(urth) Dionysus

[Lee Berman]

>Gerry Quinn- Note that I was arguing against a theory postulated by James, not you....
 
Sure, I am not speaking for James. But elements in your argument with him pertain to our discussion.
 
 
>I *do* read your posts and endeavour to understand what you are getting at.  However I am not 
going to get into a rambling debate about what some obscure god was once associated with..
 
Instead you prefer to pare ideas down to what you consider bare essentials and argue simply 
and briefly. But the process of paring renders the ideas being discussed into unrecognizable shapes 
which are  no longer my ideas. They become yours. Thus you are arguing with yourself. Small wonder 
that you win every time ;- ).
 
>I consider the argument: "An alien has been shown to be a shapeshifter; Fr. Inire is an alien; 
>Therefore Fr. inire is a shapeshifter" to be invalid.  Do you see why?
 
Yes, I do. This is a good example of winning an argument with yourself. First, yikes! shades of
Monty Python! It is a false assumption that every post on this board represents somebody who is 
looking for an argument. Also I think many of us are at a stage of understanding this complex piece 
of literature which cannot be advanced by simple addition of evidence and if/then statements.
 
In your statement above you have the wrong starting point (Tzadkiel). The starting point for this
discussion is Robert Borski saying "I notice a number of characters who seem to echo the descriptions
of Father Inire." It continues with others, like me and Ryan, who say, "I see that too and I see some
other likewise characters. That's a problem or puzzle worth thinking about."
 
Hopefully you can see why this, so far, is not an invitation to argue and invalidate. When you do, you
are essentially saying, "You don't see that". "That is not a problem or puzzle for you". "That is not 
worth thinking about". Doing that, you are not using logic you are invalidating a person. 
 
Moving on, Borksi or Ryan or I might propose a solution or pattern or way of thinking which solves the
puzzle for us or helps overcome the cognitive distress. Again this should not be taken as an open 
invitation to argue.  You invalidate a person by telling them, "No that's not a solution to your 
problem/puzzle." when they have just told you that it is.
 
I will suggest that our purpose here should be to help each other. Invalidating each other as people is
not helpful to anyone as far as I can tell. If you feel the need to criticize, be sure it is *constructive
criticism*. If you feel the need to tear down someone's puzzle solution or any part of it, you should have 
a better solution *immediately* available so that the building process is sustained. If all we have is
demolition and destructive criticism, what will be the result?
 
 
>Do you accept that ideas can be wrong, or at least useful only to those for whom they constitute a kind 
>of private mythology?
 
Twelve years ago, this board was still wrestling with puzzles and problems which were of universal interest
and could be solved with simple Sherlockian detective work and logic and thus subject to being proved wrong.
Now, it seems everyone, even newbies, knows that Commonwealth people have Saint names, that the geography, 
flora and fauna of the Commonwealth is S. American, that Yesod and Briah are Kabbalah terms etc. I think there 
is still a great utility in fact-checking each other, but the vast bulk of conversation has moved beyond that.
 
These days, I think everyone is wrestling with different problems. Thus if we have 50 participants here we are,
in fact, dealing with 50 private mythologies. Let's respect that. I enjoy wrestling with the Father Inire
puzzle and enjoy conversing with others who feel the same. Others are wrestling with the issue of whether
certain sections are in the narrator's or Gene WOlfe's voice. This is not an area of interest for me so I 
politely opt out of the conversation.