I tried to write some replies here but it doesn't seem to be working for me.

He is understanding 'duties are dischargeable' in the sense that a debt can be paid off, and then you are 'quits' as far as the debt is concerned. But he wants something different from the idea of 'acknowledgement', something that is not dischargeable like that.

It is indeed a puzzling part of the book. Starting out with his tying his idea of 'acknowledgement' to the more Kantian idea of 'duties toward others'. Combined with his insistence that "duties are dischargeable". It's an unstable combination, which is what I think he is getting at here.

Wow, so very cool! Congratulations!

Surprised that Eisenberg had it in him. Needs a different title though.

Yes! (Still learning how to work this thing)

We just saw it last night!

Honored by the Psychology Dept anyway, which separated from Philosophy in the 1920s. psychology.fas.harvard.edu/people/mary-...

Thanks Kranti! Just feeling my way here. I have no idea yet how to use this. But good to be in touch.