30-12-2016, 07:41 PM
If it is about the manuscript, it's fair comment.
I recently pointed out, in another place, that among the numerous reasons for doubting that Rudolf ever saw or owned the manuscript is that when Marcus Marci mentioned Mnishovsky's rumour, Marci was already suffering from a condition which affected his memory.
This is known because a mutual friend (Kinner) wrote to Kircher just 18 months later, saying then that Marci " has forgotten almost everything".
I wasn't entirely surprised by the blog-holder's lack of interest in this question of how much weight should be placed on a particular seventeenth century source, or even in the philosophical issue of how much weight should be placed on any particular source.
The response was one all-too-common these days, and which we've seen employed ad.nauseum since the first mailing list closed: it sees the actual information or issue ignored, and all responses aimed only at demeaning the researcher - as a means to ensure that the disturbing evidence, information or comment will be ignored and some pet theory continue to be believed.
In this case, the ad hominem attack on me began with an entirely ludicrous argument that by referring to Marci's condition (as documented by Kinner's letter) I was "attacking" Marcus Marci - who has been dead for several centuries. The fantasy was elaborated: this supposed 'attack' was motivated by some 'ideological agenda' - a product partly of the blog-holder's fertile imagination, but mostly the result of a pretty determined effort by earlier parties to spread the idea that my involvement in this study has some devious motive. (The fact is that I was asked to comment on it, because I'm a specialist in comparative iconography and -analysis).
Of course it is funny - until you recall that just this sort of combined mindlessness and dedication to maintaining the old ideas is what history tells us leads to the worst excesses of anti-intellectualism.
We don't burn books so much, but we do (outside this forum) see propagandist methods used to have dissenters portrayed as "bad people" and then constantly flamed. The myth of the dissenter as morally evil is an appropriately superstitious and medieval idea, but we ourselves are supposed to live in more rational times.
I'd hate to see the "Ignore and flame" disease infect this forum too, so as preventative measure, I propose we adopt the following as a personal yardstick:
If it is about the manuscript, or about the history of its study, it's fair comment.
and conversely:
If it aims only to degrade another member - if the message is not about the manuscript it's off-topic.
Agree?
I recently pointed out, in another place, that among the numerous reasons for doubting that Rudolf ever saw or owned the manuscript is that when Marcus Marci mentioned Mnishovsky's rumour, Marci was already suffering from a condition which affected his memory.
This is known because a mutual friend (Kinner) wrote to Kircher just 18 months later, saying then that Marci " has forgotten almost everything".
I wasn't entirely surprised by the blog-holder's lack of interest in this question of how much weight should be placed on a particular seventeenth century source, or even in the philosophical issue of how much weight should be placed on any particular source.
The response was one all-too-common these days, and which we've seen employed ad.nauseum since the first mailing list closed: it sees the actual information or issue ignored, and all responses aimed only at demeaning the researcher - as a means to ensure that the disturbing evidence, information or comment will be ignored and some pet theory continue to be believed.
In this case, the ad hominem attack on me began with an entirely ludicrous argument that by referring to Marci's condition (as documented by Kinner's letter) I was "attacking" Marcus Marci - who has been dead for several centuries. The fantasy was elaborated: this supposed 'attack' was motivated by some 'ideological agenda' - a product partly of the blog-holder's fertile imagination, but mostly the result of a pretty determined effort by earlier parties to spread the idea that my involvement in this study has some devious motive. (The fact is that I was asked to comment on it, because I'm a specialist in comparative iconography and -analysis).
Of course it is funny - until you recall that just this sort of combined mindlessness and dedication to maintaining the old ideas is what history tells us leads to the worst excesses of anti-intellectualism.
We don't burn books so much, but we do (outside this forum) see propagandist methods used to have dissenters portrayed as "bad people" and then constantly flamed. The myth of the dissenter as morally evil is an appropriately superstitious and medieval idea, but we ourselves are supposed to live in more rational times.
I'd hate to see the "Ignore and flame" disease infect this forum too, so as preventative measure, I propose we adopt the following as a personal yardstick:
If it is about the manuscript, or about the history of its study, it's fair comment.
and conversely:
If it aims only to degrade another member - if the message is not about the manuscript it's off-topic.
Agree?