{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1897", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 1897, "subject": "Technology as Magic and Metaphor (long)", "messages": 2, "voices": 2, "first": "1999-11-02T10:38:03+00:00", "last": "1999-11-02T19:29:18+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Greene, Carlton", "address": "cgreene2 at hunton.com" }, "date": "1999-11-02T10:38:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Technology as Magic and Metaphor (long)", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Nicholas Gevers wrote:\nI'm glad to see that my \"Fairy Tale Logic\" posting ended our dry patch;" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm also gratified that mantis agrees with me in part, a rare event. But to\ntake up the cudgel again: I still contend that Inire's description of the\nworking of his mirrors is intentional gibberish on Wolfe's part, to the\nextent that he wishes it to be read as gibberish, in contrast with all the\nintended-to-be-plausible explanations of FTL technology in SF. An\nideas-driven writer like Poul Anderson or Isaac Asimov desires his FTL\nconception to be believed, to be given the benefit of a very large doubt;\nbut for a style-driven writer like Jack Vance or Wolfe, an FTL-exposition is\na CONCEIT, a rhetorical contrivance, serving a metaphorical or humorous\npurpose. Inire's mirrors should be interrogated on that basis. << \n\nRoy wrote:\n\n<>\n\nTwo points. First, I see no reason to give the boot to \"scientism.\"\nSecond, and more importantly, \"scientism\" and technology-as-metaphor are not\nmutually exclusive, but rather mutually enhancing.\n\nWolfe's explanations of technology are often mysterious and incomplete, but\nWolfe's resort to complete, detailed explanations for certain technologies\nimplies that even the really strange examples have some explanation to them\nthat has not been made entirely clear to the reader. I agree that the\nexplanation of Inire's mirrors reads like sleight of hand, but wasn't it\nsupposed to be a simplistic explanation of a very complicated technology\ngiven to a child? (Maybe I've forgottent the context in which the speech was\ndelivered). As to Typhon and his grafted head, its important to remember\nthat the pieces of humanity's scientific knowledge that have survived the\naeons are weird and patchy throughout the books -- maybe a head graft was\nthe most rational means at Typhon's disposal to achieve his goals. We know\nvery little about the operation itself or the medical knowledge available in\nTyphon's time. It boots us little to say that the operation makes no sense\nbecause of what we know about medical science in the 20th century -- many\nof the technologies described in the TBOTNS assume capabilities (and\nlimitations) which we can neither verify or reject based on current science.\nInstead, we take from Wolfe's attempt to provide or hint at some scientific\nexplanation for these phenomenon the *flavor* that these are miracles of\ntechnology rather than magic. In sum, the fact that many of the\nexplanations of particular technologies are shadowy, unclear, or apparently\nparadoxical given current scientific understanding does not mean that we as\nreaders are not intended to, and should not, understand that some rational\nexplanation lies lurking in the background. I think we are.\n\nMore importantly, maintaining the idea that some scientific explanation for\nthese phenomenon exists strengthens, rather than weakens, the power of these\ntechnologies as metaphors. If it were clear that items like Typhon's two\nheads and apheta's quasar-producing, larval lust were meant simply as pure,\nfluffy fanstasy, existing only as a metaphorical allusion, their power as\nsymbols would be less. Instead, the idea that they are simultaneously\nscientifically explainable events and spiritual metaphors with real power\ncreates a sense of destiny and religious meaning in our physical universe.\nIn TBOTNS every action, object, and interaction reveals some significant\ntruth about the Increate. Sev's discovery of a thorn on a (Pacific!) beach,\nwhich is at once biological matter, a relic of real physical power, and a\nrevelation of the divine nature of physical existence, is an example of this\nprinciple.\n\nOne last point: Given the above, it is interesting to note that the\ntechnology of the heirogrammates, a technology infused with love and divine\ngrace, is more obviously metaphorical and more difficult to explain\nscientifically as physical technology, as Roy points out. My take on this:\nthe closer we get to the divine, the more we understand that the physical\nuniverse does in fact exist, but is intended as a functioning, scientific\nmetaphor for certain underlying principles, a particularly graceful way of\nrevealing spiritual truths. The heirogrammates pull the curtain aside on\nthis methodology in a way that we are not exposed to normally, explicitly\nfusing technology and metaphor. In contrast, the sturdiest scientific\nexplanations in the books are given for items in the hands of the \"godless\"\nexploiters of scientific knowledge -- Baldanders and Typhon. I always\nunderstood this to mean that this was the sin makind was being punished for\n-- the exploitation and achievement of god-like scientific power without the\nconcommittant moral and spiritual development -- without the principle of\nlove or grace or what have you. Mankind is being punished for selling off\nits emotions in furtherance of blind ambition.\n\nI apologize if I am rambling here, but if I am, it is because I have been\ninspired by the exceptional quality of the discussion on this list, and I am\ncertainly grateful for the opportunity to contribute.\n\nC/" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Fusch", "address": "dfusch at hotmail.com" }, "date": "1999-11-02T19:29:18+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Technology as Magic and Metaphor (long)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Carlton:\n\n(snip)\nInstead, the idea that they are simultaneously" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "scientifically explainable events and spiritual metaphors with real power \ncreates a sense of destiny and religious meaning in our physical universe. \nIn TBOTNS every action, object, and interaction reveals some significant \ntruth about the Increate. Sev's discovery of a thorn on a (Pacific!) \nbeach,\nwhich is at once biological matter, a relic of real physical power, and a \nrevelation of the divine nature of physical existence, is an example of \nthis\nprinciple.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Precisely. There is a technological level, a metaphorical level, a \nmythological level, and a spiritual level to all these things. I think what \nwhoever-started-this was trying to point out was that the symbolic level of \nanalysis is more important (or higher, to use a Miltonic concept) than the \nscientific level or analysis. In other words, it is more important that the \nreader understand what Typhon is doing on a symbolic level than it is for \nthe reader to understand the anatomical knowledge that went into putting \nTyphon together.\n\nI also agree that there is no \"magic\" in Severian's world, as that term is \nusually understood. On the other hand, I don't think that we can gain much \nby a technological discussion of the possibilities and probabilities \ninvolved in sewing Typhon together, in creating Father Inire's mirrors, or \nin producing a white fountain. If we focus too closely on a literal and \nscientific reading of Wolfe's work, we risk missing or overlooking the \npoint. If Wolfe had meant for The Book of the New Sun to be a treatise on \nphysics, he would have made Severian a physicist.\n\nI think that we need to accept the following suppositions when approaching \nThe Book of the New Sun:\n\nA) On the literal level, Urth is governed my a future technology that is \nreally a medley of a dozen or so past technologies. We cannot really get an \nintellectual grasp on how all this technology works, because Severian isn't \nable or isn't interested in telling us.\n\nB) While it is scientifically possible to create a Typhon, the probability \nof the matter is really irrelevant; the significance of the Typhon episode \nlies in the metaphorical and mythological meanings of the text. The same \ngoes for Baldanders, etc. The Book of the New Sun is science fiction, yes, \nbut it is also mythopoeic.\n\nSo, while it may be interesting to those engineers among us to discuss the \ninner workings of the Autarch's flier, we should be aware that such \ndiscussions can only take us so far." } ] } ] }