Tintin Forums

Tintin Forums / Hergé and Studio Hergé /

About Hergé's Childhood?

Page  Page 2 of 2:  « Previous  1  2 

yamilah
Member
#11 · Posted: 20 Feb 2007 11:55 · Edited by: yamilah
mondrian
I meant abductive.

Thanks for your chief remark: contrary to induction and deduction, abduction is the only way of reasoning through which one can discover new knowledge!

Considering abduction is sometimes called the "method of the detective", it's certainly part of any tracking game, aside from induction and deduction!

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abduction_%28%C3%A9pist%C3%A9mologie%29
jock123
Moderator
#12 · Posted: 20 Feb 2007 12:29 · Edited by: jock123
yamilah
Maybe such a tribute should rather be paid to Herge, who asserted there was a message in his artwork?
There is nothing in the idea of Hergé having a message in his work that is in any way controversial - he promotes resourcefulness, fidelity, tenacity, healthy exercise, indeed all the boy scout ideals, and more. What there is absolutely nothing to indicate is that the message is anything other than overt; only you (and I repeat as I have done before, no one other than you has seen what you see as a code as being in any way significant) have maintained that the message is covert.

perhaps for those who are interested in rebuses only- there's a non-futile surprise in the end?
But there is nothing to indicate that there is a rebus there, and you haven’t shown otherwise, or given a reasonable account of why there should be one there to find. That’s what makes looking for one futile…

I suppose by 'abductive' you mean inductive?
Abduction, or the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, is when you have
If X, then Y
Y
Therefore X

So if Jim eats too much chocolate, he’ll get fat
Jim is fat
Therefore Jim ate too much chocolate

The answer does not follow - Jim may have eaten too much marzipan, or strudel or ice cream.

It may be applied informally, and is not necessarily untrue, but then the conditions have to be very specific, and the results are trivial:
If the switch isn’t off it is on
The switch is on
Therefore it isn’t off.

So your proposition appears to be:
If there is a code, there is a message
Hergé said there is a message in his work
Therefore there is a code

That is a non sequitur; as I said above, the message Hergé alluded to could be overt not covert: the fact that overtness can actually be backed up with many specific examples (any of the “good angel/ bad angel” sequences, that bad deeds lead to damnation (in The Broken Ear etc.) makes it a far more likely proposition than the rebus-reflecting-line-crossing-indian-language-echo stuff.
yamilah
Member
#13 · Posted: 20 Feb 2007 13:58 · Edited by: yamilah
So your proposition appears to be:
If there is a code, there is a message
Hergé said there is a message in his work
Therefore there is a code


No.
Herge said there's a message in his work.
As this personal message is not patent, and Tintin is so strange, there might be a writing constraint*.
As Tintin is directly connected with the author via "Tintin, Haddock & the others are I", the latter sentence might be the writing constraint*.

But maybe you actually know more about abduction than Peirce himself (with his new more constructive definition) and Umberto Eco, the famous present-time semiotician who said abduction is 'the method of the detective'?

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
jock123
Moderator
#14 · Posted: 20 Feb 2007 14:25 · Edited by: jock123
yamilah
Herge said there's a message in his work.
I have no problem with that.

As his message is not patent at all
But what makes you think there isn’t a obvious message in his work, and how do you make the huge un-neccessary leap that he encoded it using such a rag-tag collection of unverifiable schemes as you maintain?

You haven’t offered any refutation of the overt elements which might be seen as a message, and you certainly haven’t furnished any covert examples that stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

and Tintin is so strange
In what way? You also haven’t made a clear case for why Tintin is any more strange than any other fictional character, or series of books, cartoon or otherwise, so please give some examples.

there might be a writing contraint*.
There might be - and I may have a mouse which can sing Bach chorales; there doesn’t appear to be any evidence for this assertion (or for my mouse), so again, what use is it to suppose such a thing?

But maybe you actually know more about abduction than Peirce himself (with his new more constructive definition) and Umberto Eco, the famous present-time semiotician who said abduction is 'the method of the detective'?

As I have said before, attacking me to avoid answering the questions being put to you is a typical fallacy; I have made no such claims, and there is nothing in what I have said that even mentions them, let alone sets myself up over them. I heard Signor Eco lecture when I was a student, and he was the epitome of clarity and logical thought, and altogether a much cleverer cove than I will ever be…
What you have to show is that anything they have ever said establishes your proposition is true; just dangling their names into the conversation is a red herring…
mondrian
Member
#15 · Posted: 20 Feb 2007 15:13 · Edited by: mondrian
For the record, when I said "abductive", I meant it exactly as jock123 has explained (and I´d be surprised if that meaning isn't emphasized in Wikipedia).

As you seem to be a keen user of internet dictionaries, could you please check "ocham's razor" (or occam's, spelling varies and I'm too lazy to check which one is in fashion nowadays)? That's a powerful tool, and maybe you could use that to reach your end, yamilah?

It´d be interesting to hear you then answer the questions set by jock123. I'm yet to see a smallest hint why I should follow your steps.

ps. If you´re interested in what Umberto Eco says and how a famous present-time semiotician works, I can recommend "Semiologia quitidiana" (don´t know the English or French title, but I bet it´s been translated. Finnish title is "Matka arkipäivän epätodellisuuteen", if that helps). It´s a collection of his essays and a great introduction into semiotics for anyone who´s interested.
jock123
Moderator
#16 · Posted: 20 Feb 2007 16:02
mondrian
If you’re interested in what Umberto Eco says and how a famous present-time semiotician works, I can recommend "Semiologia quitidiana"

I think there may also be a case for recommending his Interpretation and Overinterpretation… I’ve not read it, but I think it might be applicable…
yamilah
Member
#17 · Posted: 20 Feb 2007 21:41 · Edited by: yamilah
mondrian
please check "ocham´s razor" (...) That's a powerful tool, and maybe you could use that to reach your end, yamilah?

Alas I couldn't find the slightest connection between Tintin and Occam, contrary to quotes from Caesar*, Dante*, Cervantes*, Hugo*, Lamartine*, Longfellow*, etc all found in Tintin -as already mentioned.

Did you find one? Or is yours just some free -not to say unconstrained- interpretation?
jock123
Moderator
#18 · Posted: 20 Feb 2007 22:43 · Edited by: jock123
yamilah
Alas I couldn't find the slightest connection between Tintin and Occam,
I think you are being deliberately obtuse, although it may be for comic effect: it was being suggested that if you thought to use the principle of Occam's Razor, a powerful tool in analysis, you would soon find that the whole edifice you have constructed (and I do mean you, I don't attribute any of it to Hergé) does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

contrary to quotes from Caesar*, Dante*, Cervantes*, Hugo*, Lamartine*, Longfellow*, etc all found in Tintin
This is yet again a non sequitur: the fact that Hergé made allusions to poets and poetry only shows that he made allusions to poets and poety - so what? Allusion is a standard technique in art and literature, it does not entail a hidden message.

Did you find one? Or is yours just some free -not to say unconstrained- interpretation?
Is it necessary to always try and undermine anyone who offers advice? Can't you, just for once, say, "Ah, that's useful! I could try applying that!"?
Contrary to your barb, mondrian is operating within very strict and sound principles: it is your tracking-game which is wholly free and interpretative, as it allows you to only accept those elements which you choose to include, and ignore absolutely anything you don't want, at will.

Notice how quickly you reacted against mondrian's assertion that you were using abduction, and then more or less instantly used the notion that what you are doing is abduction to co-opt Eco and Pierce as "support", as if bandying their names about would give your approach validity, and discredit what I had explained about abduction (a curiously topsy-turvey argument, but that's not unusual).

Page  Page 2 of 2:  « Previous  1  2 

Please be sure to familiarize yourself with the Forum Posting Guidelines.

Disclaimer: Tintinologist.org assumes no responsibility for any content you post to the forums/web site. Staff reserve the right to remove any submitted content which they deem in breach of Tintinologist.org's Terms of Use. If you spot anything on Tintinologist.org that you think is inappropriate, please alert the moderation team. Sometimes things slip through, but we will always act swiftly to remove unauthorised material.

Reply



  Forgot your password?
Please sign in to post. New here? Sign up!