Pike's ghost

António Marques · 30 Nov 2011, 21:41 · 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: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:41:41 +0000
Subject: (urth) Pike's ghost
In-Reply-To: <4ED67B37.205 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W32DE1E1E63A572375FA831CFB20 at phx.gbl>	<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>	<4ED65F8F.7000908 at gmail.com>
	<4ED66607.5060508 at gmail.com>	<4ED66B85.4010002 at gmail.com>
	<4ED67307.7060809 at gmail.com> <4ED67B37.205 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ED6A315.5070602 at gmail.com>

James Wynn wrote:
> On 11/30/2011 12:16 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>> If you think the archives are full of theories challenged because
>> they have simpler alternatives, I think perhaps you might reread
>> them.
>
> That is in no way how I have described the challenges.

No? You couched it in rather judgemental terms.

> However, you have _perfectly_ described the way that an
> unenlightened** challenger (such as I have been describing) sees his
> own challenges. HIS alternative is "simpler". Of one's own
> alternatives are /always/ simpler: Either it does not require a
> recognition of irony in the text or it does not leave problematic
> questions hanging or something else.

If it does not require a recognition of irony in the text or it does not
leave problematic questions hanging or something else, then it's simpler
because it does not require a recognition of irony in the text or it
does not leave problematic questions hanging or something else, not
because it's one's own.

> It is the failure to understand that marks one's approached as
> unenlightened.

Failure to understand what? (Please don't answer 'Precisely.'.)

You seem to be drawing a distinction between the 'challenges' and that
which they challenge. You seem to be willing to have such a distinction
when it comes to belittle the 'challenges', all the while denying there
is a distinction other than 'authorship' when it suits your argument. It
seems. To me.

> I'm sure no one creates theories out of a perverse glee for Rube
> Goldberg constructions.

What gives you that certainty?

But I'm all for Rube Goldberg theories. As long as they _work_.

> **"Unenlightened" is a term you, Antonio, originally coined. I'm
> merely adopting it so we can use the same terms.

Coined it I may have, but I can't find the reference and I would like to 
in order to understand what made it so memorable. Can you provide it? 
(If not actually, from memory?)

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