(urth) Silk's Origin

[Lee Berman]

> Doing this via building a model composed of "not this" and "not that"
> ideas is pretty exotic and strange to me and explains some of the 
> difficulties in communication.> Doing this via building a model composed of "not this" and "not that"
> ideas is pretty exotic and strange to me and explains some of the 
> difficulties in communication.

 

 

>Gerry Quinn: It would be strange, if that were what I were doing.  But it’s 

>not.  I propose theories in the ordinary way.  And I challenge theories – my 

>own and others – in the ordinary way too.

 

Naturally your own methods will not seem unusual to you. That would be something

of a contradiction. I don't consider your contributions to be ordinary. I think

of you as an extraordinary member of this community. Surely my analysis of your

posts are as valid as your analysis of mine and others.

 

>I don’t see where you get that from.  In the last few posts, for example, I’ve posted 

>on what I think the reference to Dionysus means, what I think is the significance of 

>Severian’s spectrum of lovers; I’ve posted my interpretation of the nature of Baldanders, 

>and my interpretation of the short story Suzanne Delage. Those are positive 

>interpretations.

 

Yes, but it is my impression that your own positive interpretations are usually placed

later in your posts, after you have criticized and negated the interpretation of someone 

else. And it does seem clear that the negative portions of your posts generate more

discussion than the positive portions.

 

>Are you suggesting that I should refrain from pointing out problems I observe in theories 

>that are proposed here?

 

It would be an interesting experiment. But perhaps it is one you have already tried and you

didn't like the results. Participation in this forum clearly comes in the category of 

"entertainment" in our lives. So I understand that we each must contribute in a way which is

fun for us. Carry on, Gerry! Carry on. :- )