[Wittrs] the meaning of "we" (perspectives)

[kirby urner]

>> = 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
>> authenticity.
>
> 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
his sleevies.

"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.

http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2289577&tstart=0

Kirby

posting from
Linus Pauling House
Hawthorne Blvd.
Portland, Oregon