academic commentary

Son of Witz · 01 Dec 2010, 22:25 · 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: Sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org (Son of Witz)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:25:29 -0800
Subject: (urth) academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimqS94dUTMk=nPNoM76vU8NmV027z_PH0FZAwzi 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>
	<4CF54F7D.7050205 at gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=KbyHRi7K-oB_E11SMEsNQXyuTgn50JXWMd1yf at mail.gmail.com>
	<4CF69C94.8020602 at gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimqS94dUTMk=nPNoM76vU8NmV027z_PH0FZAwzi at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E7C34B57-A3D2-4129-8A17-F8C78D79EDF6 at butcherbaker.org>





On Dec 1, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Thomas Bitterman <tom at bitterman.net> wrote:
> 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.


I sincerely disagree.  The second does not simply question motives.  One's ideological and cosmological views are rarely motives.  Rather they are an invisible frame on that author's perspective.  Wright may not have a motive rooted in atheism, but he most certainly might have an actual inability to percieve that which is beyond his belief structure.  Coupling this potential (and highly probable) limitation in perspective with the conviction that he has solved the riddle makes it really easy to guess why he stopped where he did, which many or most of us would say falls short of the evident message of BotNS.

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