{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6097",
    "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": 6097,
    "subject": "(no subject)",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "2011-11-04T20:22:37+00:00",
    "last": "2011-11-04T20:51:35+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<SNT123-W1941C690F2AD7467BDEE0CFDA0@phx.gbl>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Lee Berman",
        "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com"
      },
      "date": "2011-11-04T20:22:37+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) (no subject)",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Sergei Soloviev: To me (IMHO) Gerry's inference looks much more convincing \nand closer to the text."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": " \nThis does not seem a meaningful evaluation to me. The implication is that \nGerry's theory is in competition with the idea James and I have. I don't\nthink that nor do I think James does.\n \nWolfe is fully capable of using language in his book that can be intentionally\ninterpreted at 3 or 4 levels simultaneously. He does it over and over. Why take\nthis example of (a possible) two levels and think we simply must choose one and \nexclude the other?\n \nBTW, in regards to the screen material, aren't they something like glass more like\na tv screen (from the ancient 90's) than a movie screen? When they break they\nshatter not rip, yes?"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "I think the furthest I've gone in that direction is to invoke the young woman/old lady optical\nillusion http://www.qualitytrading.com/illusions/images/oldgirl.gif. If some people can only see\none or the other, I think that is fine. Does it make those who see both more clever? (I don't\nthink so, and I can explain why I don't, if needed)"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: I don't know that it's needed, but I don't think it would hurt."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Okay. For example, the image of the old woman (and the young woman to a lesser extent) is very \neuro-centric. That big long nose and the fur collar might make it more difficult for a person\nliving in southeast Asia or west Africa to recognize the figure as an old woman, not being used\nto fur clothing or large, protruding noses.\n \nWe all have such cultural and experiential gaps in our knowledge and perception base and I don't\nthink they constitute a lack of cleverness. I suppose refusing to acknowledge and accept efforts\nby others to broaden one's view might fall into the category of \"lack of cleverness\" but I tend \nto classify that more as an issue of stubborness than intelligence.  \t\t \t   \t\t  "
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<1BE110B7-12D2-4FB8-BD4D-EC1BA7C94675@gmail.com>",
      "from": {
        "name": "entonio at gmail.com",
        "address": "entonio at gmail.com"
      },
      "date": "2011-11-04T20:51:35+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) (no subject)",
      "in_reply_to": "<SNT123-W1941C690F2AD7467BDEE0CFDA0@phx.gbl>",
      "reply_link": "header",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Ant?nio\n\n\nNo dia 2011/11/04, ?s 20:22, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>  \nescreveu:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 3,
          "text": "I think the furthest I've gone in that direction is to invoke the  \nyoung woman/old lady optical\nillusion http://www.qualitytrading.com/illusions/images/ \noldgirl.gif. If some people can only see\none or the other, I think that is fine. Does it make those who see  \nboth more clever? (I don't\nthink so, and I can explain why I don't, if needed)"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: I don't know that it's needed, but I don't  \nthink it would hurt."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Okay. For example, the image of the old woman (and the young woman  \nto a lesser extent) is very\neuro-centric. That big long nose and the fur collar might make it  \nmore difficult for a person\nliving in southeast Asia or west Africa to recognize the figure as  \nan old woman, not being used\nto fur clothing or large, protruding noses.\n\nWe all have such cultural and experiential gaps in our knowledge and  \nperception base and I don't\nthink they constitute a lack of cleverness. I suppose refusing to  \nacknowledge and accept efforts\nby others to broaden one's view might fall into the category of  \n\"lack of cleverness\" but I tend\nto classify that more as an issue of stubborness than intelligence."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I can accept that if you substitute personal bias, as built over the  \nyears in a myriad of experiences, for cultural gap. It probably also  \nmeans it becomes a matter of 'you weren't there' rather than  \nstubbornness, ignorance or intelligence, as and such it may be more or  \nless impossible to overcome. It also needs the 'the picture is there  \neven if the author didn't intend it' bit you mentioned earler."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}