Pike's ghost

James Wynn · 29 Nov 2011, 17:57 · from 2011-November.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: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:57:15 -0600
Subject: (urth) Pike's ghost
In-Reply-To: <4ED51769.7080001 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W32DE1E1E63A572375FA831CFB20 at phx.gbl>	<70C71EDFDC3B4AEBA0FD38FD41FB8551@Rover>	<4ED39725.9090804 at gmail.com>	<4ED3ABE8.8060807 at verizon.net>	<4ED3BEAA.1080107 at gmail.com>	<4ED3CB92.40502 at verizon.net>	<4ED3D4DC.3000409 at gmail.com>	<4ED3DFF2.8050208 at verizon.net>	<4ED3F57B.8050104 at gmail.com>	<4ED40796.8030108 at verizon.net>	<4ED41277.9040204 at gmail.com>	<4ED41B0E.6050507 at gmail.com>
	<4ED41F91.1020906 at gmail.com> <4ED4276E.8040608 at gmail.com>
	<4ED4293C.2010906 at gmail.com> <4ED50482.8030804 at gmail.com>
	<4ED5064C.8000004 at gmail.com> <4ED50A58.7080100 at gmail.com>
	<4ED50C1A.2060103 at gmail.com> <4ED511BF.8050105 at gmail.com>
	<4ED51769.7080001 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ED51CFB.7010209 at gmail.com>

On 11/29/2011 11:33 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>
> So you admit that when you ask where others get their assumptions 
> from, it's a rhetoric/flippant question?

I have admitted nothing of the sort. If I am going to discuss a theory, 
I approach it from the position, "What if it were true? What would I 
expect?". I have never said to anyone, for an example, "This is /your/ 
theory. YOU come up with something that I will accept." I've been told 
that here in various ways by some people. I've seen people say it to 
others. That's expecting other people to prove you wrong. That's smug. 
That's a jerk.

>>> If everything everyone does has unspeakable motivations,
>>> why point out that this or that action have unspeakable motivations?
>>
>> That's like saying that because we are all sinners, discussion of good
>> behavior is pointless. It's like saying that anyone who condemns 
>> behavior is
>> "self-righteous", anyone who earns a decent salary is "greedy".
>
> Indeed, that's exactly where your procedure takes us: 'anyone who 
> takes a part of a literary work a priori at face value is "theorising"'.

No. That' is not where I am taking you. However, the second part is 
true.  I am asserting that people who are reading literature are 
theorizing. They are interpreting from the text the intentions of an 
author whom they have never met or barely know. I am demolishing the 
belief (which would be a desirable belief for anyone) that one's own 
interpretations need no justification...it just "is".

>>
>> But being smug doesn't require that you are wrong. It only means that 
>> you
>> are not applying to your own theories the rigor to which you are with 
>> great
>> adamance disputing others. It is a hypocrisy in which the hypocrite has
>> satisfied himself that his hypocrisy is "authentic". It's like a 
>> tyrant who
>> believes everything he does is just because God put him there. The 
>> "smug"
>> has constructed a palace of mirrors that all show /only/ himself and 
>> always
>> in the perfect light.
>
> Whereas others are convinced that their opinions are wrong, correct?

No. Wow, Antonio, everything with you is either on Everest or at the 
bottom of the Pacific. Do you really read Wolfe's stories with such an 
uncomfortable grasp on the idea of ambiguity? I'll say it again. If you 
engage with someone about ambiguous literary novels like Wolfe's, and 
you approach every question with the attitude, "Let's see if your weird 
new theory can prove me wrong." then you are smug. And you are wasting 
the other person's time. Done.

> Or - how do you say it? - 'if it's not my theory, they're not applying 
> to it the rigor which they are with great adamance disputing me'.

If that's what you've got out of our conversation then it is beyond my 
abilities to clarify it better.

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