W is the universal object. This way you can see ‘all and each’ is a more restrictive statement than ‘all’ or ‘each’.
As an aside, ‘each and every’ would leave the property for non-atomic objects smaller than the universal object open. For instance, as F&G discuss there is an interest in the Designer Economy is “national developmentalists” who want to build an economy which “ return of the patriarchal, single wage-earning household.”. They would be concerned what is good for the atomic individual and the nation might not be good for the patriarchal family.
F&G are still working on this idea and analysis of political coalitions through the Designer Society lens. I’m sure they will have similar considerations in mind!
Oh, and thank you for responding!
Very thought-provoking -- the demand can create the supply. This suggests to me, but I'd need to think over it, that the "right" policy configuration is in part of a function of the potentially available technological innovations in the latent space reasonably accessible to the polity; no use in cavemen starting a space race, etc.
Thank you for the response! I’m glad you found it thought provoking. I tried to talk about this issue in the bit about virtuality. What is possible is what is the virtual, that is to say the actual but repurposed/reinterpreted/etc..
I am not confident about tying a possibilities frontier to technical considerations. As Popper strongly argued in Poverty Of Historicism, fundamental technology is a place where expect our predictive ability to be *poor*, because if the shape of the technical shift could already be divined then why hasn’t it already happened? We have actually discussed historical examples of this danger when we discussed Frederick Soddy’s fear of peak coal (link below). There was a phosphorus shortage during The Depression and Soddy coined the doomsayer slogan “No phosphorus, no thought.”.
This of course only tells us what doesn’t work - I don’t know what does!
https://vebaccount.substack.com/p/getting-to-know-kenneth-boulding