Hierogrammates, Briah and Yesod

António Pedro Marques · 13 Aug 2010, 13:50 · from 2010-August.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:50:04 +0100
Subject: (urth) Hierogrammates, Briah and Yesod
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W6381FDD277ACBF838F59ECCF980 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W6381FDD277ACBF838F59ECCF980 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4C654D8C.8070906 at gmail.com>

Lee Berman wrote (13-08-2010 05:04):
>
>
>> Antonio Marques: You probably do not intend it, but your assertions on how your
>> hyoptheses have support do not sit well with many. It's not the
>> hypotheses themselves, it's both your insistence that they have textual
>> support - where most view at bestest a tiny possibility that they aren't
>> outright excluded, i.e., they may be possible readings, but not
>> certainly the 'supported' ones - and your occasional dropping of wild
>> interpretations as if they were obvious and universally accepted. Then
>> you don't really like it when you're called on that. That's what comes
>> across - at best - as sanctimonius.
>
> Antonio I'm not sure what you are suggesting or asking of me.

Nothing at all. I'm trying to explain to you why some of your contributions 
haven't been well received by some. I was under the impression you were 
puzzled by that. I may have been mistaken.

I'll make another effort anyway.

1. The text says red.
2. Your scheme requires yellow.
3. The text can be reconciled with yellow, sometimes within reasonability, 
sometimes only with great pains.
4. You then proceed to say the text convincingly says yellow.
5. The text says blue.
6. Your scheme requires green.
7. The text can be reconciled with green if one goes to great lengths.
8. Green would fit in with yellow.
9. You then proceed to say the text convincingly says green, also because it 
also convincingly says yellow.

It's merely 4 and 9 that grate people. In 4 you not only don't qualify your 
interpretation with the deserved doubt, you pass it off as obvious. In 9, 
not only you do the same, you adduce 4 as supportive.

People take exception with the first, but the second really turns things on 
their heads. The likelihood of 4 plus 9 is a combination of the individual 
likelihoods, so if 4 is a stretch, that makes 4+9 more of a stretch, not 
less of a stretch - yet you imply the opposite. That's perhaps the most 
common logic fallacy, and I think it should be avoided here.

Generally speaking, people like to hear new theories, not the least so wild 
ones, because those tend to be interesting. Generally speaking, people don't 
like to see them implicitly passed off as canon, because then anything goes 
and it all becomes boring. You apparently think you haven't done that, but I 
and others have gotten that impression, and it isn't a disclaimer here and 
there that will change it. It's up to you to decide whether you want to go 
on being misconstrued by some of us onboxious illiterates or not.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net