Those were oversimplified "experiments" modeling the logical extremes of the
requisite views but I've found that a useful exercise from time to time. I
think I've come to believe that any specific epistemology when taken to its
logical conclusions will either contradict itself, propagate category
errors, or become completely absurd. Makes a fellow a believer in
panclectics (possibly under the aegis of a realist metaphysic _a la_ C.S.
Peirce).
In this world though, there seems to be nearly as much variance in the human
population as there is in the situations in which members of that
population act so the question of how all that gets made sense of and
regulated is what we seem to be stuck with. I think in that respect I rather
like Stanton's second alternative with perhaps two interrelated
qualifications: (a) a phenomenon as robust as the agent or "self" would
ultimately need to be accounted for in any social theory that purported to
be complete and, (b) the continua of that phenomenon would need to be
described; e.g., perhaps some agents are groups or institutions, others
individuals, some might be far more "intense" than others (I'm thinking of
John-Steiner's _Notebooks of the Mind_) and thus agency would not merely be
a retrospective, it would be a "place" recognized before it even existed.
This has given me food for thought -- many thanks.
Rolfe Windward
GSE&IS
ibalwin who-is-at mvs.oac.ucla.edu