Pike's ghost

James Wynn · 30 Nov 2011, 16:53 · 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: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:53:35 -0600
Subject: (urth) Pike's ghost
In-Reply-To: <4ED5737D.7050303 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W32DE1E1E63A572375FA831CFB20 at phx.gbl>	<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>
	<4ED51CFB.7010209 at gmail.com>	<4ED51E51.4060809 at verizon.net>
	<4ED52922.5040503 at irit.fr>	<4ED52C8C.4030905 at gmail.com>
	<4ED52E63.9030005 at gmail.com>	<448AE28BD9904A3DA642DF4301BED5F4@Rover>	<CAJ8=rtjx+fSaMh7aLCxFWvhDKqSf2cOknPNtFvr8Eoat3tU3vg at mail.gmail.com>	<4F98B01F-80B3-468C-B393-F2EEC23FD781 at gmail.com>
	<4ED5605F.10807 at gmail.com> <4ED5737D.7050303 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ED65F8F.7000908 at gmail.com>


>
>>>> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
>>>> What do you mean by "wrong" and "misled?" These seem to assume that
>>>> there is a True Interpretation and all others are wrong, where I think
>>>> that texts in general and Wolfe's texts in particular are polysemous
>>>> and subject to a multitude of (apparently) contradictory
>>>> interpretations, all based on the text.
>>>
>>> entonio at gmail.com wrote:
>>> It doesn't. 'X is wrong' is not the same as 'All but Y are wrong'.
>>
>> Perhaps, but if your method of proof is to assert that there is an
>> alternate interpretation, then you aren't proving anything except that
>> there is an alternate interpretation.
>
> Ant?nio Marques wrote:
> It can become entangled, no? When you point out actual problems with 
> an interpretation and *then* people ask you for an alternative,

Unfortunately that is not the only way it happens. What very often 
happens is that someone suggests an explanation of an occurrence that is 
not explicitly declared or based on irony or allusion, and someone else 
will respond with:

    "This explanation is a totally unsupported. The truth of this event
    is clearly declared in text [James notes: although actually only
    implied] by this flat half-blind reading of the story that I follow.
    Thus, I have proved that my initial reading is correct and not in
    need of enlightenment because I am eschewing any high literary
    understanding of the events and other literary voodoo."


This person is not refuting an explanation AND THEN going on to explain 
his alternate understanding. He refuting an explanation WITH his 
alternate understanding.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111130/38cf69ef/attachment.htm>

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