Father Inire Theory cont.

Gerry Quinn · 13 Dec 2010, 18:57 · 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: gerryq at indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:57:04 -0000
Subject: (urth) Father Inire Theory cont.
References: <SNT123-W6207E8FA6CF5C8FC00A0DCCF120 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CC8ACE2FB2904734ADC2220B1701BBF0@jill>

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>>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.
>
> 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.

Which there are.  Some things in Wolfe's stories are ambiguous, others are 
rather certain.  Triskele is a dog, or a dog-shaped aquastor.  It is very 
unlikely that he is a cat.  It is even more certain that he is not an 
elephant.  An interpretation that requires Triskele to be an elephant has a 
high likelihood of being wrong.

Of course I could be wrong in thinking this is so certain that it can be 
described as a Lupine universal truth.  Even universal truths can be 
accessed only through human understanding.  But the concept is hardly 
incredible.

> 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.

As you can see, I have no need for the words you so thoughtfully offer to 
place in my mouth.  There are demonstrably generally acknowledged truths, 
and I believe there are generally acknowledged means of judging the 
likelihood of purported truths.  There is no need for me to assert that my 
opinions are in line with such truths - I can simply state my opinions and 
the reasoning behind them, and see whether others agree or disagree.  If 
they disagree, I can consider why, and change my opinion if I find the 
reasons convincing.  Othes can do the same.  I make no claims of special 
insight.  My opinions should be judged on their own merit or otherwise.  The 
same goes for yours.

>>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?

You say: "What seems like a good theory to you will seem bad to others and 
what seems bad to you will seem good to others."

This *is* either the claim  that all readings are equally valid, or the 
near-equivalent claim that the notion  of validity is either meaningless or 
inaccessible to us.

I reject this claim, in either form.  There are better interpretations and 
worse interpretations, and there are ways of telling the difference.

- Gerry Quinn

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