The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1487  Friday, 9 September 2005

From: 		David Basch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Thursday, 08 Sep 2005 10:27:47 -0400
Subject: 	Epistomological Considerations

Larry Weiss in discussion brings up "epistomolgical" considerations. He 
is correct that we on the list will have better discussions if we deal 
with substantive matters grounded in fact and clear reasoning. But he 
strays from such considerations when he cavalierly dismisses me, Amit, 
and Chan as providing no evidence for our views. He writes:

     >In this case, there is a fundamental epistemological objection.
     >Chan, Basch and Amit do not offer evidence....

But I did not imagine finding the poet's full name in Sonnet 148 as 
steganographic embedment and I even displayed these to the list to no 
comment from Larry. What does he make of this? I see it as evidence of 
the poet's use of such devices, Therefore, when I showed the list how 
Marlowe's Latin motto ("Quod me nutruit etc") is also to be found in the 
same way in Sonnet 73 it must not be seen as off the wall.

I also presented Henry Wriothesley's full name inserted through equal 
letter skip devices in the dedication of the Sonnets, proving that this 
type of cryptographic device was known and used at the time so that when 
I show that "w-i-l-l" occurs twice as an equal letter skip sequence in 
Sonnet 148 it too is not to be seen as something plucked from thin air.

And then when Florence Amit and myself show many unmistakable instances 
and indications of Shakespeare's use of Hebrew in his work and we see 
this as evidence of proficiency on the poet's part, it is not something 
presented without an epistemological base.

Nor are the many parallels to Ecclesiastes and a scheme of meaning that 
corresponds with the thought of Ecclesiastes that I brought up as found 
in Hamlet without evidentiary status in themselves. These could be 
further bolstered by the many additional such parallels that I have 
found but which interest Larry not one whit.

And Larry Chan confirms at least the presence of a spiritual outlook in 
Hamlet that audiences must recognize if we are to fully appreciate this 
play and its playwright. This presence is also confirmed by many other 
commentators.

Yet Larry Weiss has no compunctions about pretending that these things 
don't exist and should not become part of the discussion, writing us off 
as though we mindlessly indulge our obsessions. But Larry's saying so 
makes does not make this so and is in itself an epistemological 
contradiction.

I think our discussions on list would improve if we hear out the views 
of members and, if we disagree, would raise questions and contradictions 
in a manner that invites response and further discussion. This is the 
way to test reality and get to reality.

David Basch

_______________________________________________________________
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.