academic commentary

António Pedro Marques · 29 Nov 2010, 23:31 · from 2010-November.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 (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ant=F3nio_Pedro_Marques?=)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:31:21 +0000
Subject: (urth) academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <4CF4297A.9090302 at verizon.net>
References: <SNT123-W90C362128623D2A57C5AACF240 at phx.gbl>	<964735.56099.qm at web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<4CF3D13D.1020405 at verizon.net>	<4CF3D50C.20400 at gmail.com>	<4CF3ED73.2020900 at verizon.net>	<AANLkTikbgXyJTts_02R7sw7sa3f1jd07tMqW-KwdEa+8 at mail.gmail.com>
	<4CF4297A.9090302 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <4CF437C9.6000707 at gmail.com>

David Stockhoff wrote:
> I'm confused. Whose argument?
>
> I don't think Antonio meant to say anything negative about Wright as a
> person, if in fact he meant Wright's atheism blinded him to certain
> interpretations. It's certainly possible---happens all the time, I'm sure.

Just to clarify things a bit, I only said it would be an uncomfortable or 
inconvenient leap. I can't understand how that got construed as an attack, 
personal or not.

I don't think the evidence points to Wright being *intellectually unable* to 
make such a leap, so the guess (yeah) is that he did shy from it, either 
conscious or unconsciously. I also don't think atheism itself is the issue, 
unless he were bent on seeing Wolfe as an atheist, which again I don't see 
that he does. So I guess (squared) that said 'third' reading is either 
something Wright doesn't find interesting or that he fears may open a few 
cans of interpretative worms somewhere if given enough importance.

(I think at this time and place everyone can read Wolfe both with and 
without Wolfe and/or Wolfe's motivations.)

> On 11/29/2010 3:50 PM, Thomas Bitterman wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:14 PM, David Stockhoff
>> <dstockhoff at verizon.net <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>
>> On 11/29/2010 11:30 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>>
>>
>> It'd be an uncomfortable/inconvenient leap for him to make.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the uncomfortable part is the ad hominem nature of this argument.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
>> Virus Database (VPS): 101129-1, 11/29/2010
>> Tested on: 11/29/2010 3:51:03 PM
>> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 AVAST Software.
>> http://www.avast.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 101129-1, 11/29/2010
> Tested on: 11/29/2010 5:30:18 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 AVAST Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

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