I don’t understand what the purpose of this post was supposed to be—what positive consequence it was supposed to have.
I took the post to be Luke writing notes to himself, in public so as to recruit others’ help, toward the kind of bibliography that might be included in an academically acceptable version of the Sequences, or of some parts of them.
The intention being, I gathered, to publish these bibliographies as an adjunct to the Sequences—perhaps in the “wall of references” style of Luke’s early posts. (If so, I hope a more user-friendly way of displaying those is worked out first!)
(ETA: the specific positive consequence of that would be to help the reader “find the related works in academia” as per Luke’s third numbered point in the OP.)
I’m stating what I discerned of the intention—I won’t presume to judge the OP either as a plan of action, or as a first step in its execution.
Completely agree with your latter addendum that people should read Hofstadter, Hayakawa etc. not as footnotes to your work but for their own merits. Hofstadter I discovered in childhood and I wouldn’t be the same person if I hadn’t; I read Hayakawa on your recommendation, and am glad I did. Yay to more discussion of works that have the LW-nature, but are not otherwise alluded to in the Sequences. :)
I took the post to be Luke writing notes to himself, in public so as to recruit others’ help, toward the kind of bibliography that might be included in an academically acceptable version of the Sequences, or of some parts of them.
The intention being, I gathered, to publish these bibliographies as an adjunct to the Sequences—perhaps in the “wall of references” style of Luke’s early posts. (If so, I hope a more user-friendly way of displaying those is worked out first!)
(ETA: the specific positive consequence of that would be to help the reader “find the related works in academia” as per Luke’s third numbered point in the OP.)
Why would that actually be a consequence of the OP as written?
I’m stating what I discerned of the intention—I won’t presume to judge the OP either as a plan of action, or as a first step in its execution.
Completely agree with your latter addendum that people should read Hofstadter, Hayakawa etc. not as footnotes to your work but for their own merits. Hofstadter I discovered in childhood and I wouldn’t be the same person if I hadn’t; I read Hayakawa on your recommendation, and am glad I did. Yay to more discussion of works that have the LW-nature, but are not otherwise alluded to in the Sequences. :)