Father Inire Theory cont.

Lee Berman · 13 Dec 2010, 17:21 · 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: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:21:27 -0500
Subject: (urth) Father Inire Theory cont.
Message-ID: <SNT123-W6207E8FA6CF5C8FC00A0DCCF120 at phx.gbl>

>Gerry Quinn who seems to have decided that his calculations of "probabiity" and "likelihood" of rightness 
>are general truths and not based on personal feelings.

>Gerry Quinn- I don't say anything of the sort, as you well know.  I do say that there *are* criteria that 
>can be used to gauge the likelihood of rightness of different interpretations.

Careful in your assessment of what I do and do not know. Your co-workers know what the back of your head looks 
like better than you do ;- ). Mirrors can take various forms.

Gerry, your statement above denies then immediately affirms my words. If there are are "criteria that..
gauge the likelihood of rightness.." which transcend your own opinions then you are arguing that there
are lupine universal truths.

If you do not believe in universal lupine truths I will recommend a change in wording of your statement to:

"There are criteria that I use to gauge what feels like the likelihood of rightness to me".

Phrased that way, I have no problem at all. I think recognizing one's own limitations is admirable and elevating
one's own opinions to the status of generally acknowledged truth is annoying. That's all I mean to say.

>You are claiming in essence that all readings are equally valid.  

No, I am pointing out that not all readings are equally valid to YOU. And I am suggesting there are no ways
of evaluating ideas that are universally valid. What seems like a good theory to you will seem bad to others
and what seems bad to you will seem good to others. I have not seen the slightest evidence of any two contributors
here who evaluate interpretions in lockstep with each other. Have you? Thus, what we have is what you recoil in
horror from:  collection of private mythologies. Why deny it?

>I doubt I am the only one to disagree.

Are you suggesting a vote in which certain criteria will be chosen as THE definitive and exclusive ways of knowing 
whether a Wolfe theory is valid or "likely" or "probable" or not?

I'd be interested in watching the nomination process.

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