Faterh Inire Theory

Lee Berman · 13 Dec 2010, 17:57 · 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 12:57:46 -0500
Subject: (urth) Faterh Inire Theory
Message-ID: <SNT123-W55EE323F36BFE178F662B7CF120 at phx.gbl>

>Gerry Quinn- Do you also find your audiences respond well to patronisation?

I always mirror my audiences in tone. Speaking in their language is the best,
sometimes only way, to achieve communication.

>As for Star Trek, it certainly has its merits, but its medium, format and 
>audience militate against the subtle themes and expressions we look for in 
>Wolfe's books.  That is all I am saying

And all I am saying is that there is a good chance Gene Wolfe gathered with
his family each week in the late 60's for episodes of Star Trek as so many American 
families did, including my own. You seem to suggest the show was beneath him and you. 
And the same for me and my family. We have the recent evidence of Ryan saying 
Gene Wolfe's only exposure to a classic legend was a Disney movie. As I was saying, 
in regard to patronisation, I mirror my audience.

>Are we closer to apes than mice are to rats?  Mice and rats would certainly 
>think so. I guess it would depend on your criteria.  (Genetic distance is 
>one possible criterion, but there are others.)

Are there? Within the acknowledged evolutionary framework we were discussing,
what other criterion is there? Are fish and whales close? they look alike, have
some similar adaptations..but I don't see how that is relevant to our discussion.

>As for tools other than rationality and logic, I do not in the least 
>discount them.  I assert that the best understanding comes when we use all 
>our tools, not just some.  From my perspective, you seem averse to using the 
>tools of rationality and logic, lest they show you something you do not 
>like.

You seem to discount intuition and gestalt understanding in here. I can't speak to
your attitude else where. You are descending to rhetorical snottiness rather than 
your true observations. If I was really averse to using the tools of rationality and 
logic then my cheese would be riposted by the hyperbolic perigee of pinballs and gum.

>I am 51, so it would appear that a generational difference may be discounted 
as a possibility.

Agreed. I asked because there was a time period in my life when I thought and spoke as you 
do now.  I think we will have to just agree that we think differently and leave it at that. 
I will defer any last words to you.

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