Re: Broderick's Tetrahedral Model (was RE: *Why* People Won't Discuss Differences Objectively)

From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Sun Sep 22 2002 - 09:11:00 MDT


At 09:52 PM 9/21/02 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

>Why
>would one expect four aspects?

One wouldn't, damn it. I could have said: `Here is a number of apparently
orthogonal, antithetical ideological postures, but perhaps in reality they
represent different facets or moments or levels of abstraction or "takes"
of human experience'. A tetrahedron just happens to be convenient as the
minimal object with different faces that are distinct yet in some respect
unprivileged.

>> Brown, for the subtle, usually hidden priority of genetic
>> constraints and imperatives?

>I'd think that this would underlie the earlier two
>aspects you delineated. As for "brown" and "tetrahedron",
>hmm, if it's going to inspire you, then I'm all for it.

I could have said `yellow' if you prefer something where the sun *does*
shine, but the metaphor in my mind was with soil and roots and antiquity,
the deep evolutionary past.

Seeing blue and red coded as male and female is interesting and somewhat
amusing, given that these are the classic British political codes for
Conservative and Socialist. In Australia, just as matter of empirical fact,
rather more female than male voters choose conservative candidates,
proportionately.

Damien Broderick



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:13 MST