--- On Fri, 3/13/09, Matthew Roth <MRoth@MESSIAH.EDU> wrote:
...
Matt, I hate to say something about your theory that you won't
reply to till the paper comes out, but I want to defend
one of my arguments against the charge of mischaracterizing
yours.
> > JF: The problem with this approach [seeing all the
> > left-right, bearded-clean shaven oppositions as
> > significant] is that it can explain anything. All
> > similarities are clues, and all differences are
> > mirror-image clues to the same thing.
>
> MR: This is a dismal dismissal, Jerry. The very point is that
> these opposites
> cannot explain just anything; they explain something very
> specific!
Sorry, I meant that your theory can explain both similarities
and differences. And I didn't mean to be dismal.
> MR continued: They
> are integral details, in fact. To say that clear opposites
> are the same
> thing as "differences" is to mischaracterize our
> argument entirely. Yellow
> is different than black; white is the opposite of black.
> Yellow and white do
> not have the same relationship to black.
I'll admit that left-right and gay-straight are opposites
like black and white, and clean-shaven/never-shaves is
a good one too. (In fact the Shade's suppressed beard is
one of your more telling points, in my opinion.) But your
other two examples aren't. An opposition like black and
white would be if Shade were paralyzed and Kinbote were a
marathon champion. (In fact, Kinbote seems to be on the
unathletic side, judging from his slanted descriptions of
his skills.) And the mirror image of Kinbote's complete
vegetarianism would be a diet of nothing but meat, not
merely an difficulty getting started on salads and
apples--he would reject brandy as Kinbote rejects broth.
So I think that as you presented your argument above, I
didn't mischaracterize it.
Looking forward to the publication of your paper,
Jerry