[hist-analytic] Reciprocity: Rousseau vs. Rawls: Re: Hobbesian

[jlsperanza at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/13/2010 11:50:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Baynesr at comcast.net writes:
Russell doesn't discuss reciprocity  anywhere.

--- Good to hear about that. I find there are a couple of wiki hits for  
'reciprocal'. I was revising its use in mathematics, and did not even check  
with quadratic reciprocals. They _looked_ inhibiting. I have not checked with 
 Langendoen. I was just wondering about 'reciprocal' as applied to 
'relation',  which he (Russell) did consider. Since he was into, well, mathematics, 
he would  have an idea, as I don't, quite quadratic reciprocals are 
so-called. Not  quadratic, I don't care about that. Just 'reciprocal'.
 
Bayne:
 
"The real issue with respect to Russell and standard logic
is the nature  of scope and binding. You might be able to
construct sentences involving  reciprocals related to
"Donkey sentences" (Geach, Evans) such as
If Peter  owns a donkey, he beats it.
or to take an example from Hintikka,
Tom and  Dick admired each other's gift to himself."
 
---- 
 
This one is _so_ charming. And had to come from that clever Finn,  Hintikka!
 
"These may provide useful examples outside the usual
binding theoretical  principles in Chomsky. Treating
quantifiers game theoretically is an option  but outside
the purview of PM style semantics. Sorry I can't go into  this.
I have to spend most all my time on the theory of justice
at this  point. MOre later perhaps."
 
--- Sure.
 
Indeed, you have to get to 'fair'. "Be fair to others". Recall that ONE  
good thing about Rawls is the re-institution of 'fair' as opposed to the 
rather  verbose, 'just'. Greek dike, Roman, iustus. I forget if 'fair' is 
Anglo-Saxon or  Romance.

"Actually, I have a paper no one has seen, one I wrote
years ago.  There I take some constructions we find in
Castenada, involving quasi  indicators, and attempt a
binding theoretical approach to quantifier  placement.
If anyone is interested I might be able to find it. The
problem  is that when I was correcting a number of errors
the house caught on  fire;"
 
Oh my god. Sorry to hear about that.
 
"I set it aside and never went
back. So if you know anyone who's done  work on binding
theory involving quasi-indicators, let me know."
 
Sure, and again, when you think, 'fair', keep this intelligent eye of yours 
 on issues of reciprocity, for us to keep looking for quasi-grammatical  
counter-quasi-examples!
 
Incidentally, for Bette Midler it's


You've got to give a little, take a little,

and let your poor heart break a little.

[i.e. harm is good. JLS]
 
That's the story of, that's the glory of love.

You've got to laugh a  little, cry a little,

[i.e. harm is good. JLS]
 
until the clouds roll by a little.

That's the story of, that's the glory of love.

You've got to win  a little, lose a little,

[i.e. harm is good. JLS]
 
yes, and always have the blues a little.
 
                  [i.e. harm is good]
 
In the Greek myth, there's Love (Eros) and anti-Love, Anti-eros, or  
Anteros. This was represented as a child junior to Eros. They were weighed by  
Eros and Anteros's mother, Venus (or Aphrodite), and there are representations  
in Greek sculpture, reliefs, where obviously, Eros is heavier. The morals 
that  ... well, love is hardly reciprocal.
 
When Gilbert had his statue in Piccadilly Circus, Eros, he was offended  
that people misunderstood it as a statue of Eros. I have his biography, "In 
the  shadow of Eros", and he notes that it is meant to represent, "Anteros", 
rather.  He was offended because at the time, the Circus had become a center 
for urban  prostitution, and the echoes to Shaftesbury were too loud to let 
Gilbert in  peace about that, etc.
 
Cheers,
 
J. L. Speranza