(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ

[Lee Berman]

>Antonio Pedro Marques: I think I've asked more than once whether or not you understand the concept 
>of falsifiability and its importance, but I don't recall getting an answer.
 
If you have been reading my posts and are aware of my background in science and academia, then perhaps
you can realize the rudeness of your question. But I will answer now as I would always answer that 
question: Scientific principles are very useful in understanding the real world, which is (seems to be)
a place created by vast, natural and ultimately incomprehensible processes.
 
In my opinion these principles are less useful in understanding fiction and other art which is the creation 
of a much smaller world by a human intelligence for a specific purpose/meaning. In my opinion Gene Wolfe is 
very aware of this distinction as he writes and is very aware of his role as Creator in the worlds he creates.
 
In my opinion, Gene Wolfe deliberately sets traps for those who attempt a purely scientific understanding
of his work. He places what might be called misleading concrete ("plowman's") evidence which will distract
from more intutive "soothsayer" and "transubstantial" meanings intrinsic to  his stories. I suspect this is
related to Gene Wolfe's own religious leanings.
 
In my opinion Gene Wolfe is aware that fiction/art has the power to inspire intuition and visions in ways that
science does not. He wields this power in ways that few authors can. No, I do NOT think visions and intuition
can be "falsified" by others. They are personal truths. When someone reports a personal truth they have felt
I consider it insulting for others to try to falsify it. Contribute, yes. Falsify, no.
 
If you think someone is reporting a fake vision that they really don't see or that someone is mentally ill
and reporting diseased visions I suppose you could say it that way. Or you could ignore it. That is the polite
method, in my opinion.
 
>This is where, in my completely worthless and inconsequential opinion, you often though of course not always fail, 
>and it doesn't help that you snap under critique. Also, I for an unspecified number am becoming tired of the rudeness 
>in some of your replies.
 
Feel free to do a survey of all my posts. You will find that my replies mirror the tone of the post I am responding
to, be it polite, rude, friendly, mean, serious or humourous. This is not fully conscious. I do the same sort
of thing in the real world, to the amusing level of matching a foreign accent or regional dialect. This may give
me extra understanding when it comes to shapeshifters imitating humans, but it may not.
 
As to the frequency of my "failure" I think that is a purely individualized assessment. What fails for you may be
a triumph of insight to another. That is none of my business. I accurately and honestly report my visions and do my
best to explain how the text or other ancillary sources inspire them. The rest is up to you. 
 
Antonio you can try to change me into you, or into Gerry. But you must know the futility of that. I am what I am. 
You could badger and belittle my ideas until I give up trying to communicate them. Is that what you are hoping for? 
If you, Gerry and/or others serve a purpose as some sort of regulator on this list then perhaps you can see the value 
of regulating the regulators?
 
It is my opinion that this List had degenerated into an endless haggling and niggling over minor details. The result
was to chase out any and all who operate on the broader intuitive level. This resulted in a lack of "big picture" 
transubstantial understanding. I am not the best visionary and I will continue to do my best to make this place more 
friendly to those gentle, sensitive geniuses I value so highly. They are always the source of my own best ideas.
 
On an unrelated topic, where is James lately? I highly miss his contributions.