{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5796",
    "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": 5796,
    "subject": "Urth Digest, Vol 76, Issue 9",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "2010-12-02T19:26:46+00:00",
    "last": "2010-12-02T19:26:46+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<AANLkTikPx2JSrjU+EQPv6L4Lh_NC5XQBiUAP2USixcxm@mail.gmail.com>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Nick Lee",
        "address": "starwaterstrain at gmail.com"
      },
      "date": "2010-12-02T19:26:46+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 76, Issue 9",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": " Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:41:10 -0600 James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "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."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. \"Tit for tat\" is a strategy\nin game theory (which I haven't studied much) rather than classical\nlogic, but I don't think it applies here. Unless I'm missing something? It's\nkind of a complicated concept. I suppose the difficulty is in deriving your\nantecdent for \"that\" (not \"tat\").\n\nAccusation of circular reasoning is not always a way to refute the argument,\nbecause circular reasoning can be valid. You'd have to explain precisely how\nWright's argument is circular in order to ascertain its fallaciousness. In\nany case, Wright's reasoning is more complex than that, as others have\ntestified.\n\nWright doesn't argue that *Sun* has no religious or moral interpretations.\nHe instead asserts that different reader expectations, religious and mythic,\nprevent them from noticing the physicalist details, and that Wolfe plays\n(preys?) on this tendency. I don't see how his reasoning is circular. Not to\nspeak for Wright, but knowing something about reader response theory, I\nthink he would say that a religious interpretation of Wolfe is valid as long\nas it still takes the subtext into account, i. e. the hierogrammates'\nconspiracy."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}