Boa - Reverse Translation

[Chris Smith]

Some of the most profound and "inspired" works of human intelligence are "fiction".

The best of them don't try to pass themselves off as anything else.

[mfbukowski]

The best of them don't try to pass themselves off as anything else.

I suppose it all depends on how you see the idea of "metaphor". The line is not always clear. Is string theory metaphor? Is it "fiction" or "fact"? None of the above? All of the above?

What about utilitarian morality? Is it fact or fiction?

Edited October 20, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

BTW Chris- are you a fan of Boghossian?

[Chris Smith]

I understand what you're getting at; that even "facts" are in some sense fictions. But I'd suggest that there's a substantial pragmatic difference between a "fiction" in the colloquial sense (a predictively invalid statement) and a "fiction" in the mfbukowskian sense (a linguistically constructed statement).

Is string theory metaphor? Is it "fiction" or "fact"?

String theory is a theory-- a conceptual system whose factuality is under dispute.

What about utilitarian morality? Is it fact or fiction?

Insofar as it's prescriptive rather than descriptive, it's neither fact nor fiction. It does, however, include a descriptive rationale; it predicts that following its rules will maximize personal happiness. I tend to think that's mostly factual, with some exceptions.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

BTW Chris- are you a fan of Boghossian?

I don't know. My knowledge of post-1950 philosophy is pretty thin.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Chris Smith

[mfbukowski]

I understand what you're getting at; that even "facts" are in some sense fictions. But I'd suggest that there's a substantial pragmatic difference between a "fiction" in the colloquial sense (a predictively invalid statement) and a "fiction" in the mfbukowskian sense (a linguistically constructed statement).

Yeah, you know me- I was just stirring the pot! I think we're pretty well agreed on these points

[mfbukowski]

Just curious, are you familiar with this fairly recent work by Paul Boghossian, Professor of Philosophy at NYU? Fear of Knowledge

I highly recommend it.

I kind of had a re-look at that, and I am more convinced than ever that he really misses the point completely on Rorty.

Boghossian seems to not understand (which I find totally unbelievable) that "facts" are linguistic propositions, that is, they are LANGUAGE which itself is, I think self-evidently socially constituted.

We speak of translation being context-dependent- he seems to totally ignore that insight of the last hundred years or more of philosophy, and frankly I don't know how he can do that.

The man apparently knows philosophy- how or why he ignores that is totally beyond me.

[Robert F. Smith]

Has anyone tried or even considered creating a completed replica scroll translating the BoA to the smallest Egyptian representation possible to see what such a thing would look like and how long it would be?

JMS

Sorry to take so long to reply, but I had to look some things up and do some figuring on your reverse translation idea. It is feasible, but there are many imponderables, e.g., length & width of scroll, how many lines of hieratic Egyptian on each scroll page, how long the actual Book of Abraham story may have been (the English translation was never finished), and how to estimate the number of lines of English in the current English Book of Abraham double-column text (maybe use the Times & Seasons edition for that figure).

However, if we estimate 11 pages of English text, plus three facsimile pages (these are just approx), we have perhaps around 14 pages of English text. We could compare the hieratic text of a couple of Egyptian tales: Sinuhe and the Shipwrecked Sailor. In the former we have over 311 lines of hieratic Egyptian rendered in 9 pages of English translation by M. Lichtheim = about 36 lines of hieratic per English page. In the latter, we have about 189 lines of hieratic (16 pages of papyrus), at 11.8 lines per page, rendered into English translation by Lichtheim in about 3 pages = about 63 lines of hieratic per English page. At the same time we can compare length of papyrus per hieratic page in a couple of papyri, from 18.35 cm to 27.5 cm per papyrus page.

Thus, we could estimate a hieratic Book of Abraham (exclusive of illustrations) at from 693 to 396 lines of hieratic to 11 pages of translated English text (@ 63 and 36 lines of hieratic per translated page), plus an additional 3 papyrus pages for the illustrations. The possible lengths for the text could run from 257 cm to 385 cm -- with some extra pages for additional story material never translated.

On which papyrus was the story written? A matter of controversy, but there was undoubtedly plenty of room on the verso (backside) of some of Joseph's papyri now lost, and it was common practice to copy older material on later papyri with unrelated texts, e.g., Book of the Dead (as in Pyramid texts being copied on the Roman period Sękowski Papyrus -- see ZÄS, 99 [1972], 25-29).

[Calm]

Impressive work.

[William Schryver]

Sorry to take so long to reply, but I had to look some things up and do some figuring on your reverse translation idea. It is feasible, but there are many imponderables, e.g., length & width of scroll, how many lines of hieratic Egyptian on each scroll page, how long the actual Book of Abraham story may have been (the English translation was never finished), and how to estimate the number of lines of English in the current English Book of Abraham double-column text (maybe use the Times & Seasons edition for that figure).

However, if we estimate 11 pages of English text, plus three facsimile pages (these are just approx), we have perhaps around 14 pages of English text. We could compare the hieratic text of a couple of Egyptian tales: Sinuhe and the Shipwrecked Sailor. In the former we have over 311 lines of hieratic Egyptian rendered in 9 pages of English translation by M. Lichtheim = about 36 lines of hieratic per English page. In the latter, we have about 189 lines of hieratic (16 pages of papyrus), at 11.8 lines per page, rendered into English translation by Lichtheim in about 3 pages = about 63 lines of hieratic per English page. At the same time we can compare length of papyrus per hieratic page in a couple of papyri, from 18.35 cm to 27.5 cm per papyrus page.

Thus, we could estimate a hieratic Book of Abraham (exclusive of illustrations) at from 693 to 396 lines of hieratic to 11 pages of translated English text (@ 63 and 36 lines of hieratic per translated page), plus an additional 3 papyrus pages for the illustrations. The possible lengths for the text could run from 257 cm to 385 cm -- with some extra pages for additional story material never translated.

On which papyrus was the story written? A matter of controversy, but there was undoubtedly plenty of room on the verso (backside) of some of Joseph's papyri now lost, and it was common practice to copy older material on later papyri with unrelated texts, e.g., Book of the Dead (as in Pyramid texts being copied on the Roman period Sękowski Papyrus -- see ZÄS, 99 [1972], 25-29).

None of the extant papyri appear to have been written on the verso. However, if the conclusions of my article are correct and the original scroll of Hor was ~500 cm, then by your calculations, it would appear to have been long enough to have accommodated an Egyptian text of the Document of Fellowship Written by Isis (Book of Breathings) as well as a Book of Abraham. Interesting ...

I look forward to your impressions of the article. I encourage you to report them here.

[Peppermint Patty]

I look forward to your impressions of the article. I encourage you to report them here.

Mr. Schryver,

Could you provide a link where your article is located? Thank you.

[Calm]

Mr. Schryver,

Could you provide a link where your article is located? Thank you.

It hasn't been published yet.

[William Schryver]

It hasn't been published yet.

I'm pretty sure "Peppermint Patty" knew that before s/he asked the question.

At any rate, the article will be published before too long.

I find it very interesting that those who claim to be defenders of "free speech" and advocates of comparing the best arguments of critics against the best arguments of apologists would have worked so hard to block our arguments from being published and then act for months as though the Cook/Smith article on the length of the scroll of Hor was the "final word" on the topic. Very interesting indeed ...

[Chris Smith]

I find it very interesting that those who claim to be defenders of "free speech" and advocates of comparing the best arguments of critics against the best arguments of apologists would have worked so hard to block our arguments from being published and then act for months as though the Cook/Smith article on the length of the scroll of Hor was the "final word" on the topic.

You gotta watch out for those shadowy ninja critics manipulating the apologetic establishment from behind the scenes. Their spies are everywhere.

[Mike Reed]

The best of them don't try to pass themselves off as anything else.

Chris,

I read Paul Ricoeur's "The Function of Fiction in Shaping Reality" and thought of you, Chris.

If you haven't already read it, it is available here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50208888/Ricoeur-The-function-of-fiction-in-shaping-reality

[Chris Smith]

Chris,

I read Paul Ricoeur's "The Function of Fiction in Shaping Reality" and thought of you, Chris.

If you haven't already read it, it is available here:

http://www.scribd.co...shaping-reality

Because it reminded you of our struggles this summer to wade through Latour?

[Mike Reed]

Because it reminded you of our struggles this summer to wade through Latour?

Ugh! Don't remind me... Just thought this might be another good read to tie in with your work on "inspired fiction."

The best of them don't try to pass themselves off as anything else.

What about Cevante's Don Quixote? Or the many short stories written by Joseph Smith's contemporary, Dietrich knickerbocker... I mean... Geoffrey Crayon... I mean... Washington Irving.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Mike Reed

[mfbukowski]

String theory is a theory-- a conceptual system whose factuality is under dispute.

"Facts" are expressed in language 100% of the time, and therefore are always "metaphoric" in some sense or other, which is fortunate. It would be uncomfortable to have a chair come out of one's mouth just because you said the word. Of course I am being silly, but words are not things and facts are not about the world, but about language.

Whether or not belief in the fact is justified and worth taking action on, and what kinds of actions one takes on believed facts is another matter.

So the question is not whether or not string theory is a "fact"- after all, the "fact" that "Pluto is a planet" was changed over night by changing the definition of the word "planet"- the question is whether or not the linguistic descriptions in string theory work according to all the accumulated descriptions defined linguistically which make up the constituent parts of the overall theory.

The reality is, we can only talk about things linguistically, and language is always metaphor to some extent or other. So the whole line between "fiction" and "fact" is blurry at best, and sometimes not even distinguishable.

You guys are talking about Latour- and that always comes up in these discussions. His whole problem is that he used the word "exist" instead of "defined".

If he had said that the bacillus had not yet been "defined", no one would have raised an eyebrow.

I guess this really should have been a response to Mike instead of Chris.

Edited October 24, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Mortal Man]

At any rate, the article will be published before too long.

Where? The FARMS Review?

I find it very interesting that those who claim to be defenders of "free speech" and advocates of comparing the best arguments of critics against the best arguments of apologists would have worked so hard to block our arguments from being published and then act for months as though the Cook/Smith article on the length of the scroll of Hor was the "final word" on the topic. Very interesting indeed ...

I was not aware that Paul Hoskisson along with the editorial staff at JBMRS and perhaps even the entire MI were operating under the collective thumb of some anonymous posters on an obscure message board. I must say, I find your theory quite fascinating and I've no doubt you have plenty of data to back it up. Clearly this involves much more than a single anonymous informant. There must be vast network of undercover apparatchiks at the MI to enforce the will of the MDB illuminati. I think you should write an exposé of this crooked conspiracy in the name of free speech, academic enlightenment and raw capitalism. Then team up with Hank Williams to put out an awesome

.

[William Schryver]

Where? The FARMS Review?

Definitely not the FARMS Review.

I was not aware that Paul Hoskisson along with the editorial staff at JBMRS and perhaps even the entire MI were operating under the collective thumb of some anonymous posters on an obscure message board. I must say, I find your theory quite fascinating and I've no doubt you have plenty of data to back it up. Clearly this involves much more than a single anonymous informant. There must be vast network of undercover apparatchiks at the MI to enforce the will of the MDB illuminati. I think you should write an exposé of this crooked conspiracy in the name of free speech, academic enlightenment and raw capitalism. Then team up with Hank Williams to put out an awesome

.

There was most certainly a conspiracy of sorts, that's for sure, and it was deliberately set in motion at a very precise point in time. Clever gambit, that. And when one considers the principals involved, it was an unlikely confederacy--at least it seemed so until viewed in retrospect. That said, to my knowledge none of what happened was done with Paul Hoskisson's approbation.

Edited October 24, 2011 by William Schryver

[Chris Smith]

Hey Mike,

The chief difference between pseudonymous authorship on the one hand, and inspirational fiction masquerading as history on the other, is in the consequences for readers. Inspirational stories are designed to elicit a reader response, whereas pseudonymy is not. Thus, the former kind of fiction involves much more potential for harm than the latter.

I readily acknowledge that fiction can inform decisionmaking in useful ways (e.g. providing inspiration, provoking critical thinking, and exploring unimagined possibilities). But the way we make use of fiction in the decisionmaking process is different from the way we make use of fact. We'll be best equipped to make good decisions if we can tell which is which. JMO.

[Chris Smith]

So the question is not whether or not string theory is a "fact" ... the question is whether or not the linguistic descriptions in string theory work according to all the accumulated descriptions defined linguistically which make up the constituent parts of the overall theory.

That's pretty much how I'd define a fact.

You guys are talking about Latour- and that always comes up in these discussions. His whole problem is that he used the word "exist" instead of "defined".

If he had said that the bacillus had not yet been "defined", no one would have raised an eyebrow.

I agree with you there. Then again, if he'd said "defined" instead of "existed," he wouldn't be famous. So maybe there's something to be said for pissing people off by inventing your own definitions for words!

Edited October 24, 2011 by Chris Smith

[mfbukowski]

I agree with you there. Then again, if he'd said "defined" instead of "existed," he wouldn't be famous. So maybe there's something to be said for pissing people off by inventing your own definitions for words!

I don't find "existence" to be a very useful word anyway. I have never quite figured out what it means.

[mfbukowski]

I think Boghossian has come up at least twice on this thread even though he hasn't been mentioned- there were at least two instances where arguments were lifted directly out of his book- the Latour reference and I forget another one- in a day or so I will directly address his arguments after I get a chance to review them in some detail.

[Mike Reed]

Hey Mike,

The chief difference between pseudonymous authorship on the one hand, and inspirational fiction masquerading as history on the other, is in the consequences for readers. Inspirational stories are designed to elicit a reader response, whereas pseudonymy is not. Thus, the former kind of fiction involves much more potential for harm than the latter.

I readily acknowledge that fiction can inform decisionmaking in useful ways (e.g. providing inspiration, provoking critical thinking, and exploring unimagined possibilities). But the way we make use of fiction in the decisionmaking process is different from the way we make use of fact. We'll be best equipped to make good decisions if we can tell which is which. JMO.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Cevante's Don Quixote claimed to be a translation of a buried record. Similarly, Washington Irving's Legend of Sleepy Hallow was not only published under the pseudonym of Geoffrey Crayon, but was also said to have derived from the papers of Dutch "Historian" Diedrich Knickerbocker, who was purported to be missing. Irving even went so far as to paste "missing person" posters around New York--a great publicity stunt, and it worked.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Mike Reed