[lit-ideas] Re: Hands Across The Bay
- From: "Donal McEvoy" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "donalmcevoyuk" for DMARC)
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 09:53:21 +0000 (UTC)
For it might be argued, when it comes to Grunebaum’sacquaintance, this eminent
topologist, that it takes some insight (usually by atopologist) into an
alleged W3 to REALISE that the topologist who ‘was regardedwith something
approaching veneration by his colleagues,’ even in spite of thefact that
usually when he gave an “important” lecture, either the PROOF hepresented was
incomplete, or, if complete, the PROOF contained at least one mistake.>
Perhaps more important in the above case: it takes some insight into an alleged
W3 to realise this topologist's work is interesting and worthwhile, despite
flaws in its formulation and presentation. It is the kind of insight that says
"He (or she) is really onto something there".
By contrast, another topologist might present something that is flawless in
formulation and in presentation but does not amount to much in W3 terms - in
its depth, in its fruitfulness etc.
Clearly both the depths and shallows of human thought can be put as 'wff', and
so 'wff' cannot be our guide to whether what we have before us is something of
depth or relatively shallow.
In the Roberts case there are many levels. We can divide the case, roughly,
into matters that are regarded as unproblematic and matters regarded as
problematic. The unproblematic may nevertheless be important as background or
stepping-stones to solving the problematic.
The central problem (spoiler alert) is whether or not amendment of a
pre-existing action, to switch from personal to representative capacity, is
ever allowable when the statute of limitations has run out for a personal
representative to begin an action. The minority are unsure and prefer to leave
this undecided and to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there are no
"special circumstances" sufficient to allow the amendment in the instant case.
The majority are of the view such an amendment is never allowable (i.e. even in
cases where there are "special circumstances" justifying a derivative action).
As far as this goes, it is clear what the legal result is.
However, assessing the basis or validity of the majority view is a different
matter: it is one thing to say the majority represents the law and another to
say it represents a better view of the law than the minority view. This takes
us into assessing the reasoning used. All the Law Lords are using 'wffs' and
our assessment cannot be based on a mere theory of 'wffs'. It is based instead
on assessment of the cogency of arguments, and this is very much a W3 affair.
DL
From: "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, 12 November 2017, 1:37
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hands Across The Bay
Many thanks to McEvoy for sharingwith us the judgment of the Roberts case. In
this post, I would like to share aquote by Grunebaum, a lover of wffs, inter
alii – and see if it all connects…Grunebaum once reminisced (heLOVED to
reminisce), and this particular reminiscence may relate to McEvoy’s LawLords,
for Grunebaum is actually analysing the concept of ‘being right for theright
reasons’ – and is doubtful about the phrase ‘for the right reasons’ – he fearsa
greater ‘deal’ than necessary may be packed into the meaning of this
phrase.Grunebaum: “An eminent topologistwhom I knew was regarded with something
approaching venerationby his colleagues, even though usually when he gave an
important lecture eitherhis proofs were incomplete, or if complete they
contained at least one mistake.”(Grunebaum goes on: “Though [the topologist]
was [then] oftenwrong, what he said was [however] exciting, stimulating, and
fruitful. Grunebaum even goes on to grant: “Now if itwere generally
_explicitly_ recognised that being interesting and fruitful ismore important
than being right, and may indeed co-exist with being wrong,polemical refutation
might lose some of its appeal.”)While I would love to stick with the eminent
topologist, I amalso reminded of a mention by Ritchie, of not long ago, of the
split infinitive– and a rather brusque letter by Raymond Chandler to the editor
of “TheAtlantic” about a “proof reader” – since McEvoy is referring to
‘reader[s]’ -- whowas in the habit of changing each of Chandler’s split
infinitives: “By the way,” Chandlerwrites: “would youconvey my compliments to
the purist who reads your _proofs_ [emphasis Speranza’s]and tell him or her
that I write in a sort of broken-down patois which issomething like the way a
Swiss-waiter talks, and that when I split aninfinitive, God damn it, I split it
so it will remain split, and when Iinterrupt the velvety smoothness of my more
or less literate syntax with a fewsudden words of barroom vernacular, this is
done with the eyes wide open andthe mind relaxed and attentive. The method may
not be perfect, but it is all Ihave.” (Cited in T. Hiney and F. MacShane, eds.,
“The Raymond Chandler Papers:Selected Letters and Non-Fiction”. New York:
Atlantic Monthly Press). It’s somewhat funny thatChandler is writing re: a
‘PROOF’ reader, and that Grunebaum is referring tothis eminent topologist whose
PROOFS “were incomplete, or ifcomplete theycontained at least one mistake.”It
may ALL connect, lastly, to McEvoy’s emphasis on the W3.For it might be argued,
when it comes to Grunebaum’sacquaintance, this eminent topologist, that it
takes some insight (usually by atopologist) into an alleged W3 to REALISE that
the topologist who ‘was regardedwith something approaching veneration by his
colleagues,’ even in spite of thefact that usually when he gave an “important”
lecture, either the PROOF hepresented was incomplete, or, if complete, the
PROOF contained at least one mistake.Consider just Grunebaum’s use of ‘mistake’
(setting aside thetopologist’s incomplete PROOFS).It might be argued that W3
contains ‘Topology,’ _inabstracto_, and it is by examining Topology _in
abstracto_ that one can detecta ‘mistake’ in the topologist’s utterance -- a
bit of a string of wffs, as itwere --. Or not, of course. (Incidentally,
Grunebaum, besides chess, loved toplay “Wff’n’proof,” by the way!)(An
‘interpreter’ identifying a ‘mistake’ in the eminenttopologist’s proof may
compare to TheAtlantic’s proof reader mistaking an infinitive *meant* to be
split by Chandleras a mistake. Or not.)“Hands Across The Bay," for the record,
refers to this ideathat ‘readers’ or ‘interpreters’ must usually deal with
fictions, pretenses,and the like, and that identifying a ‘mistake’ should allow
for pretending themistake is NOT there, or should NOT be there. Or something
(Vide Cartwright, inPhilosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions,
Categories, Ends – for thisidea developed in one of those memorable “Hands
across the Bay” seminars heldjointly by Stanford and Berkeley.Cheers,Speranza
Other related posts:
