Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2004 :: June ::
Hamlet's Ghost
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1273  Tuesday, 15 June 2004

[1]     From:   Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 14 Jun 2004 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost [incest in genealogy]

[2]     From:   Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 14 Jun 2004 16:10:18 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost

[3]     From:   Pamela Richards <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 14 Jun 2004 09:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost

[4]     From:   David Cohen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 14 Jun 2004 14:51:43 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost

[5]     From:   David Cohen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 14 Jun 2004 15:05:46 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost [incest in genealogy]
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost [incest in genealogy]

Gabriel Egan writes, "Incidentally, and at the risk of
crossing-threading this list...I can report back that no-one who
contacted me off-list knew of an established genealogical way of
representing incest in a family tree."

OK: to the point of becoming redundant, I remind you I gave you the
"established genealogical way of representing incest in a family tree"
here on SHAKSPER directly on SHAKSPER and you may find my description in
the archives.  I specifically stated you need names, dates, and places
of birth to be certain of the participants.  So, as not to be overlooked
I offer it once again so *all* scholars may take note:

* First, a vertical line represents the descendants of two who mate.

* Second, it would appear as the following:

* George Shakesworth   -   Martha Wickerham
   b.11 Jan 1659         |   b. 10 December 1658
   London                |   London
                         |
                         |
                   George Shakesworth, Jr.   -   Martha Wickerham
                   b. 8 July 1679            |   b. 10 December 1658
                   London                    |   London
                                             |
                                   George Shakesworth, III
                                   b. 4 Feb 1699
                                   London

OK: case closed on representational art of *known* and discovered incest
in genealogy!  To the uninitiated, let the record *show*: Momma
committed incest, via discovery of *known* facts.

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 16:10:18 +0100
Subject: 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost

David Cohen asks...

 >>his religion (along with his homosexuality) . . . .
 >
 >Where does this come from, or are you just being facetious?

Maybe.  I've been reading the Arden Sonnets, edited by Katherine Duncan
Jones.

"Possibly, ... women readers are able to remain at once calmly observant
of, yet emotionally receptive to, the masculine homoerotic thrust of
[Sonnets] 1-126 that has caused such upset to generations of male readers".

Katherine writes of Sonnet 20 ... "A famously puzzling sonnet, which has
often been taken to exonerate Shakespeare from any imputation of
homoerotic passion.  However, it can be read as suggesting the exact
opposite, both because its naivety is too simple to be believed
('because we are both men we can have no physical congress'), and
because its language is slippery and self-subverting".

Oooer.

Peter Bridgman

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pamela Richards <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 09:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost

David Cohen states:

 >"Sounds like if one pays close attention to details,
 >one can make what looks like accurate predictions.  I
 >predict that you will respond to this post.  Nothing
 >surprising in that."

No, particularly since you asked me direct questions.  It only takes the
most elementary understanding of liguistic principles to predict that.
Predictions made by augury are of a different nature.

Webster defines augury:

1 : divination from auspices or omens; also : an instance of this
2 : OMEN, PORTENT

Again, I mentioned the examples in the previous post to demonstrate that
beliefs about augury in Shakespeare's time were different than our
mainstream ideas about augury today.  And again, you are trying to see
if you can derive "truth" from them.  Can you try to understand the
difference between what I say and what you hear?

* * * * * * * * * *

If we can separate this out from the rest of the discussion, strictly in
an attempt to indulge your curiosity, I will answer your questions.
Please bear in mind that we have already proven the point that beliefs
in Shakespeare's time about augury are _different_ than popular beliefs
about augury held currently.

I do not expect you to change your beliefs about augury due to my
response, although I have not consulted a "chart" to predict that.  It
would just be contrary to the belief system of the current-day
mainstream culture you belong to; people who share my beliefs about
augury are probably 10% or less of the mainstream: and that's all it
requires for me to make that particular prediction.  I don't tend to use
augury to predict the outcome of matters that have so little potential
impact on me or my family.

This has nothing to do with the rest of the discussion, but here are the
answers to your questions:

"What I would like to know is this: (1) Can you make equally accurate
predictions without consulting the charts (whatever that means)?"

Absolutely not.  My family jokes about this, and I think it's one of the
main reasons I took up augury.  I like to think the best of everyone and
take them at their word.  I am easily misled, and often proven wrong.  I
seem to have no "sixth sense" to speak of.  I admit I use augury as a
crutch for my own inadequacies when I have important decisions to make.
  And no, I am not interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge, thank you.

"and (2) How many of your predictions, with or without the charts,  have
proved incorrect?"

With "charts", the number of incorrect predictions is hard to verify
because of the number of negative predictions I have made.  It is
impossible to prove a negative.  So, I could predict that Sally will not
marry Joe, but how can we know this is true?  Until one of them dies, of
course.  You'd have to outlast a lot of people to verify all your
negative predictions.

As far as positive predictions, I'd say about 5-8% are incorrect.  I
keep records of charts and predictions, and collect outcomes as often as
possible.

There is another category of predictions made, which have outcomes
inaccessible to me because the subject of the prediction has not told me
what happened.  I'd say this covers at least 30% of the predictions I
make.

I do follow up with people I have regular contact with.  The other day,
I asked my daughter to tell me how many times I had been mistaken in
"charted" predictions I made for her, and she could not recall one.  In
reviewing my records, neither could I.

There are also some parameters on the method of prediction that I use,
so there are some questions which the chart warns me I am not to answer.
  So if we include that number in the "incorrect" category, it would
boost "incorrect" predictions by another 5% or so.

Without "charts", my rate of accurate prediction is very, very poor.  So
I'd guess about 80% incorrect, although I don't keep records of such
"predictions".

"Can you give a few examples of your false positives or false negatives?
I ask because it is obvious that if you make 100 predictions, 90 percent
of which turn out false, then talking about the 10 will be misleading."

I did mention there was room for human error in interpreting "charts."

I once thought that a woman was not going to be able to maintain her
pregnancy, based on the chart.  The chart showed the planet indicating
the baby in opposition to the planet indicating her pregnancy. Her
question was about which gender her child would be, so I refrained from
mentioning these details to her.  As it turned out, she did have a
normal delivery and a healthy baby.  And in the interim, I discovered
that those planets opposing one another can indicate a healthy delivery.
  So when looking at an event like childbirth, the difference between a
miscarriage and a healthy delivery can be as simple as the length of
time that transpires.  I had failed to note this on the chart.  She did
have a boy, as predicted.

I once predicted that a woman would maintain a relationship with her
mentor and the relationship would not be disrupted (any more than it
already was!).  But apparently they had a falling-out anyway.  I
probably should have had her consult with someone else, because I was
directly involved in the matter and I wanted the two of them to be able
to get along; therefore, I may not have looked at the chart with
complete objectivity.  I also have predicted that the woman's mentor
would change her mind about the matter causing friction, and would renew
her interest in the woman in the future, but the time frames for this
prediction have not yet expired, so the final outcome is still in question.

I can also think of another prediction that was incorrect.  The woman
asked whether she would be fired from her job, and I predicted she would
would leave of her own accord.  But she was fired.  I had miscalculated
the significance of the relationshipw between planets on her chart.
Yet, for the next question she asked, "Where will I get a new job?" the
prediction was dead on.  She currently works two part-time jobs, and I
had named each of the places that employed her as potential employers,
based on the nature of the work and the direction of the compass they
were located in.  She applied for many jobs, but these are the ones she
was hired into.

I think we have probably delved into this subject adequately (or more!)
for the purposes of this discussion group.  If you have any other
questions about my personal experiences with augury, please feel free to
relay them to me directly so that the group is not distracted from the
matter of  discussing Shakespeare and his plays.

Again, my point is that most people in our current-day culture do _not_
share the beliefs that Shakespeare's audience subscribed to in the area
of augury; hence, it is impossible to extrapolate from our mainstream
beliefs what his audience's beliefs, or Hamlet's, would have been.

Regards,
Pamela Richards

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Cohen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 14:51:43 -0500
Subject: 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost

Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

 >Incidentally, and at the risk of crossing-threading this list worse than
 >the head-bolts on Woody Guthrie's famous jalopy, I can report back that
 >no-one who contacted me off-list knew of an established genealogical way
 >of representing incest in a family tree.

Try the following (as suggested by my colleague John Loehlin: For son
daughter incest, merely put a "bar" between them.  For, say, father
daughter incest (mother-son being rare), simply double the father, that
is, put the father in as the older generation (as usual) and again as
part of the "younger" generation, with a "bar between him and the
daughter, just as you would hook her up to any mating male

David Cohen

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Cohen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 14 Jun 2004 15:05:46 -0500
Subject: 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1263 Hamlet's Ghost

John Reed <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

 >"Children are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the
 >story-maker's art is good enough to produce it.  That state of mind has
 >been called "willing suspension of disbelief."  But this does not seem
 >to me a good description of what happens.  What really happens is that
 >the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator."  He makes a Secondary
 >World which your mind can enter.  Inside it, what he relates is "true":
 >it accords with the laws of that world.  You therefore believe it, while
 >you are, as it were, inside . . .

Yes, but there is much to childhood story making that is in the child,
not just in the story-teller.  Kids have a fantastic imagination, and
make up their own stories (which is why they are so interested in other
people's stories).  Their prelogical, or pre-concrete operational minds
(in Piaget's terminology) are more capable of suspension of disbelief
than they will naturally be when they slip into concrete operational
thinking, all this happening automatically, as their biopsychology
ripens.  In The "World in the Evening," novelist Christopher Isherwood
speaks wistfully of a window with a multicolored design of grapes and
leaves through which he would peer as a child.  He muses about "changing
the scene, at will, from colour-mood to colour-mood and experiencing the
pure pleasure of sensations that need no analysis . . . How had red
felt, at the age of four?  What had blue meant?  Why was yellow?
Perhaps if I could somehow know that, now, I should understand
everything else that had happened to me in the interval.  But I should
never know.  The whole organ of cognition had changed, and I had nothing
left to know with. If I looked through that window now, I should see
nothing but a lot of adjectives."

David Cohen

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.