[Wittrs] the meaning of "we" (perspectives)
kirby.urner at gmail.com
Tue Aug 30 22:31:56 CDT 2011
>> = Kirby
> = John Phillip DeMouy
>> One needs a "we" to agree (maybe why monarchs, other supposed
>> potentates, were always falling back on that "royal we" -- it sounds
>> like there's a built in reality check right off the bat, adding
> I suppose. I suspect it is more explicit than that: the "we" represents
> the ruler's claim to speak of behalf of her subjects.
Coming back from some off stage discussions, productive.
I'm persuaded that many of my speculations regarding the
"royal we" have quite a short half-life (high rate of decay).
Safe to say: I do pay a lot of attention to how people use
"we" (especially when casually admitting to war crimes
or what sound to be such -- might soccer mom talk in the
parking lot, like in 'Why We Fight' (a movie)).
>> So is that what they meant by "divine right of kings"? "We needed
>> an invisible army to enforce God's will".
The joke about where did the King keep his armies. In
"Capitalism's invisible army" is a phrase that goes by
on my screen from time to time, given the philosophers
I read (e.g. 'Critical Path' St. Martins Press, a cross
between world history, civil engineering, and an
old peg leg's sea stories -- much of it turned into a
play by playwright D. W. Jacobs).
I lot of people use a "we" as if there's some behind
the scenes army backing them up, just over the hill
maybe. You could see it as a bluff, or maybe there
really is such an army and it's just invisible.
King's have to feel that way sometimes: that their
armies might be illusory, and hence their "we"
(their identity as potent potentates).
There's always a rival to the throne (sometimes
many), powers behind the throne, any number
of palace conspiracies. It's not easy, being King.
> Likely not. "Divine right" claims that the ruler's position owes to a
> heriditary privilege that ultimately traces back to God's will. The
> idea was abandoned among the English with the overthrow of James II in
> the Glorious Revolution of 1688....
Thanks to John for some engaging dialog.
Per recent posts to this archive, I'm involved in
designing a digital math track around some more
physically demanding outdoor and indoor activities.
Not the way people usually think of "doing math".
My appreciation of Wittgenstein as a master "spin
doctor" helps me with this work.
Linus Pauling House
More information about the Wittrs