Why anti-Stratfordians think the new paradigm is just around the corner

[Tom Reedy]

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/10/05/the-benjamin-franklin-effect/#more-1459

"That’s the cycle of cognitive dissonance, a painful confusion about
who you are gets resolved by seeing the world in a more satisfying
way. As Festinger said, you make “your view of the world fit with how
you feel or what you’ve done.” When you feel anxiety over your
actions, you will seek to lower the anxiety by creating a fantasy
world in which your anxiety can’t exist, and then you come to believe
the fantasy is reality just as Benjamin Franklin’s rival did."

Extremely interesting, and explains a lot about the delusional
attitude of some anti-Strats.

TR

[Peter F.]

Tom, I do find it amusing that whilst you tell us how bored
you are with the authorship question, you are the only one
who seems eager to go on and on about it.

In fact I find that things are getting quite exciting at the
moment, with the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust (presumably
because of the release of Anonymous) rolling up its sleeves
for a punch-up at last. First there was their "60 Minutes
with Shakespeare", in which 60 (no, make that 61) eminent
spokespersons answer that many questions given 60 seconds each.
Now I see that Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson have written
a polemical ebook (free) on the subject called "Shakespeare
Bites Back". I await developments with some interest.

Peter


On Nov 8, 9:21 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/10/05/the-benjamin-franklin-effect/#...

[Tom Reedy]

On Nov 9, 1:16 am, "Peter F." <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> Tom, I do find it amusing that whilst you tell us how bored
> you are with the authorship question, you are the only one
> who seems eager to go on and on about it.

Yes, it's a habit of mind by now. I can read completely unrelated
material and my mind will look for some connection. In this case the
connection is there, though, because the article is about how the mind
works.

> In fact I find that things are getting quite exciting at the
> moment, with the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust (presumably
> because of the release of Anonymous) rolling up its sleeves
> for a punch-up at last. First there was their "60 Minutes
> with Shakespeare", in which 60 (no, make that 61) eminent
> spokespersons answer that many questions given 60 seconds each.
> Now I see that Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson have written
> a polemical ebook (free) on the subject called "Shakespeare
> Bites Back". I await developments with some interest.

Well I think what Emmerich did was awaken the academics, which I see
as a good thing.

I refuse to believe Wells wrote that ebook; he's a much better writer
than whoever did. Some of the points are good, but it reads like it
was written by an intern.

TR

[frode]

Tom, you sometimes remind me of the guy at 0:25 in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic

I think we are approaching the second stage in Schopenhauer’s famous
description of how truths get recognized:

"Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In
the first it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third
it is regarded as self-evident".

[John W Kennedy]

On Nov 8, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Tom Reedy wrote:
> I refuse to believe Wells wrote that ebook; he's a much better writer
> than whoever did. Some of the points are good, but it reads like it
> was written by an intern.

Quite. And I seem to recall there were a few dubious factual claims, to boot, as well as sneers masquerading as arguments. I fancy most HLAS or Arden veterans could have done a better job.

--
John W Kennedy
"When a man contemplates forcing his own convictions down another man's throat, he is contemplating both an unchristian act and an act of treason to the United States."
-- Joy Davidman, "Smoke on the Mountain"

[John W Kennedy]

"And I /know/ it was a good song," sobbed Victoriana, "because all great singers are persecuted in their lifetime -- and I'm per-persecuted -- and therefore I /must/ be a great singer."
-- C. S. Lewis: "The Pilgrim's Regress"

--
John W Kennedy

[Peter Farey]

Nice to be able to agree with both of you for once.

 

It's news to me, for example, that Ingram Frizer was "an

identified criminal".

 

I was particularly amused by the irony of their saying

"The great scholar F. P. Wilson, author of a book on Marlowe

and Shakespeare, once said that the most important thing a

scholar has to learn to say is ‘I don’t know.’"

 

Peter

[frode]

In this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfJ45tT6pV0 Wells
repeats that the e-book is written by him and Paul Edmondson. Do we
have a new authorship question?

[Tom Reedy]

On Nov 10, 9:31 am, frode <frod...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In this interviewhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfJ45tT6pV0 Wells

> repeats that the e-book is written by him and Paul Edmondson. Do we
> have a new authorship question?

I didn't say they weren't the authors; you're confusing authorship and
writing. I'm not credited as the author of pieces I write all the
time, with the reason being that I'm not the author.

I detect two distinct voices in the piece, but Wells, at least, and
I'm sure Edmondson, also, given his publication credits, did not
produce that finished copy. They probably scribbled a first draft and
handed it off to an intern to organize and edit into its final form, I
would almost bet. I think that indicates the contempt they have for
the subject--as well as their unfamiliarity with it--more than
anything they said.

At least they're learning: "Shakespeare Authorship Conspiracy Theory"
is an epithet equal to, if not surpassing, "Declaration of Reasonable
Doubt" in framing technique.

TR

[frode]

On Nov 11, 7:49 am, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 9:31 am, frode <frod...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In this interviewhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfJ45tT6pV0 Wells
> > repeats that the e-book is written by him and Paul Edmondson. Do we
> > have a new authorship question?
>
> I didn't say they weren't the authors; you're confusing authorship and
> writing.

Yes I am, almost all the time. When I investigate the authorship of a
text I usually get confused and try to find out who wrote it.

>I'm not credited as the author of pieces I write all the
> time, with the reason being that I'm not the author.

Are you not the author in any sense of that word? The authorship
question, regarding Shakespeare, is about who wrote the stuff, or?

[frode]

Well taken. How should we know if we were right or not, if we were not
ridiculed?

All truths are ridiculed.
Anti-strats are ridiculed.
Therefore, what the anti-strats say is true.

Thats pure logic, as far as my mind can comprehend.


> --
> John W Kennedy

[Dominic Hughes]

"It is clear for all that a new era of Shakespearian studies is about
to open. The scepticism about the man of Stratford is spreading in
spite of the resistance of the defence-quarters of the tradition.
Quantity of beliefs long time accepted as dogmas are on their way out:
the block is cracking."

- Abel Lefranc "Under the Mask of William Shakespeare" 1918

[hj]

Yes. Of course.

Though that little voice in the back of my mind (sent by the CIA)
keeps saying: "The fact that they *are* talking about you doesn't mean
you're *not* paranoid."

Or is it: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean they're *not*
talking about you"?

Whatever. As long as my logic is impeccably groomed.

hj

> > John W Kennedy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Groundling]

On Nov 11, 10:39 am, frode <frod...@hotmail.com> wrote:

But Frode,
The Venn diagrams for 'truth' and 'anti-strats' may be completely
detached, though both partly intersecting with the one for 'ridicule'.
No?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

G

G

[John W Kennedy]

On Nov 11, 2011, at 10:39 AM, frode wrote:
> Well taken. How should we know if we were right or not, if we were not
> ridiculed?
>
> All truths are ridiculed.
> Anti-strats are ridiculed.
> Therefore, what the anti-strats say is true.
>
> Thats pure logic, as far as my mind can comprehend.

Why is it that every time I try to emulate Socrates' method in "Meno" I fail miserably?

--
John W Kennedy
"Though a Rothschild you may be
In your own capacity,
As a Company you've come to utter sorrow--
But the Liquidators say,
'Never mind--you needn't pay,'
So you start another company to-morrow!"
-- Sir William S. Gilbert. "Utopia Limited"

[frode]

On Nov 11, 10:35 pm, John W Kennedy <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2011, at 10:39 AM, frode wrote:
>
> > Well taken. How should we know if we were right or not, if we were not
> > ridiculed?
>
> > All truths are ridiculed.
> > Anti-strats are ridiculed.
> > Therefore, what the anti-strats say is true.
>
> > Thats pure logic, as far as my mind can comprehend.
>
> Why is it that every time I try to emulate Socrates' method in "Meno" I fail miserably?
>

Socrates' method is based on the premise that the interlocutor is able
to think logically, but I'm an anti-strat!

[frode]

Well, I didn’t say it follows by logical necessity. It follows by
logical possibility.



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram
>
> G
>
> G