Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: W. H. Lewis's diary

Expand Messages
  • Lynn Maudlin
    David, I wasn t meaning to attribute any such thoughts or opinions to you, rather waxing philosophical in general and in particular in response to an area
    Message 1 of 15 , Jun 24, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      David, I wasn't meaning to attribute any such thoughts or opinions to
      you, rather waxing philosophical in general and in particular in
      response to an area which has been known to spark significant
      differences of opinion among Mythsoc folks. I think we are ALL
      variegated humanity, Hooper, WHL, CSL, Bratman, Maudlin, et.al.

      Welcome to the species! {{smooches}}

      your fan,
      -- Lynn --

      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "dbratman" <dbratman@...> wrote:
      >
      > "Lynn Maudlin" <lynnmaudlin@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > > Indeed. In my increasing experience (age! *sheeeesh!*), we are complex
      > > beings with frequently warring motivations, and more self-serving than
      > > we readily admit.
      > >
      > > I can easily see WHL conflicted over Hooper, grateful for entertaining
      > > company, easily tapped into a sense of 'obligation', and needing to
      > > vent safely in private. I can easily see Hooper enthusiastic, lucky,
      > > feeling some need to justify his presence as having CSL's imprimatur
      > > rather than opportunism or 'luck of the draw' --
      > >
      > > This is humanity, in all our glorious, shoddy striations and variety.
      > > Hooper is not an angel but neither is he a demon.
      >
      > Wait a minute. I do not wish to be misunderstood here. The person
      whose
      > speckled humanity I'm really interested in is Warren Lewis. I don't
      think
      > Hooper is a demon, but I don't have to think that in order to
      declare that
      > he is, or was in his earlier years - he may have quietly repented
      now, like
      > George Psalmanazar - an incontestably serial exaggerator and
      misleader, to
      > some extent a liar as well. I do not claim to fathom his soul, but on
      > factual matters about Lewis's biography his statements about his
      personal
      > involvement are simply not trustworthy. I trust the "Companion and
      Guide",
      > though. It's like a different Hooper wrote it, and maybe one did.
      >
    • David Bratman
      Sure, Lynn, absolutely - but the question at hand wasn t the state of Hooper s soul nor the fallibility of his humanity. It was the accuracy of his
      Message 2 of 15 , Jun 25, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Sure, Lynn, absolutely - but the question at hand wasn't the state of Hooper's soul nor the fallibility of his humanity. It was the accuracy of his autobiographical statements and the reliability of his scholarship. On those questions, humans are not equally fallible.

        DB

        -----Original Message-----
        >From: Lynn Maudlin <lynnmaudlin@...>
        >Sent: Jun 24, 2008 11:56 PM
        >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: [mythsoc] Re: W. H. Lewis's diary
        >
        >David, I wasn't meaning to attribute any such thoughts or opinions to
        >you, rather waxing philosophical in general and in particular in
        >response to an area which has been known to spark significant
        >differences of opinion among Mythsoc folks. I think we are ALL
        >variegated humanity, Hooper, WHL, CSL, Bratman, Maudlin, et.al.
        >
        >Welcome to the species! {{smooches}}
      • Grace Monk
        David, I think you have (as usual) hit upon an important distinction. One doesn t have to attribute malice or anything else pernicious to another who has
        Message 3 of 15 , Jun 25, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          David, I think you have (as usual) hit upon an important distinction.
          One doesn't have to attribute malice or anything else pernicious to
          another who has unreliable scholarship. When dealing with inaccuracy
          and unreliability, the "why" doesn't really matter.

          Grace Monk


          On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:26 PM, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
          > Sure, Lynn, absolutely - but the question at hand wasn't the state of
          > Hooper's soul nor the fallibility of his humanity. It was the accuracy of
          > his autobiographical statements and the reliability of his scholarship. On
          > those questions, humans are not equally fallible.
          >
          > DB
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          >>From: Lynn Maudlin <lynnmaudlin@...>
          >>Sent: Jun 24, 2008 11:56 PM
          >>To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
          >>Subject: [mythsoc] Re: W. H. Lewis's diary
          >>
          >>David, I wasn't meaning to attribute any such thoughts or opinions to
          >>you, rather waxing philosophical in general and in particular in
          >>response to an area which has been known to spark significant
          >>differences of opinion among Mythsoc folks. I think we are ALL
          >>variegated humanity, Hooper, WHL, CSL, Bratman, Maudlin, et.al.
          >>
          >>Welcome to the species! {{smooches}}
          >
          >
        • Carl F. Hostetter
          Or, as I like to say, Never attribute to malice that which is sufficiently explained by stupidity. Carl
          Message 4 of 15 , Jun 25, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Or, as I like to say, "Never attribute to malice that which is
            sufficiently explained by stupidity."

            Carl


            On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Grace Monk wrote:

            > David, I think you have (as usual) hit upon an important distinction.
            > One doesn't have to attribute malice or anything else pernicious to
            > another who has unreliable scholarship. When dealing with inaccuracy
            > and unreliability, the "why" doesn't really matter.
            >
            > Grace Monk
            >
            > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:26 PM, David Bratman <dbratman@...
            > > wrote:
            > > Sure, Lynn, absolutely - but the question at hand wasn't the state
            > of
            > > Hooper's soul nor the fallibility of his humanity. It was the
            > accuracy of
            > > his autobiographical statements and the reliability of his
            > scholarship. On
            > > those questions, humans are not equally fallible.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.