Academic commentary

James Wynn · 01 Dec 2010, 23:33 · 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: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:33:05 -0600
Subject: (urth) Academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <4CF6D662.1050002 at gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim+D2sh3vfCaG2hPJu6zmvQbWnZvfjKxOxfeJCt at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF6CB90.6020506 at gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=kxLCKdYcNVOmWyPYMUAVJc4JZU=ipyWK=6937 at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF6D1AA.9070507 at gmail.com>
	<4CF6D662.1050002 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF6DB31.1070807 at gmail.com>

>>
>> James Wynn wrote-
>> If you are discussing Jameson's or Wright's arguments then it is as
>> irrelevant why they did not offer some other argument as it is to
>> speculate why St. Paul did not preach Confucianism.
>
> Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote-
> But that is not the issue. The issue, as originally stated, is that at 
> a certain point some authors make some conclusions that don't follow 
> from their premises, or fail to make those that do. Speculating why 
> that happens is important because it may always be that their 
> conclusions do match the premises after all - but one has to explain 
> why/how -, or the discrepancy is real and only finding a cause for it 
> may lay the matter provisorily at rest.

I think you are building a greater foundation for this issue that truly 
exists. As originally stated there were three posts that all agreed that 
Wright's premise that the Increate was an invention of the 
Hierogrammates was undermined by the fact that Tzadkiel, Barbatus, and 
Famulimus worshipped Severian. At this point Lee opined:

    "My impression is that Wright interprets BotNS from an atheist point
    of view because he is, himself a devout atheist and perhaps
    unwilling to acknowledge spirituality in the work of an author he so
    admires, despite awareness of Wolfe's religious leanings."

Okay. Lee called it an "impression", so he is acknowledging that his 
assessment is not especially fact-based. But it would be an awfully 
damning debility on Wright's part if it were true, so perhaps this 
assessment should require backing-up with a couple quotes. I mean, maybe 
Wright was just not overly impressed with the Heiros pretenses of 
obeisance? Many people are not impressed with my wonderful arguments. 
How convenient would it be for me to opine that they had some 
fundamental bias that prevented them from seeing the noses on their faces?

u+16b9
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20101201/8c14bb0a/attachment.htm>

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