{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5795", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 5795, "subject": "Urth Digest, Vol 76, Issue 8", "messages": 3, "voices": 3, "first": "2010-12-02T16:31:47+00:00", "last": "2010-12-02T16:41:10+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Nick Lee", "address": "starwaterstrain at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-02T16:31:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 76, Issue 8", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 09:48:41, Ryan Dunn wrote\n\nThe least heartening thing about this whole conversation is that Wright has" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "been deemed wrong or (worse) incapable of comprehending certain spiritual\nmotivations of Wolfe's text strictly because he is reading it from an\natheist's perspective." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think anyone made that claim. This issue has been made into far more\nthan it originally was. I suppose because it's more interesting this way." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Where does it end? I think it is shameful to think a critic should have an\nasterisks next to his/her name in order to give those who >happen to\ndisagree with their criticisms a way out. \"Oh, look, he's an atheist. See?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "How could he possibly understand the religious >underpinnings of Wolfe's\nwork?\"\n\nHere is a fallacy: the slippery slope.\n\nAfter reading *Attending Daedalus*, I thought Wright was \"eschewing the\ntraditional religious interpretation\" of the Sun books because of his\nphysicalist worldview (though I do not know his worldview and he never\nannounces it to my knowledge). I'm a physicalist myself. If you had read\nWright's book you would see that he criticizes the religious readings of\nWolfe on the basis that those readers are religious.\n\nNicholas Goodman" } ] }, { "message_id": "<9CD2CD1C-FF30-466B-8EF9-187A5F73BCEE@liftingfaces.com>", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2010-12-02T16:38:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 76, Issue 8", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Nick Lee wrote:\nAfter reading Attending Daedalus, I thought Wright was \"eschewing the traditional religious interpretation\" of the Sun books because of his physicalist worldview (though I do not know his worldview and he never announces it to my knowledge). I'm a physicalist myself. If you had read Wright's book you would see that he criticizes the religious readings of Wolfe on the basis that those readers are religious." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've read most of the essays in Attending Daedalus, and yes, he can criticize whatever he wants, based on whatever he wants, and we as readers can agree with him, disagree with him, or agree with parts of what he criticizes and not others.\n\nI was not getting into the glass houses side of the argument, just the asterisks part of it. And yes, from what I've read through this chain, several people seem to be of the mind that the motivations of a critic or a peer in an argument should be considered as criteria for the validity of their argument. Not even for the argument itself, but whether that person is even qualified to talk about it.\n\nIt is possible I have misread. Some of these posts do tend to read like legalese while others are written for laymen to digest.\n\n:)\n\n...ryan" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4CF7CC26.1010802@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-02T16:41:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 76, Issue 8", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Nicholas Goodman-\nHere is a fallacy: the slippery slope.\nAfter reading /Attending Daedalus/, I thought Wright was \"eschewing \nthe traditional religious interpretation\" of the Sun books because of \nhis physicalist worldview (though I do not know his worldview and he \nnever announces it to my knowledge). I'm a physicalist myself. If you \nhad read Wright's book you would see that he criticizes the religious \nreadings of Wolfe on the basis that those readers are religious." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think the Logician term for that is \"tit for tat\". And here is an \napplicable opportunity to address the motives of a writer to understand \nhis text. It would be a valid refutation of Wright's arguments to say \nthat it is circular and that there is a reasonable probability that it \nexemplifies what he attempts to debunk. That would have been a good \nargument from the vantage of hindsight.\n\nu+16b9" } ] } ] }