[EDNote: Might I suggest that for the most part, one inclined to find
consistency somewhere will find it, while one inclined to find the
opposite will find that? That, in the end, it is quality that
matters--both of the original creation, and of the individual's
actualization of it (and consistency is only one part of quality)? That
perhaps we should move on from this discussion? ~SB]
-------- Original Message --------
Dear George,
understanding the writers is part of another eternal
(and existential) problem: understanding the world.
The writers try to speak for themselves, but it doesn't
always make understanding easier. There are several
layers - I can make my conclusions for myself, without
proof, based on my "feelings", or, more often, based
on shaky proofs and personal experience, not sufficient to persuade
others;
there are responsible works of criticism/research,
where I need to present the proofs; and there are
intermediate situations, discussins, where sometimes we present
our opinions without sufficient proofs. For exemple,
I personally may think that "Ada" is written in the
period of decline, much less inspired than "Dar",
and many of its puzzles are explained just by this.
No energy to make the ends meet, some lack of consistency
as consequence...
Should this be banned because it is not sufficiently
respectful w.r.t. VN?
Best,
Sergei Soloviev