academic commentary

António Pedro Marques · 30 Nov 2010, 19:24 · 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 (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:24:45 +0000
Subject: (urth) academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimq1Fp_PviFQjq6y=GgB7jzVW_K0-1UxQP_NCyZ at mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<4CF437C9.6000707 at gmail.com>	<AANLkTikt_fnrdZS8CUPjeT3P9HRXwPfC-2BHXpjNbRvp at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF4F047.7090504 at gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimq1Fp_PviFQjq6y=GgB7jzVW_K0-1UxQP_NCyZ at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF54F7D.7050205 at gmail.com>

Thomas Bitterman wrote (30-11-2010 18:55):
> 2010/11/30 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com
> <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>>
>
>     Thomas Bitterman wrote (30-11-2010 02:22):
>
>         Another way of looking at it.  The question is "How did Wright
>         miss/not
>         include an obvious (and likely superior) interpretation that any
>         careful
>           reader would read?".  The answer is "Because it made him feel
>         uncomfortable".  This looks like a clear case of arguing against the
>         author rather than the thesis.
>
>     But is it more complimenting to answer "Because it's above his
>     league?"? I
>     certainly don't think that's the case.
>
> That is a false dichotomy.  There are other ways to answer which do not
> involve speculation on Wright's personal properties.  I would even
> suggest that the question itself is not helpful/applicable to
> understanding a non-fiction thesis.

At the end of the day the fact remains that Wright left a certain path 
unexplored and that demands an explanation. And that is lacking. It should 
have been made explicit from the onset.

Of course if one views speculation over a person's choices as speculation 
over the person, then any answer will look like just that.

> Craig Brewer has a good post on another thread with the same name
> describing how he sees Wright's method.  I agree with him.

Craig's view(s) fall within what I consider(ed) 'inconvenien[ce]' - the 
'third' interpretation is not interesting (in an epistemological sense) from 
the point of view of Wright's method. Craig may have nailed it, but that 
doesn't mean questions aren't justified.

In short, I disagree that I am/was making an ad hominem argument. How could 
I? The only thing I know of Wright are bits of his books and interviews. 
There's nothing I can say about the man except from what I can say about his 
work.

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