One: Looking for The Phenomenology of Perception on the library's online catalogue, I was surprised to find out that there exist the following phenomenological investigations: Phenomenology of Particles at High Energies, Phenomenology of Quantum Chromodynamics, and the admirably specific Phenomenology of Plasma Engine Cathodes at High Current Rates and Low Pressures. I am, unfortunately, not surprised enough to bother finding out what sort of phenomenology is at play here.
Two: Commitment to rigorous use of quasiquotation when quasiquotation is technically what is called for is admirable in its way, but it is also extremely annoying. Mostly, you know what the author means anyway (I (natch) first encountered quasiquotation in the context of Scheme/LISP macros, where you have to be, for obvious reasons, quite explicit not just about the fact that you're quasiquoting and not quoting, but also about which symbols in particular you want to be unquoted, but most reading experiences aren't like that), and those right-angle brackets induce a different and kind of strange, uh, phenomenological response in the reader. This is perhaps the biggest obstacle facing the reader of The Intentionality of Human Action. Anyway, check out the first sentence of the first definition of the suffix -ling in the OED: 1. In OE., -ling added to ns. forms ns. with the general sense
.a person or thing belonging to or concerned with (what is denoted by the primary n.)[
, for real, they don't close the quotation]
"Cannot be arsed" is not an American idiom. Thus, it is convenient you can't use it to evade reading *How the Laws of Physics Lie*.
Posted by: Schmidt | July 15, 2009 at 10:03 AM