Such structure enounce was is true, explicitely yet ironically. or in absentia, or in a reversed way. Let's take an example. Immanuel Velikovsky is the psychoanalyst who disclosed that Oedipus and Akhnaton are one and the same person. The scholar Tyldesley says that he is both an amateur and a crack. She there says what is true about herself. If Velikovsky was still avlive and entering the room where she hosts a party, she would welcome him in a civil manner and ironicaly say: here comes the 'Great Historian'. Not only scholars behave this way - but anyone who has a title and an officer cap on his head. It is an unavoidable alienation - yet it is very informative when one knows how to decipher it. One of the major French lingusit, was so presented as The Prince of Thinkers by the first Surrealists officials - his name was Brisset.
This is how scholars are very helpfull and deserve to be thanked and loved. They condense a lot of truth that they laid, available for being deciphered.. I am also a crank in the opinion of scholars. It helps them ignore what they are looking for, and establish these pages in the category of Grey Discourse. I have mentioned on the web several typical moemnt when scholars show the truth through their repression. We can find simple cases of absence:
We have for instance Assmann's case. As he specialized in the Renaissance
with his Egyptian Moses, he displays - in not saying it - that the
Egyptian Moses was known in Hermopolis Magna. Sometimes in the Complex expression
of neurosis, scholars refer to other scholars for what they have not said.
There is this funny foot-note in Assmann's text, where he mentions as a crank
the author of Moses and Akhnaton, ironising about him who had said
that Moses was Akhnaton - while in reality this author has shown to be able
to write his entire book about 'Moses and Akhnaton' without mentioning once
the idea that Moses could have been Akhnaton. The possibility to make such
blunders are typtical in the outcome of neurotic repressions.
Sometime, the scholar frankly lies and this is shown with Fowden, a historian
and Hellenist. His book about the Egyptian Hermes is specialized in
the Ptolemean and early Christianity period. In his 200 pages, he mentions
twice Hermpolis Magna (the Great City of Hermes). The first time, it is to
say that 'it was the main centre of the cult and where he attained the pinnacle
of his glory'. Then he never mentions it, except for saying that there is
no episode attested under the Pharaohs, when a city bore the name of his
founder. Of course, Akhtaton is not exatly the name of its founder Akhnaton
- nevertheless it is no different from President Clinton wondering if is
means is. They are simply lying. But it is so obvious that it gives a clue.
When Fowden does not even mention once, the name of Akhnaton in his The
Egyptian Hermes and displays a map where Amarna is not mentioned beside
Hermopolis, his book is no different from a stack when the reader burns in
the flame of its lie.
It is, for instance, what scholars call a Grey Literature, which has emerged in their scope, due to the proliferation of information readily available from electronic publishing and which asks to be stored, organized, and necessarily acknowledged.