I'm turning off anonymous comments, starting now, for the trip to New York. The kids defacing my blog don't bother me too much, but I'd prefer being able to clean it up easily while they're doing it, and they're also doing other things that are drawing a lot of new eyeballs to my blog, which is actually in some ways good (although it needs to be managed). Anyhow, this should be a great weekend! Opera, concert, and other fun stuff.

I was re-reading my book on the Sokal Hoax, in particular the attack on postmodernist philosophy and "value neutrality", and got to thinking about the value-neutrality posited by the postmodernist camp, and its classic criticism. It is, at risk of oversimplification, stated in the book that postmodernist philosophy is unable to advocate its views as being better, because in order to do so, it must be able to make value judgements, which is exactly what it says are unreliable. I'm not certain if this is valid -- it certainly rules out the *advocacy based on pure principle* that such groups can do, but it does not rule out the defense -- saying "my position is just as valid" has little weight when trying to convince someone else to give up their perspective, but it does have significant weight when attacked. Is this a fair accessment? I need to think about it, and not being in their camp, I risk misapplying their ideas. Such is life though.