Some correspondence with Rick

I definitely can't publish Rick's correspondence without asking him, but I can publish my own consideration of his philosophy, right?


Maybe not; maybe this is dubious.  But we'll get into the ethical debate later.

I'm pretty sure this entry is too obscure to be really considered as anything but evidence that at least I'm writing every day.



> So I said that the Space shuttle is a clear sign of newness:  we never had
> space shuttles before a certain year (definitely not before 1959) and then
> we did have them.
>
> it applies to building a better mousetrap and it doesn't
>
> you maintain that the "freshness" you define in the paper is even more
> "new" than building a better mousetrap;  in this case building the space
> shuttle
>
> (part of me is disbelieving:  why should we subtract the awe from such an
> awe-inspiring achievement?  Why is the newness of the space shuttle
> inconsequential here?  Why is creating a new space shuttle only building a
> better mousetrap?)
>
> I think that it has to do with the individual's formation of reality as
> experienced in the present
>
> but like Alex I want to reduce it to only that;  and if it is only that
> then why should we write the paper on it?
>
> Maybe more than should be answered in an email.
>
>
>
> -jrg