If (!) history will be rewritten

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Pierre,
a very angry ripper in 13 Miller's Court? Perhaps a personal motive involved?
I hope it's not going to be Joe Barnett all over again? Although he is one of my favourite suspects.
Cheers,
IchabodCrane

[John G]

Lynn or John G.

Forgive my ignorance but given the above examples, are these two also tautologies (and don't say, "No, the first is part of an odd poem!").

1) Gertrude Stein: "A rose is a rose is a rose...."
2) Calvin Coolidge: "The business of America is business."

Jeff

Yes! In fact the Stein poem is a famous tautolgical axiom. However, I believe Jankelevich argued that some tautologies can be true, I.e. the Stein quote might be "a form of virtuous rather than vicious circle "

[Mayerling]

Hi Pierre,

I must admit I am starting to like you, even though I sometimes find myself struggling with some of your more enigmatic philosophical posts. However, maybe that's the key to identifying JtR: a speculative, enigmatic philosophical approach. Well, apart from the time travel idea, but I never really thought that to be very realistic!

I agree that "history is history", just as an apple is an Apple, a tree a tree, a bird a bird... I think in philosophy they call it a tautological argument. Hey, maybe that's the real key to identifying JtR: tautology!

Lynn or John G.

Forgive my ignorance but given the above examples*, are these two also tautologies (and don't say, "No, the first is part of an odd poem!").

1) Gertrude Stein: "A rose is a rose is a rose...."
2) Calvin Coolidge: "The business of America is business."

Jeff

*The first one actually confuses me and possibly is not a perfect tautology. It falls apart because of an example of capitalization in the second use of the word "apple". Just like "all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs", an "Apple" is an "Apple" but not every "apple" is an "Apple". When we generally speak of a small-"a" "apple" it is a fruit we eat. When we talk of the large "a" "Apple" it is a computer brand using a picture of the fruit, "apple", as it's symbol and name. But we don't eat it.

[JadenCollins]

Hi Pierre
Is this your way to make us all buy your book?
Re-writing history? This better be good.

“Let the ripper speak”
I hope you're not growing a sympathy for a serial killer there.

Anyways, I’ll be waiting.

Jaden

[John G]

Hello John. Right, a tautology.

Say, I need students like you.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn. High praise indeed!

[lynn cates]

tautology

Hello John. Right, a tautology.

Say, I need students like you.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

rewrite

Hello Pierre.

"But what kind of history will it be?"

How about this--"How did we EVER come to believe in this "JTR" rot in the first place?"

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hi there Inspector,

well, we can´t remake the past, can we. The past is the past, but history is history.

Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I must admit I am starting to like you, even though I sometimes find myself struggling with some of your more enigmatic philosophical posts. However, maybe that's the key to identifying JtR: a speculative, enigmatic philosophical approach. Well, apart from the time travel idea, but I never really thought that to be very realistic!

I agree that "history is history", just as an apple is an Apple, a tree a tree, a bird a bird... I think in philosophy they call it a tautological argument. Hey, maybe that's the real key to identifying JtR: tautology!

[Damaso Marte]

IF my data sources will be sufficient to prove who he was (I hope they won´t), history will most certainly be rewritten.

As the Spartans said to Philip of Macedon,

If.

[Pcdunn]

History is written by the winners?

OK then. The past has left us sources. We have written and other sources. What we then write about the sources is history. And the history of history is historiography.

The past = X (a source)
History = "We found X, a source. It must mean something. We think it means X."
Historiography = "There is history about X where they say they think X means X".

The past gives us primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources is the X in its original. Secondary sources can be writings about X.

THE PAST can (naturally) never change. It is over. Done. - Bye bye.
HISTORY of the past can change. - Well, hello there new history!

Regards Pierre

Hello, Pierre.

I do see what you are saying, and it makes sense to me. History, however, is rather a fluid thing. It can be forgotten. It can be rewritten. It can be misinterpreted, and interpreted with a bias. The tablets on which it is written can be smashed, or defaced. Paper and books can be erased, and burned.

Librarians in the Soviet Union were instructed to cut out offending passages and pictures in reference books and replace them with State-approved information.
This was how history was rewritten and passed to future generations.

I hope your new source is genuine and can be trusted.
Good luck...

[Dane_F]

Hi Dane,

I don´t think you´re being rude at all and I appreciate your honesty. Well, trying to troll forums is not something I have the time for. But I can understand if people think so.

Regards Pierre

Honestly, I hope at the end of this you publish this amazing article or book that is completely revolutionary and blows this case wide open. That would be so enjoyable to watch.

I wish you the best whatever your agenda is.

- Dane

[Brenda]

.

The good news for all of us, Pierre, is that the 17th will mark one month since you came to the boards. This means one month down, 11 more to go until the "Big Reveal".....

Tick tock.....

[Pierre]

You seem very smart Pierre, but your posts like this come off very much like you are trying to troll people. The simple truth is: if you never provide a carrot, you cannot expect a rabbit to chase.

You might have wonderful insights but I fear whatever your goal is might not be achieved because most will struggle to take them serious. I don't think people feel anger towards you, I think they feel you're a joke.

Certainly you can appreciate the fact that *hypothetically* If someone were trying to troll this forum, they would go about it in an identical manner in which you are doing it. Maybe a slight change in your tactic will be met with better results.

I fear my post comes off ruder than I intend it to be, I'm sorry for that. I'm mainly just an observer with little investment to get worked up about.

Hi Dane,

I don´t think you´re being rude at all and I appreciate your honesty. Well, trying to troll forums is not something I have the time for. But I can understand if people think so.

Regards Pierre

[Dane_F]

You seem very smart Pierre, but your posts like this come off very much like you are trying to troll people. The simple truth is: if you never provide a carrot, you cannot expect a rabbit to chase.

You might have wonderful insights but I fear whatever your goal is might not be achieved because most will struggle to take them serious. I don't think people feel anger towards you, I think they feel you're a joke.

Certainly you can appreciate the fact that *hypothetically* If someone were trying to troll this forum, they would go about it in an identical manner in which you are doing it. Maybe a slight change in your tactic will be met with better results.

I fear my post comes off ruder than I intend it to be, I'm sorry for that. I'm mainly just an observer with little investment to get worked up about.

[Pierre]

Now that's helpful

OK then. The past has left us sources. We have written and other sources. What we then write about the sources is history. And the history of history is historiography.

The past = X (a source)
History = "We found X, a source. It must mean something. We think it means X."
Historiography = "There is history about X where they say they think X means X".

The past gives us primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources is the X in its original. Secondary sources can be writings about X.

THE PAST can (naturally) never change. It is over. Done. - Bye bye.
HISTORY of the past can change. - Well, hello there new history!

Regards Pierre