The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[GUT]

I swear that Pierre is only capable of thinking within the framework of his own theory. He has a suspect who he believes is Jack the Ripper and who is an intelligent man. Therefore he cannot conceive that the Ripper might have been unintelligent. When he asks the question about whether the killer would have been intelligent if he'd given the police his real name he doesn't even realise that it is a question based on his own assumption as to the identity of the killer.

No doubt if he ever deigns to respond he will say that his sources tell him that the killer was intelligent, as if that answers it.

With all his circular reasoning he must be dizzy.

[David Orsam]

With all his circular reasoning he must be dizzy.

This allows me to pull out one of my favourite quotes from the Great Book of Pierre's Famous Quotations:

"Some arguments can be circular and they can still be meaningful."

#40 in "Social Class of Jack the Ripper" – 14 November 2015

[GUT]

This allows me to pull out one of my favourite quotes from the Great Book of Pierre's Famous Quotations:

"Some arguments can be circular and they can still be meaningful."

#40 in "Social Class of Jack the Ripper" – 14 November 2015

Well that shows his logic

[Mayerling]

Hold on, you think Pierre is either Colin Wilson or Robin Odell?

Colin Wilson is very unlikely to come on here and deny it considering he died in 2013.

Even if he could, David, there was a problem regarding Colin Wilson: he was notorious for changing his mind about who the Ripper was when some new book or study was published. Besides he was a popular novelist and writer, not an academically inclined scholar!

Jeff

[GUT]

Even if he could, David, there was a problem regarding Colin Wilson: he was notorious for changing his mind about who the Ripper was when some new book or study was published. Besides he was a popular novelist and writer, not an academically inclined scholar!

Jeff

Well maybe it is Colin after all, old Pierre seems pretty good at changing his mind.

[Whitechapel]

Is this Colin Wilson (d. 5.12.13), author of "Summing it up" ? It's all here in this article early references to Nietzsche and even Einstein.

"Examining the role of outsiders in the arts, Wilson’s attention roamed across a multitude of figures such as Camus, Nietzsche, Kafka, Sartre, Hermann Hesse and Van Gogh."

"At 11 he developed an interest in science (“I was reading Einstein by the age of 12”) and spent his free time making “bomb mixture” with his chemistry set."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-obituaries/10504201/Colin-Wilson-obituary.html

In his TV interview with Anne and Nick, he says his grandfather was in Whitechapel during the murders and JTR was the first murderer for sex.

Did Colin have a son ?

[Hercule Poirot]

This allows me to pull out one of my favourite quotes from the Great Book of Pierre's Famous Quotations:

"Some arguments can be circular and they can still be meaningful."

#40 in "Social Class of Jack the Ripper" – 14 November 2015

It actually can be meaningful but does not allow for valid conclusion. It's a bit like jumping from deductive to inductive reasoning. It offers some perspective or clues. The problem is when one is into circular logic without being aware of it.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[David Orsam]

It actually can be meaningful but does not allow for valid conclusion.

I have no idea what you mean by this Hercule. A circular argument is by definition a defective argument containing, by definition, a logical fallacy. Therefore, such an argument, by definition, has no real meaning at all.

[Pierre]

It actually can be meaningful but does not allow for valid conclusion. It's a bit like jumping from deductive to inductive reasoning. It offers some perspective or clues. The problem is when one is into circular logic without being aware of it.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

Hi Hercule,

I agree with you. And I must also point out something that I think you are pointing out in your description about jumping from deductive to inductive reasoning.

It does offer perspectives and that is due to the fact that pure logic is not the map for reality. Between the logical levels there is a social reality.

Reality, in this case the murders and thinking about the murders, therefore does not follow pure logic. And therefore, arguments concerning the murders can not be drawn from, or follow, pure logic.

The world is a social world, it is not in itself a great logical axiom.

The social world can not be understood by logical thinking but by SOCIOlogical thinking.

And history is a well founded story about the social world. Therefore history must be sociologically constructed and not constructed with the ideas of pure logic.

So logical reasoning in a circular form can be meaningful in real dimensions at the same time as it is being uttered: it can point to a meaning outside of the logical circle.

In ancient Greece, they thought they could deduce "truth" from "truth itself". The thought they could achieve knowledge from "eternal ideas". But here on earth, if we all draw a circle, it will be different and the differences are due to variables in the social world.

Kind Regards, Pierre

[Craig H]

If so, he lied about his suspect not being a Scotland Yard official.

I also thought that his suspect was supposed to have been a uniformed officer. Monty can clarify but while an Assistant Commissioner might have had some form of ceremonial uniform, I somehow don't see him walking around Whitechapel at 3am in his full regalia!!

And what about anatomical knowledge. Did Bruce have any?

Have you considered the Chief Constables and Assistant Chief Constables at Scotland Yard who, with the exception of Williamson, were also drawn from the upper classes?

Hi David

Sorry for the delay in bouncing back - we had a short break down south.

I looked on Ancestry.com at 50 Police Officials who were listed in the book I mentioned as working in Metropolitan Police or City of London Police, and compared them against the list of clues Pierre gave. I also removed anyone too old.

The only two who met all criteria were Alexander Carmichael Bruce and Melville Macnaghten. The latter seemed a better fit to me due his close relationship t Monro, and he had a strong motive as he moved from India to London based upon a job promise which Warren then overturned.

However, Pierre had previously said Macnaghten was not his suspect.

As you noted, Bruce seems an unlikely suspect, but only one who appeared a fit to the clues Pierre provided.

I followed up on your suggestion around Chief Constables come from a high social class. I found another book online which provided names of Police Officials in 1888 - which revealed one possible other candidate in Colonel Bolton James Alfred Monsell (born 1840 in Ireland, father was a Vicar, achieved rank of Major in British Army, served in Canada, appointed by Warren , in 1891 Census was living at 25 Gordon Square, St Pancras with wife, kids and 5 servants.

Morsel was appointed by Warren to be responsible for East End but had a low profile in the investigation.

Does anyone know anything about Monsell ?

The other person who Warren appointed was Colonel Roberts - but I couldn't find him on Ancestry.

Craig

[David Orsam]

So logical reasoning in a circular form can be meaningful in real dimensions at the same time as it is being uttered: it can point to a meaning outside of the logical circle.

Ah, I see what you are saying. A circular argument defies logic and is illogical, comprising, as it does, a logical fallacy, so that it is meaningless in what you would refer to as the unreal dimensions but what I would describe as the real world.

I agree entirely.

[David Orsam]

It's worth reminding ourselves of what led to Pierre's comment about circular arguments that I quoted in #572.

I was asking Pierre in the "Social Class of Jack the Ripper" thread how he could be sure that the letter that would became known as the GOGMAGOG letter was written by his suspect. I pointed out that even if the letter was written by the killer, the author (i.e. the killer) could be absolutely anyone.

This was at a time when he was talking to me and he answered me by saying that if his suspect was the killer then he must have written the GOGMAGOG letter because the letter must have been written by the killer. To quote his own words:

"If the person I think is the killer, he wrote it."

As I pointed out to him, that was a circular argument because he was effectively saying saying: if his suspect was the killer, he wrote it. If he wrote it, he was the killer.

It was in response to this that Pierre said, ludicrously, that circular arguments can be meaningful. But they can't because they are by definition bad arguments. The only meaning they have is in providing a psychological insight into the people who put them forward.

[Michael W Richards]

It's worth reminding ourselves of what led to Pierre's comment about circular arguments that I quoted in #572.

I was asking Pierre in the "Social Class of Jack the Ripper" thread how he could be sure that the letter that would became known as the GOGMAGOG letter was written by his suspect. I pointed out that even if the letter was written by the killer, the author (i.e. the killer) could be absolutely anyone.

This was at a time when he was talking to me and he answered me by saying that if his suspect was the killer then he m<script id="gpt-impl-0.9466209122718442" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_78.js"></script>ust have written the GOGMAGOG letter because the letter must have been written by the killer. To quote his own words:

"If the person I think is the killer, he wrote it."

As I pointed out to him, that was a circular argument because he was effectively saying saying: if his suspect was the killer, he wrote it. If he wrote it, he was the killer.

It was in response to this that Pierre said, ludicrously, that circular arguments can be meaningful. But they can't because they are by definition bad arguments. The only meaning they have is in providing a psychological insight into the people who put them forward.

Everything that Pierre has said here is self serving, so Im not surprised he would defend circular arguments. What purpose this is serving...I have no idea, but my guess would be bear baiting for entertainment.

[John G]

It's worth reminding ourselves of what led to Pierre's comment about circular arguments that I quoted in #572.

I was asking Pierre in the "Social Class of Jack the Ripper" thread how he could be sure that the letter that would became known as the GOGMAGOG letter was written by his suspect. I pointed out that even if the letter was written by the killer, the author (i.e. the killer) could be absolutely anyone.

This was at a time when he was talking to me and he answered me by saying that if his suspect was the killer then he m<script id="gpt-impl-0.9466209122718442" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_78.js"></script>ust have written the GOGMAGOG letter because the letter must have been written by the killer. To quote his own words:

"If the person I think is the killer, he wrote it."

As I pointed out to him, that was a circular argument because he was effectively saying saying: if his suspect was the killer, he wrote it. If he wrote it, he was the killer.

It was in response to this that Pierre said, ludicrously, that circular arguments can be meaningful. But they can't because they are by definition bad arguments. The only meaning they have is in providing a psychological insight into the people who put them forward.

Yes, I think we can now reasonably conclude that Pierre has completely abandoned logic in exchange for fantastical theories, and therefore conducting meaningful conversation with him is all but impossible.

[Elamarna]

Everyone

unless he says something new or even a name just ignore him.
no point in trying to debate. i have final realized that.
if he posts and says something obviously incorrect. short rebuttal is all that is required, if that.
either he will give up, or publish
Steve