academic commentary

Thomas Bitterman · 01 Dec 2010, 21:20 · from 2010-December.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: tom at bitterman.net (Thomas Bitterman)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:20:59 -0500
Subject: (urth) academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <4CF69C94.8020602 at 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>
	<4CF54F7D.7050205 at gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=KbyHRi7K-oB_E11SMEsNQXyuTgn50JXWMd1yf at mail.gmail.com>
	<4CF69C94.8020602 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimqS94dUTMk=nPNoM76vU8NmV027z_PH0FZAwzi at mail.gmail.com>

2010/12/1 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>

> Thomas Bitterman wrote (01-12-2010 02:30):
>
>> 2010/11/30 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com
>> <mailto:entonio 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>
>>        <mailto: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.
>>
>> Wright's thesis stands or falls on its internal logic and ability to
>> shed light on the material.  It is not dependent on what he didn't do
>> except in so far as a different theory might be better, and that is a
>> separate argument.  It certainly doesn't depend upon any imagined
>> reasons for why he did/didn't come to different conclusions.
>>
>
> I don't think this is getting anywhere.


I agree, and will be brief.


> The issue here is that there is a dimension to the work that Wright hasn't
> explored in his generally-applicable scheme. That simply and definitely
> demands an explanation.


And I say it doesn't.


> Maybe I should have said 'methodologically uncomfortable/inconvenient' and
> we wouldn't be having this conversation (though going by what you say
> there's no difference).
>

That is almost exactly the difference.  The statement "Wright's methodology
does not permit a reading in which spiritual beings actually exist" is very
different from the statement "Wright adopted a methodology which prohibits a
reading in which spiritual beings exist because he is an atheist and that
sort of reading makes him uncomfortable".  The first is very informative and
leads to interesting questions such as "What other methodologies could be
brought to bear, and what can they reveal that Wright's did not?"  The
second simply speculates on the author's motives, which is out of place in a
discussion of non-fiction.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20101201/3840c46e/attachment.htm>

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