Re: [OT] Re: Lessons learned from the XML experiment

I apologize for the inherently ad hominem nature of the following remarks, but I don't see how to avoid it.

In my interactions with you both face to face at Balisage and on this mailing list, you appear to be simply unable to comprehend that anyone could see things other than the way you do.  Our conversations tend to consist of you saying "It's like this" and me saying "Or perhaps it isn't" and you saying "But don't you see that it's like this?"  I, in turn, am unable to comprehend how anyone could fail to see that there are people in this world who see things differently from one another.  That makes it very difficult to impossible for anyone whose world-view is different from yours to communicate with you.

 

So you do, but others think otherwise.  What is more, many people (including myself) reject the whole notion of "essences" as philosophically ill-founded.

 

The "we" who adopt the node model are not to be identified with the "we" who adopt the spherical-earth model.  The Earth is not a human artifact, and the flat-earth model fails to describe it accurately (though it does have its uses!)  But XML is a human artifact, and it means, like Humpty Dumpty, what we intend it to mean.  As Northrop Frye says:

The principle of manifold or "polysemous" meaning, as Dante calls it, is not a theory any more, still less an exploded superstition, but an established fact. The thing that has established it is the simultaneous development of several different schools of modern criticism, each making a distinctive choice of symbols in its analysis. The modern student of critical theory is faced with a body of rhetoricians who speak of texture and frontal assaults, with students of history who deal with traditions and sources, with critics using material from psychology and anthropology, with Aristotelians, Coleridgians, Thomists, Freudians, Jungians, Marxists, with students of myths, rituals, archetypes, metaphors, ambiguities, and significant forms. The student must either admit the principle of polysemous meaning, or choose one of these groups and then try to prove that all the others are less legitimate. The former is the way of scholarship, and leads to the advancement of learning; the latter is the way of pedantry, and gives us a wide choice of goals, the most conspicuous today being fantastical learning, or myth criticism, contentious learning, or historical criticism, and delicate learning, or "new" criticism.