(urth) Pike's ghost

[António Marques]

James Wynn wrote:
> On 11/30/2011 12:16 PM, António 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?)