SciFi Ignorance
Flame – Your advice is sound, and worth following, but I don’t see Bonnee as a bully and will therefore attempt a (likely unsuccessful) non-squirming reply to a point or two he brought up involving me. Sorry if it makes no sense to anyone who didn’t follow the original thread.
Bonnee – I’m flattered that you accused Aleck of using my name as an alternate screen name, based on a post I made at the other board. One the one hand, it is amusing and even complimentary for me to be confused with Aleck, since I agree with your glowing characterization of him in the previous thread (I would apply this characterization to you as well). However, it is probably insulting for Aleck to be compared with me, and in any case it is incorrect. On the infrequent occasions that I’ve posted here, or the other Lexx boards, I’ve always used my own first name.
As for the post I made at the other board, it was in response to what appeared to be a subjective claim by RipLexx (who I now know to be you), presented as objective fact. In response, you posted a lengthy essay by Kelly Ross on foundationalism and hermeneutics (I was also flattered that you thought my puny brain could benefit from it, but now I see you simply mistook me for Aleck). I found it highly interesting and generally agreed with the central conclusion quoted below:
“As understanding and knowledge thus can vary somewhat independently, it is then essential in life and in philosophy to retain an awareness that different issues, hermeneutic and foundational, may be involved in many, or all, questions.”
Reading it caused me to revisit my initial statement, where it appeared that I left no room for objectivity in the assessment of creative works – this is of course wrong, as there are many elements that may be analyzed objectively (plot complexity and originality, depth of characterization, technical quality of production, influence on similar works, etc…). My argument is that despite these elements, the impact of creative works on different audiences will also involve interpetation and subjectivity. This does not mean all intepetations are equally valid, nor is it a defense of subjectivity in general which I believe should be eliminated, to the extent possible, from as many decisions and questions as possible. This was alluded to in my original post.