Kata Markon

["Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson AT mindspring.com>]

Thank you, Ted, for your post on Judas' Kiss and Methodology.

I believe that you have identified the problem in Alward's method,
but I'm not sure that it really is an example of Whitehead's
fallacy of misplaced concretion (or concreteness).  That fallacy,
as I understand it, is to talk about an abstract concept as if
it is real and has existence in reality.  For example, we can
define a concept of an "average man", but it would be wrong to
assume that such an average man really exists.  The average man
might have 2.3 children, but no real person can have a fractional
child.

The problem that you've touched in Alward's method is related to
the level of abstraction at which Alward makes his comparison.
Basically, it is easy to find similarities between any two things
by generalizing the things to a high enough level of abstraction.
For example, the wheel and the airplane are both inventions that
make transportation easier, but they are very different mechanical
devices.  As another example, both Tolkein's Hobbit and O. Henry's
Gift of the Magi are stories that involve a ring.  If one is in the
game of finding similarities, I'd say that any similarity can be
found at a general enough level of abstraction.  These similarities,
because they're so easy to make, can be as compelling at those
similarities that work at a (more) concrete level of detail.

This concept is not new to me, or to others.  It has been a staple
of American copyright law for year.  Here is a passage from a rather
famous opinion by Judge Learned Hand in Nichols v. Universal Pictures
Co., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930) (L. Hand, J.):

>But when the plagiarist does not take out a block in situ, but an abstract 
>of the whole, decision is more troublesome. Upon any work, and especially 
>upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit 
>equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out. The last may 
>perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the play is 
>about, and at times might consist only of its title; but there is a point in 
>this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since 
>otherwise the playwright could prevent the use of his "ideas," to which, 
>apart from their expression, his property is never extended.

You can read the whole opinion (which is fairly short) at:

        http://www.allrise.com/copyright/cases/45F2D119.html

Turning now to the three kisses you've offered in comparison to
Judas' kiss (2 Sam. 14:33, 15:5, and 20:9), only Joab's kiss works
at a more concrete level.  Here, in both cases a kiss is used by
a protagonists to betray the victim, to the victim's death.  There
still are differences in the details, but this incident is a much
better fit than either 14:33 or 15:5, were it is one who is king
or pretends to be king kisses a subject.  It is only by reinterepting
both the Absalom kiss and the Judas kiss at a very high level of
abstraction "kissing involving a conspiracy" before any similarity
between the two events can be seen.  This comparison just does not
work at the concrete level of detail (i.e. Absalom does not kiss
the victim of his conspiracy, but rather the opposite: David kisses
Absalom), where it must work to be valid.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson AT mindspring.com
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35