(urth) Father Inire Theory cont.

[Gerry Quinn]

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