2010/12/1 António Pedro Marques <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:entonio@gmail.com">entonio@gmail.com</a>></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Thomas Bitterman wrote (01-12-2010 02:30):<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
2010/11/30 António Pedro Marques <<a href="mailto:entonio@gmail.com" target="_blank">entonio@gmail.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:entonio@gmail.com" target="_blank">entonio@gmail.com</a>>><br>
<br>
Thomas Bitterman wrote (30-11-2010 18:55):<br>
<br>
2010/11/30 António Pedro Marques <<a href="mailto:entonio@gmail.com" target="_blank">entonio@gmail.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:entonio@gmail.com" target="_blank">entonio@gmail.com</a>><br></div>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:entonio@gmail.com" target="_blank">entonio@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:entonio@gmail.com" target="_blank">entonio@gmail.com</a>>>><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
Thomas Bitterman wrote (30-11-2010 02:22):<br>
<br>
Another way of looking at it. The question is "How did<br>
Wright<br>
miss/not<br>
include an obvious (and likely superior) interpretation<br>
that any<br>
careful<br>
reader would read?". The answer is "Because it made<br>
him feel<br>
uncomfortable". This looks like a clear case of arguing<br>
against the<br>
author rather than the thesis.<br>
<br>
But is it more complimenting to answer "Because it's above his<br>
league?"? I<br>
certainly don't think that's the case.<br>
<br>
That is a false dichotomy. There are other ways to answer which<br>
do not<br>
involve speculation on Wright's personal properties. I would even<br>
suggest that the question itself is not helpful/applicable to<br>
understanding a non-fiction thesis.<br>
<br>
At the end of the day the fact remains that Wright left a certain<br>
path unexplored and that demands an explanation. And that is<br>
lacking. It should have been made explicit from the onset.<br>
<br>
Wright's thesis stands or falls on its internal logic and ability to<br>
shed light on the material. It is not dependent on what he didn't do<br>
except in so far as a different theory might be better, and that is a<br>
separate argument. It certainly doesn't depend upon any imagined<br>
reasons for why he did/didn't come to different conclusions.<br>
</div></div></blockquote>
<br>
I don't think this is getting anywhere. </blockquote><div><br>I agree, and will be brief.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The issue here is that there is a dimension to the work that Wright hasn't explored in his generally-applicable scheme. That simply and definitely demands an explanation. </blockquote><div><br>And I say it doesn't.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Maybe I should have said 'methodologically uncomfortable/inconvenient' and we wouldn't be having this conversation (though going by what you say there's no difference).<br>
</blockquote><div><br>That is almost exactly the difference. The statement "Wright's methodology does not permit a reading in which spiritual beings actually exist" is very different from the statement "Wright adopted a methodology which prohibits a reading in which spiritual beings exist because he is an atheist and that sort of reading makes him uncomfortable". The first is very informative and leads to interesting questions such as "What other methodologies could be brought to bear, and what can they reveal that Wright's did not?" The second simply speculates on the author's motives, which is out of place in a discussion of non-fiction.<br>
</div></div>