{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3270", "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": 3270, "subject": "TBOTSS and colonialism", "messages": 46, "voices": 10, "first": "2002-05-21T02:15:56+00:00", "last": "2002-06-01T19:49:38+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-05-21T02:15:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "David Duffy's recent reference to TBOTSS in connection with 5HC made me\nrealize that TBOTSS is, among other things, about colonization, though I\nhaven't really thought of it that way. But when I look at the book in those\nterms, what I see is disturbing, at least to me.\n\nUnlike the colonists of 5HC, the colonists on Blue aren't displacing\nanybody, since the Neighbors have left and the inhumi live on Green.\nRather, it is the inhumi who savagely and without provocation assault the\ncolonists, killing and enslaving them. Silkhorn's attempt to treat the\ninhumi as human beings, rather than automatically killing them as is the\ncolonists' usual practice, ends in complete failure. Jahlee, whom he treats\nwith the most kindness, treacherously tries to murder Nettle; and Juganu,\nanother inhumu whom Silkhorn had treated as human, repays him by attacking\nhis son's wedding. (Though Silkhorn had goaded Juganu into attacking him,\nthat Juganu would kill hundreds of innocents to hit back at Silkhorn\nindicates his savagery.) To top it off, we learn that the inhumi don't have\nsouls of their own, just souls they've stolen from humans, so it is\npresumably alright to exterminate them or reduce them to animality. In\nshort, the portrayal of the inhumi seems nothing less than an apologia for\ngenocide. I would like to think that Wolfe actually hopes for peaceful\nrelations between the humans and inhumi, but imo the books don't support\nthis reading.\n\nDon't get me wrong: I'm not asserting that Wolfe is a racist in real life,\nor that he supports the mistreatment, much less genocide, of any actual\ngroup. (Though his post-9/11 statements do give me pause.) But the inhumi\nmust play such a large role for a reason; and, Wolfe being Wolfe, it\npresumably isn't just to give Horn monsters to fight. If, as I think, the\npurpose of the inhumi being there isn't to teach us tolerance, what is\nWolfe's purpose?\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-05-21T07:51:58+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Adam Stephanides\" \nUnlike the colonists of 5HC, the colonists on Blue aren't displacing\nanybody, since the Neighbors have left and the inhumi live on Green.\nRather, it is the inhumi who savagely and without provocation assault the\ncolonists, killing and enslaving them. Silkhorn's attempt to treat the\ninhumi as human beings, rather than automatically killing them as is the\ncolonists' usual practice, ends in complete failure. Jahlee, whom he\ntreats\nwith the most kindness, treacherously tries to murder Nettle; and Juganu,\nanother inhumu whom Silkhorn had treated as human, repays him by attacking\nhis son's wedding. (Though Silkhorn had goaded Juganu into attacking him,\nthat Juganu would kill hundreds of innocents to hit back at Silkhorn\nindicates his savagery.) To top it off, we learn that the inhumi don't\nhave\nsouls of their own, just souls they've stolen from humans, so it is\npresumably alright to exterminate them or reduce them to animality. In\nshort, the portrayal of the inhumi seems nothing less than an apologia for\ngenocide. I would like to think that Wolfe actually hopes for peaceful\nrelations between the humans and inhumi, but imo the books don't support\nthis reading." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But there is a simple point to understand here.\n\nContemporary western morality enforces a deeply unreal hierarchy of virtue\nbased on class, gender, and race. It also enforces a doublethink, whereby\nthe priviledged and favored races, gender and classes are labelled as\n\"oppressed\".\n\nNon-whites are morally superior to whites, women to men, and the poor to the\nrich.\n\n\nWolfe, you may easily note, does *not* submit to this group ethnomasochoism.\n\nHe is not any sort of racist, but the PC cues of race, gender, and class are\nrarely obeyed.\n\nThis, I believe, is a conscious policy on Wolfe's part. He knows what he\nis doing.\n\n\n --- *** ---\n\n\nThus, for example, the (moral and physical) ubermensch Silk is a blond Aryan\ntype; most of the oppressed and suffering in Wolfe's books are poor whites;\nthe women warriors of whatisitname are a bunch of bitches, and so on.\n\nRead some of Wolfe's stories with race, class and gender in mind. The\nmessages are very clear.\n\n\n --- *** ---\n\n\nNow,\n\nThe astonishing thing to me, really, is that you should find Wolfe's\nwritings on the subject of interspecies conflict odd.\n\nThe inhumi are *not* another human race.\n\nWhy the hell *should* an alien species like the inhumi be peacefully\ninclined towards humanity?\n\nWhy should humanity not strive to exterminate its enemies?\n\nIt is a completely real picture of the natural processes of evolutionary\nrivalry and conflict.\n\n\n --- *** ---\n\n\nI am irresitably reminded of another very wise writer, Cordwainer Smith.\n\nThe message of his Underpeople stories was that **everything that seems\nhuman is human**.\n\nThe message of the inhumi may be **no they are not**\n\n\n --- *** ---\n\n\nYet I am not sure of this.\n\nThe inhumi are *not* human, but they may indeed represent the human \"other\".\n\nAnd the attempt to redeem them by love may be the greatest mistake humanity\nwill ever make. Or it may be the only way to solve the problem.\n\nSilk/Horn repeatedly says it is. Who knows if he is right? I suspect Wolfe\nhimself could not tell you.\n\n\n --- *** ---\n\n\nNow let's really, really, stir this one up.\n\nInhumi = jews?\n\n\n\n\n hartshorn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alice K. Turner", "address": "aturner6 at nyc.rr.com" }, "date": "2002-05-21T09:12:55+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam wrote:\nDavid Duffy's recent reference to TBOTSS in connection with 5HC made me\nrealize that TBOTSS is, among other things, about colonization, though I\nhaven't really thought of it that way. But when I look at the book in\nthose\nterms, what I see is disturbing, at least to me.\n\nUnlike the colonists of 5HC, the colonists on Blue aren't displacing\nanybody, since the Neighbors have left and the inhumi live on Green.\nRather, it is the inhumi who savagely and without provocation assault the\ncolonists, killing and enslaving them. Silkhorn's attempt to treat the\ninhumi as human beings, rather than automatically killing them as is the\ncolonists' usual practice, ends in complete failure. Jahlee, whom he\ntreats\nwith the most kindness, treacherously tries to murder Nettle; and Juganu,\nanother inhumu whom Silkhorn had treated as human, repays him by attacking\nhis son's wedding. (Though Silkhorn had goaded Juganu into attacking him,\nthat Juganu would kill hundreds of innocents to hit back at Silkhorn\nindicates his savagery.) To top it off, we learn that the inhumi don't\nhave\nsouls of their own, just souls they've stolen from humans, so it is\npresumably alright to exterminate them or reduce them to animality. In\nshort, the portrayal of the inhumi seems nothing less than an apologia for\ngenocide. I would like to think that Wolfe actually hopes for peaceful\nrelations between the humans and inhumi, but imo the books don't support\nthis reading.\n\nDon't get me wrong: I'm not asserting that Wolfe is a racist in real life,\nor that he supports the mistreatment, much less genocide, of any actual\ngroup. (Though his post-9/11 statements do give me pause.) But the\ninhumi\nmust play such a large role for a reason; and, Wolfe being Wolfe, it\npresumably isn't just to give Horn monsters to fight. If, as I think, the\npurpose of the inhumi being there isn't to teach us tolerance, what is\nWolfe's purpose?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You mustn't forget that the inhumi are demons, quite explicitly. This is on\nmy mind because I've just been reading a book called -Demon Lovers- about\nthe accusations of sex with devils during the Renaissance witchhunts. So you\ncan't simply look at it as a colonial novel (I have a weakness for colonial\nnovels, btw). There's the whole Catholic mythology about spirits. That is\nwhy I have made rather a point of reminding you all that Wolfe has\nemphasized the resemblance of the inhumi (unhumans) to demons and the\nNeighbors to cherubim. And also emphasized man's inhumanity to man in the\nway that the colonists behave to each other--wretchedly, generally. It is a\ndidactic novel, to be sure, and very broadly sketched. I was offended by\nWolfe's treatment of Jahlee on first reading (and the crude melodrama of the\nwriting) but in the strict Catholic reading you can't get away from the fact\nthat a demon is a demon and will revert to type. (Origen, who took the\nthoughtful and humane position that all of God's creatures could eventually\nbe saved, was anathematized over and over again as a heretic.) The inhumi\nyearn to be human (that's what Origen said too) but they cannot become human\nexcept in illusion in this book, no matter how kindly they are treated. So\nyour final question is answered by Wolfe's irony. Through Horn's (and\nWolfe's) relations with Fava, Krait and Jahlee (by far my favorite\ncharacters in the book) we grow affectionate toward them. But they cannot\nhelp their natures, as the scorpion said to the frog as both were dying.\n\n-alga" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2002-05-21T22:26:17+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- Andy Robertson wrote:\n----- Original Message -----\nFrom: \"Adam Stephanides\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Unlike the colonists of 5HC, the colonists on Blue aren't displacing\nanybody, since the Neighbors have left and the inhumi live on Green.\nRather, it is the inhumi who savagely and without provocation assault\nthe\ncolonists, killing and enslaving them. Silkhorn's attempt to treat\nthe\ninhumi as human beings, rather than automatically killing them as is\nthe\ncolonists' usual practice, ends in complete failure. Jahlee, whom he\ntreats\nwith the most kindness, treacherously tries to murder Nettle; and\nJuganu,\nanother inhumu whom Silkhorn had treated as human, repays him by\nattacking\nhis son's wedding. (Though Silkhorn had goaded Juganu into attacking\nhim,\nthat Juganu would kill hundreds of innocents to hit back at Silkhorn\nindicates his savagery.) To top it off, we learn that the inhumi\ndon't\nhave\nsouls of their own, just souls they've stolen from humans, so it is\npresumably alright to exterminate them or reduce them to animality. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In\nshort, the portrayal of the inhumi seems nothing less than an apologia\nfor\ngenocide. I would like to think that Wolfe actually hopes for\npeaceful\nrelations between the humans and inhumi, but imo the books don't\nsupport\nthis reading.\n\n\nBut there is a simple point to understand here.\n\nContemporary western morality enforces a deeply unreal hierarchy of\nvirtue\nbased on class, gender, and race. It also enforces a doublethink,\nwhereby\nthe priviledged and favored races, gender and classes are labelled as\n\"oppressed\".\n\nNon-whites are morally superior to whites, women to men, and the poor to\nthe\nrich." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think there's some truth to this last; such prejudices do exist,\nthough they're hardly \"enforced\"--I've heard lots of people express\nthe opposite prejudices (especially against women), and nothing\nhappened to them.\n\nHowever, you're getting carried away when you call non-whites, women,\nand the poor \"privileged\" and \"favored\". True, the poor get welfare\nand the rich don't. This probably more than makes up for the fact\nthat as Anatole France said (more or less), the law in its majesty\nforbids both the rich and the poor to sleep under bridges. It\nnowhere near compensates for the enormous, immense disadvantages of\nbeing poor. I'm not talking about getting tickets to the opera;\nI'm talking about things from the way you're treated by the police\nand courts to having to pay to get your paltry paycheck cashed.\nThe same applies to race. As far as gender goes, I've heard some\ninteresting statistics about salaries and levels of advancement, but\nI don't know the methods used to compile them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Wolfe, you may easily note, does *not* submit to this group\nethnomasochoism.\n\nHe is not any sort of racist, but the PC cues of race, gender, and class\nare\nrarely obeyed.\n\nThis, I believe, is a conscious policy on Wolfe's part. He knows what\nhe\nis doing.\n\n\n --- *** ---\n\n\nThus, for example, the (moral and physical) ubermensch Silk is a blond\nAryan\ntype; most of the oppressed and suffering in Wolfe's books are poor\nwhites;\nthe women warriors of whatisitname are a bunch of bitches, and so on.\n\nRead some of Wolfe's stories with race, class and gender in mind. The\nmessages are very clear.\n\n\n --- *** ---\n\n\nNow,\n\nThe astonishing thing to me, really, is that you should find Wolfe's\nwritings on the subject of interspecies conflict odd.\n\nThe inhumi are *not* another human race.\n\nWhy the hell *should* an alien species like the inhumi be peacefully\ninclined towards humanity?\n\nWhy should humanity not strive to exterminate its enemies?\n\nIt is a completely real picture of the natural processes of evolutionary\nrivalry and conflict." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, unprecedented with regard to humanity. We've extirpated a number\nof species, but only in one case (the smallpox virus, if you want to\nconsider it a living organism) because it was our enemy.\n\nAnyway, one reason humanity on Blue and Green shouldn't strive to\nexterminate the inhumi is that humanity is in large part responsible\nfor the way the inhumi act. This leads to the ambiguity you mention\nbelow. Another reason may be that the inhumi weren't hurting anybody\non Green after the Neighbors left and before humans showed up--unless\nthe speculation is correct that the inhumi were involved in bringing\nthe _Whorl_ to their system." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " --- *** ---\n\n\nI am irresitably reminded of another very wise writer, Cordwainer Smith.\n\nThe message of his Underpeople stories was that **everything that seems\nhuman is human**.\n\nThe message of the inhumi may be **no they are not**\n\n\n --- *** ---\n\n\nYet I am not sure of this.\n\nThe inhumi are *not* human, but they may indeed represent the human\n\"other\".\n\nAnd the attempt to redeem them by love may be the greatest mistake\nhumanity\nwill ever make. Or it may be the only way to solve the problem.\n\nSilk/Horn repeatedly says it is. Who knows if he is right? I suspect\nWolfe\nhimself could not tell you.\n\n\n --- *** ---\n\n\nNow let's really, really, stir this one up.\n\nInhumi = jews?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In what way? Wolfe can't mean that Jews have to drink the blood of\nChristians (literally or metaphorically) to live, or that our souls\nare copies of Christians'. He can't mean that the only two choices\nfor dealing with us are Christian love and genocide--the U.S., for\ninstance, hasn't tried either. Possibly that, in the words of Auden,\n\"those to whom evil is done/ do evil in return\"? That applies to\na lot of groups; Auden was talking about the Nazis.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-05-22T06:49:41+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: \"Jerry Friedman\" \nThe same applies to race. As far as gender goes, I've heard some\ninteresting statistics about salaries and levels of advancement, but\nI don't know the methods used to compile them." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I refer to depictions of race and gender in literature and the media, not\nreal life. I repeat that you should read Wolfe with an eye to these\nthings." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Anyway, one reason humanity on Blue and Green shouldn't strive to\nexterminate the inhumi is that humanity is in large part responsible\nfor the way the inhumi act." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No. And this is part of the ambiguity. Humanity is \"responsible\" in the\nsense that the inhumi get their patterns of behaviour from humans, but\nhumanity is not \"reponsible\" for the fact that the inhumi are psychic and\nphysical parasites and that this is how the inhumi must and do act.\n\nConsciously, the inhumi may even be friendly: but their genetic drives are\ncompletely counter to human welfare, and when it comes to the pinch the\ngenetic drive is what counts.\n\nAs Alice said, they are demons, and remain demons *even if they believe\nthey are human and try to act human*.\n\nThe basic message is, or at least seems to be, the primacy of genetic drives\nover cultural conditioning.\n\nBut one could certainly answer that this is just the latest of a series of\nambiguous conclusions Wolfe comes to, and as I said I am not sure that he\nknows the true, final, answer himself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": ". Another reason may be that the inhumi weren't hurting anybody\non Green after the Neighbors left and before humans showed up--unless\nthe speculation is correct that the inhumi were involved in bringing\nthe _Whorl_ to their system." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The inhumi don't *have* to come to blue and prey on humans." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Now let's really, really, stir this one up.\n\nInhumi = jews?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In what way? Wolfe can't mean that Jews have to drink the blood of\nChristians (literally or metaphorically) to live, or that our souls\nare copies of Christians'. He can't mean that the only two choices\nfor dealing with us are Christian love and genocide--the U.S., for\ninstance, hasn't tried either. Possibly that, in the words of Auden,\n\"those to whom evil is done/ do evil in return\"? That applies to\na lot of groups; Auden was talking about the Nazis." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As you very well know the blood libel *did* say that jews drank the blood of\nchristians, and jews have been pictured as evil superintelligent\nbehind-the-scenes manipulators, pretending to be \"human\" but actually damned\ndemons (because they killed christ) very much like Quetzal, for generations.\n\nI'm not going to push this one too hard, but I do think there is some input\nhere, not from real jews, but from what you might call the catholic\nlegendary picture of jews.\n\n\n hartshorn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-05-22T15:05:00+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "on 5/21/02 2:51 AM, Andy Robertson at andywrobertson at clara.co.uk wrote:\n\n(I'll refrain from comment upon hartshorn's excursus into real-world\npolitics.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The astonishing thing to me, really, is that you should find Wolfe's\nwritings on the subject of interspecies conflict odd.\n\nThe inhumi are *not* another human race.\n\nWhy the hell *should* an alien species like the inhumi be peacefully\ninclined towards humanity?\n\nWhy should humanity not strive to exterminate its enemies?\n\nIt is a completely real picture of the natural processes of evolutionary\nrivalry and conflict." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't deny that within the fictional situation that Wolfe has set up, the\ncolonists are justified in killing the inhumi. But, as I said, Wolfe must\nhave had a reason for giving the inhumi such a large role, and presumably it\nwasn't to tell us what humanity should do if it ever does come across a race\nof shape-shifting alien vampires. What Wolfe is essentially doing is\nbiologizing evil, which is a dangerous thing to do whatever one's conscious\nintentions. And depicting the relations between groups in terms of\n\"evolutionary rivalry and conflict\" to the death is also dangerous, given\nthis century's history." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now let's really, really, stir this one up.\n\nInhumi = jews?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, if the inhumi are indeed modelled upon any real-life group, my\nguess would be the Palestinians, given Wolfe's post-9/11 remarks that the\nU.S. should give Israel a free hand, and given the Exodus theme in TBOTLS." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And alga wrote:\nYou mustn't forget that the inhumi are demons, quite explicitly. This is on\nmy mind because I've just been reading a book called -Demon Lovers- about\nthe accusations of sex with devils during the Renaissance witchhunts. So you\ncan't simply look at it as a colonial novel (I have a weakness for colonial\nnovels, btw)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I was offended by\nWolfe's treatment of Jahlee on first reading (and the crude melodrama of the\nwriting) but in the strict Catholic reading you can't get away from the fact\nthat a demon is a demon and will revert to type. (Origen, who took the\nthoughtful and humane position that all of God's creatures could eventually\nbe saved, was anathematized over and over again as a heretic.) The inhumi\nyearn to be human (that's what Origen said too) but they cannot become human\nexcept in illusion in this book, no matter how kindly they are treated. So\nyour final question is answered by Wolfe's irony. Through Horn's (and\nWolfe's) relations with Fava, Krait and Jahlee (by far my favorite\ncharacters in the book) we grow affectionate toward them. But they cannot\nhelp their natures, as the scorpion said to the frog as both were dying." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, I can see the resemblance of the inhumi to demons. But they are also\nan indigenous species on a colonized planet, whether Wolfe intended to write\na colonial novel or not (and I agree it doesn't read like one). And again,\nit seems quite dangerous to me to depict what is, in effect, a race as\ncompelled by its nature to be evil.\n\nOnce again, I am not claiming that Wolfe himself is racist, or intends to\npromote racism, or that reading TBOTSS would make someone a racist. But I\nam saying that the philosophy Wolfe's portrayal of the inhumi seems intended\nto convey is one that can easily, and has in the past, fostered racism,\nwhatever Wolfe's intentions.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-05-22T15:20:39+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm not going to push this one too hard, but I do think there \nis some input here, not from real jews, but from what you might\ncall the catholic legendary picture of jews." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I feel obliged to protest the use of the term \"catholic\" in this\ncontext ... it isn't that the Roman church didn't do more than its \nshare of persecution of Jews, but that other churches (including \nthe Orthodox churches and many of the early Protestant churches) \nwere equally guilty of this, and that some Protestant sects to this\nday teach that the Jews are \"Christ-killers\" when the Catholic church\nhas clearly renounced such teachings. So my protest is not against\nthe basic idea, only the singling out of Catholicism.\n\n--Dan'l" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "tom", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2002-05-22T16:06:17+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Adam Stephanides writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 5/21/02 2:51 AM, Andy Robertson at andywrobertson at clara.co.uk wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Now let's really, really, stir this one up.\n\nInhumi = jews?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually, if the inhumi are indeed modelled upon any real-life group, my\nguess would be the Palestinians, given Wolfe's post-9/11 remarks that the\nU.S. should give Israel a free hand, and given the Exodus theme in TBOTLS." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Exodus theme fits very well, IMHO. We have basically decent\ncolonists/Jews on one side, and completely evil inhumi/Canaanites\non the other. The story then becomes the answer to \"Why didn't\nthe Jews love their neighbors during the conquest of the Holy Land?\".\n\nSilk becomes a Moses figure. The Neighbors are the giants on the\nEarth in previous days. Pas becomes (against his will) an aspect\nof Yahweh. Settlers on Green become the Jews who tried to live\nwith the Canaanites.\n\nIt's a nasty mapping, but has precedent in Tolkien's orcs = Eastern\nEuropeans parallel." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-05-22T17:30:19+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Adam Stephanides\" \n\n(I'll refrain from comment upon hartshorn's excursus into real-world\npolitics.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Comment freely, but only where relevant to Wolfe's work" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What Wolfe is essentially doing is\nbiologizing evil, which is a dangerous thing to do whatever one's\nconscious\nintentions." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wolfe is not biologising *human* evil. If he did I would read with\ninterest, mind you. But that is not relevant here. He is not talking\nabout a different human race, but a different species." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And depicting the relations between groups in terms of\n\"evolutionary rivalry and conflict\" to the death is also dangerous, given\nthis century's history." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A good writer writes about reality, not avoiding what is \"dangerous\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Now let's really, really, stir this one up.\n\nInhumi = jews?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually, if the inhumi are indeed modelled upon any real-life group, my\nguess would be the Palestinians, given Wolfe's post-9/11 remarks that the\nU.S. should give Israel a free hand, and given the Exodus theme in TBOTLS." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I doubt it, given the m.o. of the Inhumi. They are not a race of peasants\nbeing displaced, but rather a race of cunning psychic manipulators and\npredators.\n\nI do not of course imagine Wolfe has any thought of drawing an analogy with\nreal-life jews, but it does seem to me that there is something of the\n*legendary* picture of the Jew in the inhumi. Shylock. Wormtongue. The\nevil counciler." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, I can see the resemblance of the inhumi to demons. But they are also\nan indigenous species on a colonized planet, whether Wolfe intended to\nwrite\na colonial novel or not (and I agree it doesn't read like one). And\nagain,\nit seems quite dangerous to me to depict what is, in effect, a race as\ncompelled by its nature to be evil." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The whole point of Wolfe's writing *is* to depict such a race, and then give\nit the agony of having a human soul and *perceiving* that evil *but still\nnot being able to renounce it*." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Once again, I am not claiming that Wolfe himself is racist, or intends to\npromote racism, or that reading TBOTSS would make someone a racist. But I\nam saying that the philosophy Wolfe's portrayal of the inhumi seems\nintended\nto convey is one that can easily, and has in the past, fostered racism,\nwhatever Wolfe's intentions." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Unquestionably Wolfe does not believe that the differences between human and\nInhumi can be erased by any amount of goodwill or environmental\nmanipulation. They are genetic and unchangeable by any human power.\n\nThe whole point of the book is to show Silk, a saint, attempt this\nredemption *and fail*.\n\n\n --- *** ---\n\n\nLook, fiddle-faddle PC about \"racism\" is far, far, below understanding what\nWolfe is attempting.\n\nThe whole moral point is that there *is* a vast biological difference.\n\n\nLove may perhaps redeem the most evil human being.\n\nBut in the Lupiverse love must try to redeem something far worse - an\ninhumi.\n\nIf the inhumi were not intrinsically evil, intrinsically far worse than the\nworse human being, **this would have no meaning at all**.\n\nThere is this attempt to extend the matrix of human love to the inhumi, and\nthere is its failure.\n\nIf the ihnumi were just human beings in drag, neither the attempt nor its\nfailure would have any special meaning at all.\n\nSurely, surely, you must see this?\n\n hartshorn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alice K. Turner", "address": "aturner6 at nyc.rr.com" }, "date": "2002-05-23T00:36:09+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From hartshorn:\n\n(a lot snipped)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Look, fiddle-faddle PC about \"racism\" is far, far, below understanding\nwhat\nWolfe is attempting.\n\nThe whole moral point is that there *is* a vast biological difference.\n\n\nLove may perhaps redeem the most evil human being.\n\nBut in the Lupiverse love must try to redeem something far worse - an\ninhumi.\n\nIf the inhumi were not intrinsically evil, intrinsically far worse than\nthe\nworse human being, **this would have no meaning at all**.\n\nThere is this attempt to extend the matrix of human love to the inhumi,\nand\nthere is its failure.\n\nIf the ihnumi were just human beings in drag, neither the attempt nor its\nfailure would have any special meaning at all.\n\nSurely, surely, you must see this?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Surely, surely, I do. And I'm even offended at the attempt to drag the Jews\ninto this. Wolfe, I think, would hit the ceiling at such a ham(heh!)fisted\ninterpretation. Look, we're talking spiritual here, and on some level it\nisn't too complex. I was disappointed that no one complimented my Jonas-like\ninvocation of the scorpion and the frog, but that in the end is the\ninhumi-human situation. Even Quetzal--remember him?-- who was perhaps as\nmuch of an inhumu saint as Silk a human one--could not help his nature. Fava\npreys on granny, though she'd prefer not to.\n\nThe book (I mean, of course, the three books) is about many other things,\nabout parents and children, about the divided soul, but most of all, I\nmaintain, it is about a pilgrim's progress, and the allusion is entirely\nintentional. There are devils and angels in this book. (I prefer to call\nthem demons and cherubim, but I'm not getting much of a response.) There is\na flawed and divided human (or two) trying to cope rather biblically at\ntimes, as when he becomes Solomon, harem and all. Even the awful racial\ncaricatures, that we have all deplored a bit, are a way of saying: look,\nit's all of us; we're in it together. The races of the earth, the angels,\nthe demons, the terribly troubled heroes. He's laying a simplistic world out\nin rather broad terms and sending his pilgrim(s) through it.\n\nThe interesting point, to me, is whether the inhumi can really be considered\n\"evil.\" In a debate, I'd enjoy taking the side that they are not. And that\nWolfe shows the humans, who do not have their needs and nature, as more\nevil.\n\n-alga" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2002-05-23T16:20:17+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, 22 May 2002, Alice K. Turner wrote:\nThe interesting point, to me, is whether the inhumi can really be considered\n\"evil.\" In a debate, I'd enjoy taking the side that they are not. And that\nWolfe shows the humans, who do not have their needs and nature, as more\nevil." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At the least, I'd say the inhumi are evil in the sense that a thing might\nbe called evil (atom bombs, torture devices, pornographic movies, crack\ncoccaine, a computer virus). That is, something that harms people or does\nevil because of way it was made.\n\nOn the other hand, I think its implied that the inhumi are as much persons\nas chems. Their souls may be derivative, but they are real, and they seem\nto be capable of making real choices to do good or evil. I think their\nnature makes it very difficult to do good, but not impossible. Is Wolfe's\nview of humanity much different? If the book seems to imply that the\ninhumi are incapable of redemption, isn't it only to the extent that human\nsociety is incapable of redemption?\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Andre-Driussi", "address": "mantis at siriusfiction.com" }, "date": "2002-05-23T19:10:23+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Interesting thread.\n\nIn genre terms, it seems to me that Gene Wolfe is working off of (or in the\nsame vein as) Blish's A CASE OF CONSCIENCE, but keeping to that work's\nstrong first part (with attendant ambiguities) and avoiding the less\nthrilling final part (with its total and final resolution).\n\nBack to the Neighbors. It is easy for us to interpret the Neighbors as\nbeing a Vingean \"transcendent\" species, a group who followed the\ntechnological curve to the point of exiting the material plane of\nexistence. But they might not have actually gone that far--we don't really\nknow.\n\nSo the hand-off of Blue to the humans is less the sale of Manhattan by\nAmerican Indians for some beads than it is the gift of, say, Africa, to\nhumanity from all the pre-homo sapiens sapiens humanoids.\n\nBut remind me what the inhumi were to the Neighbors. Aside from being a\npain--they were a bother, weren't they?\n\nIn any event, the inhumi represent \"discarded\" or \"left behind\" creatures,\nwhether they be barnyard animals or uplifted critters or what-have-you.\nYet, iirc, the Neighbors' current attitude towards inhumi is that they are\nthe hammer (or anvil, or both) that made the Neighbors what they are and as\nsuch will also spur the humans on. The Neighbors didn't erradicate the\ninhumi, clearly, although they may have fenced them in.\n\n=mantis=\n\n\nSirius Fiction\nbooklets on Gene Wolfe, John Crowley\n31 copies of \"Snake's-hands\" until OP!\nhttp://www.siriusfiction.com/" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-05-31T20:31:29+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Alice K. Turner\" \nFrom hartshorn:\n\n(a lot snipped)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If the ihnumi were just human beings in drag, neither the attempt nor\nits\nfailure would have any special meaning at all.\n\nSurely, surely, you must see this?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Surely, surely, I do." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I'm glad you do at least.\n\n hartshorn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2002-05-23T19:52:42+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 23 May 2002, Michael Andre-Driussi wrote:\nBut remind me what the inhumi were to the Neighbors. Aside from being a\npain--they were a bother, weren't they?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "One of the Neighbors (or maybe it was Silkhorn) said that the Neighbors\nmade the Inhumi their slaves, and thereby brought their own ruin.\n\nI think one of the temptations Silkhorn rejects is to do the same thing. \nHe seems to be able to exert some kind of influence over the inhumi. (By\nloving them?) Is it possible he could have enslaved the inhumi, and in\ndoing so made himself a monster, and in doing so made them even more\nmonsterous? Is that why he provokes Junangu into attacking him? Lest he\nand the other inhumi fall under whatever spell he's woven over Jahlee?\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-05-24T14:30:19+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 5/22/02 12:30 PM, Andy Robertson at andywrobertson at clara.co.uk wrote:\n\n----- Original Message -----\nFrom: \"Adam Stephanides\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And depicting the relations between groups in terms of\n\"evolutionary rivalry and conflict\" to the death is also dangerous, given\nthis century's history." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A good writer writes about reality, not avoiding what is \"dangerous\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To be sure. I don't regard that view of relations between groups to be\n\"reality,\" though." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Actually, if the inhumi are indeed modelled upon any real-life group, my\nguess would be the Palestinians, given Wolfe's post-9/11 remarks that the\nU.S. should give Israel a free hand, and given the Exodus theme in TBOTLS." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I doubt it, given the m.o. of the Inhumi. They are not a race of peasants\nbeing displaced, but rather a race of cunning psychic manipulators and\npredators." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But according to some historians (e. g. Joan Peters), the Palestinians were\nnot displaced peasants, but migrants attracted to a virtually empty land by\nthe Zionists' enterprise, who later falsely claimed to have lived there for\ncenturies in order to discredit Israel. I do not endorse this account (but\nI don't think this list is the place to discuss it)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I do not of course imagine Wolfe has any thought of drawing an analogy with\nreal-life jews, but it does seem to me that there is something of the\n*legendary* picture of the Jew in the inhumi. Shylock. Wormtongue. The\nevil counciler." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't see much of the evil councillor about the inhumi. Horn is the only\nhuman ruler we see who tolerates them, and he doesn't take counsel from\nthem. As for the other resemblances between the inhumi and the anti-Semitic\npicture of Jews, I think they're byproducts of the fact that the inhumi are\nvampires." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If the ihnumi were just human beings in drag, neither the attempt nor its\nfailure would have any special meaning at all.\n\nSurely, surely, you must see this?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Surely, surely, I don't. In fact, to me the opposite seems truer to me. If\nthe inhumi are not intended to have anything to do with humans (not\nliterally, of course, but metaphorically) -- if the point is just that some\nhypothetical alien species, or demons, are unredeemable -- then that whole\naspect of the book becomes just an abstract theological exercise.\n\nOn reconsideration, though, I think I oversimplified what Wolfe was doing\nwith the inhumi. The inhumi aren't evil by nature; they aren't anything by\nnature except animals. They are cruel to humans only because humans are\ncruel to each other, as Silkhorn says explicitly more than once. Certainly\ntheir betrayals of Horn reflect Horn's own behavior. Horn betrayed Nettle\nby sleeping with Jahlee; Jahlee tried to kill Nettle to possess Horn. As\nfor Juganu, Horn treated him like a thing in trying to goad him to murder\nhim; Juganu can be seen as, consciously or not, repaying this contempt.\n\nSo the inhumi aren't unredeemable because evil is in their genes. They're\nunredeemable because, in a sense, there's nothing to redeem. They have no\nsouls of their own, just souls they've stolen from humans. If they were\never converted to being good, they would cease to prey on humans, and in a\ngeneration they would be reduced to animals again.\n\nLikewise, I'd also question the identification of inhumi with demons. The\ninhumi aren't fallen angels but fallen beasts, so to speak. The original\n\"sin\" is not theirs, but that of the Neighbors in travelling to Green and\nenslaving them.\n\nI still think the book has a message of \"fight rather than accomodate.\" But\nit's not pro-colonialism. Rather, it depicts colonization as destructive to\nthe colonizer as well as the colonized.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "matthew.malthouse", "address": "matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-05-24T15:01:10+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 23/05/2002 17:20:17 Michael Straight wrote:\nOn Wed, 22 May 2002, Alice K. Turner wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The interesting point, to me, is whether the inhumi can really be\nconsidered\n\"evil.\" In a debate, I'd enjoy taking the side that they are not. And\nthat\nWolfe shows the humans, who do not have their needs and nature, as more\nevil." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At the least, I'd say the inhumi are evil in the sense that a thing might\nbe called evil (atom bombs, torture devices, pornographic movies, crack\ncoccaine, a computer virus). That is, something that harms people or\ndoes\nevil because of way it was made." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't agree with you. This suggest that evil can be inherant in an\nobject. I don't believe that it can: evil may in the intent of those who\ncreated such things or those wo employ them but not in the inanimate and\nunaware.\n\nThe inhumi as animals should not be capable of evil. It's only after\nacquiring the ability to make moral judgements that evil becomes possible.\n\nThat might also raise the question of whether it is justifiable to judge\ninhumi in *human* moral terms. But since their ability to make choices is\naquired *from* humans then human moral terms are the only ones applicable.\n In this they differ from such as the Neighbours who presumably would have\na moral framework native to themselves (although I see little to\nillustrate it being different from the human)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On the other hand, I think its implied that the inhumi are as much\npersons\nas chems. Their souls may be derivative, but they are real, and they\nseem\nto be capable of making real choices to do good or evil. I think their\nnature makes it very difficult to do good, but not impossible. Is\nWolfe's\nview of humanity much different? If the book seems to imply that the\ninhumi are incapable of redemption, isn't it only to the extent that\nhuman\nsociety is incapable of redemption?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If the inhumi have souls would it not be due to the actions of their\nparents?\n\nHaving souls they're capable of \"evil\", and presumably similarly capable\nof redemption. But unlike humans the concequences are imediate and\ndeleterious. It's like original sin with added catch 22.\n\nAlso there's another proximity - each inhumu/inhuma's ability to make\nmoral choices is the result of it's progenitor's actions - as if each\ngeneration were Cain and Abel - and their actions involve the next. To\nrefrain from the \"evil\" of attacking humans would be to reduce their\noffspring, would that not be another evil?\n\nSo I would suggest that the inhumu would be capable of redemption but are\ntrapped into circumstances where they can neither attain it nor would it\nbenefit them if they did.\n\nMatthew" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2002-05-24T15:52:22+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- Andy Robertson wrote:\n----- Original Message -----\nFrom: \"Jerry Friedman\" \nThe same applies to race. As far as gender goes, I've heard some\ninteresting statistics about salaries and levels of advancement, but\nI don't know the methods used to compile them.\n\n\nI refer to depictions of race and gender in literature and the media,\nnot\nreal life. I repeat that you should read Wolfe with an eye to these\nthings." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sorry, I thought you were talking about real life. I think you're\nright that Wolfe tries to avoid political correctness. (On the\nother hand, maybe it was PC of him to admit, in TBotSS, that there\nmight be people of color in the distant future!)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Anyway, one reason humanity on Blue and Green shouldn't strive to\nexterminate the inhumi is that humanity is in large part responsible\nfor the way the inhumi act." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No. And this is part of the ambiguity. Humanity is \"responsible\" in\nthe\nsense that the inhumi get their patterns of behaviour from humans, but\nhumanity is not \"reponsible\" for the fact that the inhumi are psychic\nand\nphysical parasites and that this is how the inhumi must and do act." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "True, but the inhumi aren't responsible for that either." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Consciously, the inhumi may even be friendly: but their genetic drives\nare\ncompletely counter to human welfare, and when it comes to the pinch the\ngenetic drive is what counts.\n\nAs Alice said, they are demons, and remain demons *even if they believe\nthey are human and try to act human*." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What about Krait?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The basic message is, or at least seems to be, the primacy of genetic\ndrives\nover cultural conditioning.\n\nBut one could certainly answer that this is just the latest of a series\nof\nambiguous conclusions Wolfe comes to, and as I said I am not sure that\nhe\nknows the true, final, answer himself." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, then, we don't disagree too much." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": ". Another reason may be that the inhumi weren't hurting anybody\non Green after the Neighbors left and before humans showed up--unless\nthe speculation is correct that the inhumi were involved in bringing\nthe _Whorl_ to their system." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The inhumi don't *have* to come to blue and prey on humans." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You just got done saying that they do.\n\nAnyway, there are humans on Green as well." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Now let's really, really, stir this one up.\n\nInhumi = jews?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In what way? Wolfe can't mean that Jews have to drink the blood of\nChristians (literally or metaphorically) to live, or that our souls\nare copies of Christians'. He can't mean that the only two choices\nfor dealing with us are Christian love and genocide--the U.S., for\ninstance, hasn't tried either. Possibly that, in the words of Auden,\n\"those to whom evil is done/ do evil in return\"? That applies to\na lot of groups; Auden was talking about the Nazis." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As you very well know the blood libel *did* say that jews drank the\nblood of\nchristians, and jews have been pictured as evil superintelligent\nbehind-the-scenes manipulators, pretending to be \"human\" but actually\ndamned\ndemons (because they killed christ) very much like Quetzal, for\ngenerations.\n\nI'm not going to push this one too hard, but I do think there is some\ninput\nhere, not from real jews, but from what you might call the catholic\nlegendary picture of jews." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sorry, again I thought you were talking about reality. Anyway, all\nyou're going to get here is \"some input\", and there may be some, but\nI agree with Alga and others that there's more input from legends of\ndemons and vampires who could appear to be human." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-06-01T19:37:45+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: \"Adam Stephanides\" \nFrom: \"Adam Stephanides\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "And depicting the relations between groups in terms of\n\"evolutionary rivalry and conflict\" to the death is also dangerous,\ngiven\nthis century's history." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "A good writer writes about reality, not avoiding what is \"dangerous\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To be sure. I don't regard that view of relations between groups to be\n\"reality,\" though." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It is not the character of Reality to be other than Dangerous.\n\nRather, the Real presents us with a series of Tests, each more unbearable\nthan the one before.\n\n\nWolfe is writing about one of these Tests.\n\n\nLike all real tests, it is a moral one.\n\n\nIt is the question of how you behave when you have the ability - thrust\nupon you by the horribly cruel machinery of Evolution - to create a living\nsoul within the body of a bloodsucking, predatory, reptile: to create a\nthing that then screams and weeps sincere psychic tears as it **continues**\nto prey on and kill human beings.\n\n\nIt is not a test with an easy answer.\n\n\n\nIt seems to me that you are hopelessly thrall to the comfortable Star Trek\nview of the universe, and the Other within it.\n\n hartshorn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-06-01T19:49:38+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: \"Jerry Friedman\" \n\nNo. And this is part of the ambiguity. Humanity is \"responsible\" in\nthe\nsense that the inhumi get their patterns of behaviour from humans, but\nhumanity is not \"reponsible\" for the fact that the inhumi are psychic\nand\nphysical parasites and that this is how the inhumi must and do act." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "True, but the inhumi aren't responsible for that either." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think this is a meaningless distinction. Their minds are not\nresponsible for it. But the mind/body duality, even if it has some truth\nfor humans, has no meaning for an Inhumi.\n\nTheir minds *right down to their deepest souls* are no more than a genetic\nghost conjured up by their blood-drinking bodies as a chameleon-game to\nfacilitate more blood-drinking - a fake so deep that the poor minds\nthemselves believe it to be true, but a fake nontheless.\n\nThe only thing about them that is *not* borrowed is their genetics, their\nbodies, and it is the only thing that can be meaningfully judged.\n\n hartshorn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-05-24T22:08:31+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Alga wrote:\nAt the least, I'd say the inhumi are evil in the sense that a thing \nmight be called evil (atom bombs, torture devices, pornographic movies,\ncrack coccaine, a computer virus)..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "and Matthew Malthouse replied:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't agree with you. This suggest that evil can be inherant \nin an object. I don't believe that it can: evil may in the \nintent of those who created such things or those wo employ them \nbut not in the inanimate and unaware." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Matthew: while I may (and in fact do) disagree with one or more of\nthe items in Alga's list, she's using a perfectly reasonable sense\nof the word \"evil\" -- If you will consult your Funk&Wagnall ... \nwell, all right, make it your online Merriam-Webster (conveniently \nlocated at http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm), you will find the \nfollowing (slightly edited by me to save space and improve\nformat):\n\nMain Entry: (1) evil \nFunction: adjective\nEtymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old \n\tHigh German ubil evil\nDate: before 12th century\n1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED \n b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct \n \n2 a archaic : INFERIOR \n b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE \n c : DISAGREEABLE \n3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS \n b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY\n\nMain Entry: (2) evil\nFunction: noun\n1 a : the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing \n b : a cosmic evil force\n2 : something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity\n\nNow, it seems to me that, of the adjectival senses, 1a is the\nonly one that can _not_ reasonably be spoken of an inanimate \nobject or an animal (1b is arguable), and, in particular, to \nthe inhumi (where, 2a is also arguable); while noun sense 2 \nis clearly applicable to them, and noun sense 1b may also\nreasonably be said of them.\n\nMind, this is not intended to suggest that dictionaries,\nlet alone this particular dictionary, should be prescriptive\nfor our use of the word \"evil\" -- but it is descriptively \nsuggestive that the word is applicable in this case. \n\n\"But,\" you may object, \"I was specifically talking of evil\nin the purely moral sense.\" Well and good; but even there,\nthe classic moral \"problem of evil\" does not merely apply to \nevil will but to \"evils\" such as disease and disaster that\ncause suffering -- the \"why do bad things happen to good\npeople?\" side of the question. Certainly Wolfe, as a Catholic,\nwould be inclined to include this sense in any philosophical\ndiscussion of \"evil.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The inhumi as animals should not be capable of evil. It's \nonly after acquiring the ability to make moral judgements \nthat evil becomes possible." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, Matthew. The word you are looking for is not evil; it is\n\"sin.\" Only a moral free agent can sin." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That might also raise the question of whether it is \njustifiable to judge inhumi in *human* moral terms. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That question remains relevant. At what point is \"doing what \nwe must do to survive\" sinful?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But since their ability to make choices is aquired *from*\nhumans then human moral terms are the only ones applicable." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not at all sure that this is true. If the inhumi are to\nhave a 'morality' at all, it must be one that is applicable\nto their biologic nature, including the necessity of drinking\nthe blood of living beings. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If the inhumi have souls would it not be due to the actions \nof their parents?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As near as I can understand how the inhumi lifecycle works,\nthat would appear to be the case." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Having souls they're capable of \"evil\", and presumably\nsimilarly capable of redemption. But unlike humans the\nconcequences are imediate and deleterious. It's like\noriginal sin with added catch 22." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not clear what this paragraph means ... are you saying\nthat there are immediate adn deleterious consequences of\ntheir choosing to do evil, or of their redemption?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Also there's another proximity - each inhumu/inhuma's ability \nto make moral choices is the result of it's progenitor's \nactions - as if each generation were Cain and Abel - and their\nactions involve the next. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes ... the sins of the parents are rewarded in the children.\nUgly, isn't it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To refrain from the \"evil\" of attacking humans would be to\nreduce their offspring, would that not be another evil?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Why?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So I would suggest that the inhumu would be capable of \nredemption but are trapped into circumstances where they\ncan neither attain it nor would it benefit them if they did." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, except in the sense that redemption is in and of itself\na benefit..." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alice K. Turner", "address": "aturner6 at nyc.rr.com" }, "date": "2002-05-25T00:08:49+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Alga wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "At the least, I'd say the inhumi are evil in the sense that a thing\nmight be called evil (atom bombs, torture devices, pornographic\nmovies,\ncrack coccaine, a computer virus)..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "and Matthew Malthouse replied:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I don't agree with you. This suggest that evil can be inherant\nin an object. I don't believe that it can: evil may in the\nintent of those who created such things or those wo employ them\nbut not in the inanimate and unaware." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Matthew: while I may (and in fact do) disagree with one or more of\nthe items in Alga's list, she's using a perfectly reasonable sense\nof the word \"evil\" -- If you will consult your Funk&Wagnall ...\nwell, all right, make it your online Merriam-Webster (conveniently\nlocated at http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm), you will find the\nfollowing (slightly edited by me to save space and improve\nformat):" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[snip, sorry, but you can look it up]\n\nThat wasn't my list and the current format of the Urth list makes it too\ndifficult to go back to find who it was. I insisted on the paradigm of the\nscorpion and the frog, that the inhumu cannot help his nature and thus is\narguably *not* \"evil,\" as a lion who kills an antelope is not evil. I said\nthat I would enjoy, in a debate, taking the position that they are not evil.\nWe get to know four of them very well: Quetzal, Krait, Fava and Jahlee, All\nof them struggle against their nature. (I can't help thinking of Quetzal wrt\nthe current brouhaha re Catholic priests, has this struck anyone else? But I\nremind you that he tried very hard to stick to beef tea.) These are vivid\ncharacters; Wolfe was interested in them.\n\n-alga" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-05-26T13:56:58+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 5/24/02 7:08 PM, Alice K. Turner at aturner6 at nyc.rr.com wrote:\nWe get to know four of them very well: Quetzal, Krait, Fava and Jahlee, All\nof them struggle against their nature. (I can't help thinking of Quetzal wrt\nthe current brouhaha re Catholic priests, has this struck anyone else? But I\nremind you that he tried very hard to stick to beef tea.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't recall Quetzal well, but his attempt to stick to beef tea might well\nhave been in order to avoid doing things that might get him caught, rather\nthan out of compassion for humans. After all, he does direct the colonists\nto Green at the end. And I'm not sure that Jahlee and Krait \"struggle\nagainst their nature.\" They both refrain from drinking the blood of Horn or\nthose in his party (at least Jahlee does; I don't remember Krait too well,\nagain), but I don't recall any indications that they made any effort not to\ndrink the blood of humans in general. It seems to me that this is at best\ndelayed gratification, not a struggle against one's nature.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-05-27T13:50:36+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 6/1/02 2:37 PM, Andy Robertson at andywrobertson at clara.co.uk wrote:\nIt is the question of how you behave when you have the ability - thrust\nupon you by the horribly cruel machinery of Evolution - to create a living\nsoul within the body of a bloodsucking, predatory, reptile: to create a\nthing that then screams and weeps sincere psychic tears as it **continues**\nto prey on and kill human beings.\n\n\nIt is not a test with an easy answer.\n\n\n\nIt seems to me that you are hopelessly thrall to the comfortable Star Trek\nview of the universe, and the Other within it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It was specifically the view of relations between groups as an evolutionary\nstruggle to the death that I denied was \"reality.\"\n\nBut no, I don't believe that love will conquer all. But I also don't\nbelieve that there are any races which are unredeemable by nature. I'm also\ndoubtful that we will encounter an alien species which is unredeemable by\nnature in the future. The idea of such races comes from stereotypes of the\nOther and from pulp sf, rather than reality.\n\nBut the more I think about it, the more dubious seems the idea that Horn's\nerror is loving the inhumi. Yes, bringing Jahlee home was a spectacular\nerror of judgment (for that matter, sleeping with her was an error of\njudgment). But as Hoof would say, one can love someone while being aware of\ntheir failings. Horn knew that Jahlee was an amoral and bloodthirsty (no\npun intended) being, and should have realized that by bringing her to where\nNettle was he was leading her into temptation big time. And, as I wrote\nearlier, \"love\" has very little to do with Horn's relations with Juganu.\nOTOH, had Horn not trusted Krait, he would have died on Green much earlier\n(at least this is implied, iirc).\n\nSo maybe my original post which started this whole discussion was wrong, and\nHorn's policy of treating the inhumi as humans fails because of his own\nweakness, not because it's inherently doomed. I don't know.\n\n--Adam " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2002-05-28T15:30:24+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, Andy Robertson wrote:\nTheir minds *right down to their deepest souls* are no more than a genetic\nghost conjured up by their blood-drinking bodies as a chameleon-game to\nfacilitate more blood-drinking - a fake so deep that the poor minds\nthemselves believe it to be true, but a fake nontheless.\n\nThe only thing about them that is *not* borrowed is their genetics, their\nbodies, and it is the only thing that can be meaningfully judged." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't see how you can hold to that view of mind/body relationship and\nstill view chems as persons (which Wolfe obviously does).\n\nIf a soul is only 'real' if it is part of a human being, then chems and\ninhumi and Babbie and digitized \"gods\" are all just \"a fake so deep that\nthe poor minds themselves believe it to be true.\"\n\nThere are people who believe that to be the case, that an AI for instance,\nwould only be pretending to have consciousness, but I don't think that is\nthe stance Wolfe is taking in these books.\n\nFor further disproof, note that Fava's soul seems to survive her death in\nsome way, living on in Mora's dreams and enabling them both to posess\nVadsig.\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-05-28T18:07:04+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Michael Straight\" \nOn Sat, 1 Jun 2002, Andy Robertson wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Their minds *right down to their deepest souls* are no more than a\ngenetic\nghost conjured up by their blood-drinking bodies as a chameleon-game to\nfacilitate more blood-drinking - a fake so deep that the poor minds\nthemselves believe it to be true, but a fake nontheless.\n\nThe only thing about them that is *not* borrowed is their genetics,\ntheir\nbodies, and it is the only thing that can be meaningfully judged." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't see how you can hold to that view of mind/body relationship and\nstill view chems as persons (which Wolfe obviously does)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Why not?\n\nOur own minds *right down to our deepest souls* are no more than a genetic\nghost conjured up by our bodies, to serve evolutionary drives.\n\nThe chems' minds are no more than a cybernetic ghost conjured up by *their*\nbodies.\n\nWe are all chems; inhumi; machines; beasts.\n\n\n\nI didn't say we were existentially on different planes.\n\nI said the conflict between human and inhumi was **embedded** - was part of\ntheir disparate natures.\n\n\n\nThe inhumi are a parasitic/predatory chameleon species **because of their\ninbuilt nature**.\n\nAnd that \"nature\" is one thing with their flesh, not some indwelling\ncharioteer.\n\nThe chameleon/parasite aspect extends even to the nature of their *minds* -\nwhich faithfully hold to the MetaLie, the belief that they are human, even\nwhile serving the cruel behest of evolution and nothing else.\n\n(that belief is the heart of the chameleon/parasite: the sincerest **and\nmost evolutionarily successful** liars are those who *believe* their lies)\n\n\n\n\nThe initial point of this thread was that some of us deny the concept of an\n\"inbuilt nature\" in intelligent species.\n\nBe sure that Wolfe does **not** deny that concept, and be sure he knows what\na terrible evil it is.\n\n\n\n hartshorn\n\n\n\n(( \"colonialism\" my foot!!!!!!!! ))" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-05-28T19:00:54+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Alga,\n\nI apologize for miscrediting someone else's \"list\" to you." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That wasn't my list and the current format of the Urth list \nmakes it too difficult to go back to find who it was. I\ninsisted on the paradigm of the scorpion and the frog, that\nthe inhumu cannot help his nature and thus is arguably *not*\n\"evil,\" as a lion who kills an antelope is not evil. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Antelopes almost certainly have a radically different opinion of \nlions than you do. For an antelope (at least one with inclinations\ntoward ethical philosophizing), to be killed by a lion is a great \nevil indeed, and lions are evildoers. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I said that I would enjoy, in a debate, taking the position that \nthey are not evil. We get to know four of them very well: Quetzal,\nKrait, Fava and Jahlee, All of them struggle against their nature." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm don't think that Krait and Quetzal do -- I reserve judgement on\nthe other two until I've reread tBotSS, as I've begun to do. But \nQuetzal does not seem to me to be struggling against anything; he\ndrinks beef tea because he is in a position where it will be noticed\nif he never takes any nourishment at all ... but there are at least\ntwo, and probably several more, cases of his attacking people in the\ncourse of the BotLS." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(I can't help thinking of Quetzal wrt the current brouhaha re\nCatholic priests, has this struck anyone else? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Good heavens, no! but it's really an obvious comparison once you\nmention it, isn't it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But I remind you that he tried very hard to stick to beef tea." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay, then: I just reread LS, and I did not see anything that made\nme think he was trying to \"stick to\" beef tea ... it seemed to me\nthat the beef tea was his camouflage, as mentioend above. Can you\ncite anything in the text to make \"trying to stick to beef tea\"\nmore plausible?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2002-05-28T19:38:24+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, 28 May 2002, Andy Robertson wrote:\nOur own minds *right down to our deepest souls* are no more than a genetic\nghost conjured up by our bodies, to serve evolutionary drives." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "OK. I thought you were saying that inhumi souls were fake and human souls\nwere real." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The chameleon/parasite aspect extends even to the nature of their *minds* -\nwhich faithfully hold to the MetaLie, the belief that they are human, even\nwhile serving the cruel behest of evolution and nothing else." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "OK, I agree that they want to be human and never can be. But I think in\nthe course of trying to be human, they become *persons*. I think that is\nthe key distinction.\n\nOnly humans are human, but chems, inhumi, digitized gods, Babbie are all\npeople. I can't exhaustively define personhood, but I think it includes\nmoral action, the ability to love and be loved, and, for Wolfe, the\npossibility of surviving death.\n\nInhumi personhood is derived from human beings (as are all the other\nexamples above), and they can never be human, but I think they can be\npersons, capable of and accountable for moral actions." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The initial point of this thread was that some of us deny the concept of an\n\"inbuilt nature\" in intelligent species." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, but I'm not sure the inhumi nature is necessarily more of an obstacle\nto becoming virtuous persons than human nature. Neither group comes off\nvery well in the SS books.\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-05-28T20:08:30+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: \"Michael Straight\" \nThe initial point of this thread was that some of us deny the concept of\nan\n\"inbuilt nature\" in intelligent species." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, but I'm not sure the inhumi nature is necessarily more of an obstacle\nto becoming virtuous persons than human nature. Neither group comes off\nvery well in the SS books." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Right. I think I agree with you here.\n\n hartshorn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2002-05-28T20:03:30+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- Andy Robertson wrote:\n----- Original Message -----\nFrom: \"Jerry Friedman\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "No. And this is part of the ambiguity. Humanity is \"responsible\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "in\nthe\nsense that the inhumi get their patterns of behaviour from humans,\nbut\nhumanity is not \"reponsible\" for the fact that the inhumi are\npsychic\nand\nphysical parasites and that this is how the inhumi must and do act." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "True, but the inhumi aren't responsible for that either." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think this is a meaningless distinction. Their minds are not\nresponsible for it. But the mind/body duality, even if it has some\ntruth\nfor humans, has no meaning for an Inhumi.\n\nTheir minds *right down to their deepest souls* are no more than a\ngenetic\nghost conjured up by their blood-drinking bodies as a chameleon-game to\nfacilitate more blood-drinking - a fake so deep that the poor minds\nthemselves believe it to be true, but a fake nontheless." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is possible, but their showing up as human in astral travel\nsuggests to me that their minds are not a fake." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The only thing about them that is *not* borrowed is their genetics,\ntheir\nbodies, and it is the only thing that can be meaningfully judged." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Genetics can be judged as fortunate or unfortunate for a particular\nperson. I suspect that the people who have been saying that \nindividual inhumi can be judged as moral or immoral are right (in\nthe Lupiverse).\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-05-30T13:57:43+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 5/28/02 1:07 PM, Andy Robertson at andywrobertson at clara.co.uk wrote:\nThe initial point of this thread was that some of us deny the concept of an\n\"inbuilt nature\" in intelligent species." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, the initial point of this thread was my objection to what I\nperceived the Short Sun books to be saying about colonialism.\n\nAnd I never said anything about \"inbuilt nature\" in general. If by \"inbuilt\nnature\" you mean only being predisposed to drink blood, or things of that\nilk, then I wll agree that humans have an \"inbuilt nature.\" But I see no\nreason to believe that it is inevitable, or even probable, that we will\nencounter a species that is unredeemable by nature. Nor, for that matter,\ndo I believe that there are humans who are unredeemable by nature.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-05-30T13:57:43+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 5/28/02 2:00 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes at ddanehy at siebel.com wrote:\nAntelopes almost certainly have a radically different opinion of\nlions than you do. For an antelope (at least one with inclinations\ntoward ethical philosophizing), to be killed by a lion is a great\nevil indeed, and lions are evildoers." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "For a human to be killed by smallpox is a great evil. But we don't regard\nsmallpox viruses as evildoers, because they are incapable of moral thought.\nPhilosphical antelopes would presumably reach the same conclusion about\nlions (assuming they remained lions).\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-05-30T13:57:44+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "on 5/28/02 3:08 PM, Andy Robertson at andywrobertson at clara.co.uk wrote:\nYes, but I'm not sure the inhumi nature is necessarily more of an obstacle\nto becoming virtuous persons than human nature. Neither group comes off\nvery well in the SS books." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Right. I think I agree with you here." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "How does this square with your original argument that the inhumi's tragedy\nwas that they were incapable by nature of being other than evil, and that if\nthey were just \"humans in drag\" this tragedy would be meaningless?\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-05-30T14:31:36+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Adam Stephanides\" \non 5/28/02 3:08 PM, Andy Robertson at andywrobertson at clara.co.uk wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Yes, but I'm not sure the inhumi nature is necessarily more of an\nobstacle\nto becoming virtuous persons than human nature. Neither group comes\noff\nvery well in the SS books." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Right. I think I agree with you here." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "How does this square with your original argument that the inhumi's tragedy\nwas that they were incapable by nature of being other than evil, and that\nif\nthey were just \"humans in drag\" this tragedy would be meaningless?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The ghost-soul in the inhumi may attain to a sort of human virtue. The\nflesh remains evil. Of course the question is whether \"evil\" in this\ncontext means anything other than \"evil to humans\".\n\nIt depends on what you mean by \"nature\", \"good\" and \"evil\".\n\nAlso by what \"they\" refers to when you are talking of the inhumi.\n\n\n\nAnd the whole point of the inhumi is to put these concepts to the Question.\nTo Excruciation\n\n\n hartshorn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-05-30T16:25:27+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hartshorn wrote..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The ghost-soul in the inhumi may attain to a sort of human \nvirtue. The flesh remains evil. Of course the question is\nwhether \"evil\" in this context means anything other than\n\"evil to humans\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It does indeed ... recall Krait's comment that humans are the\ncattle of the inhumi (from memory, haven't read that passage in\na while...)\n\nThis also ties into my sermonette on souls and selves ... if \nthe inhumi can't not drink blood because of their physical \nnature (though I suppose that an occasional, extraordinarily \nself-sacrificing, inhumX might choose to die rather than doing\nso), then whatever souls they may possess should not be judged\nby this ... the soul is responsbile for guiding the person's\nbehavior toward morality, but is limited by the facticity of\nthe person's physical circumstances, including the person's\nbody. This is a complex moral issue made more complex by the\nintroduction of a variety of non-humans, and Wolfe's deliberate\nand concerted attempts to have the inhumi push as many \"THESE\nTHINGS ARE SCARY/BAD!!!\" buttons in his readers as possible. \n(Off the top of my head: they're reptilian; they're vampiric;\nthey're infiltrating shapeshifters; they're capable of deep and\nmalefic schemes; they have human intelligence without [or so\nwe are at first led to believe] human emotion; they drink beef\ntea...)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And the whole point of the inhumi is to put these concepts to \nthe Question. To Excruciation" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, yes, but that's also the point of the alzabo, the aqastors,\nthe chems..." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "matthew.malthouse", "address": "matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-05-30T17:18:58+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 30/05/2002 14:57:43 Adam Stephanides wrote:\non 5/28/02 2:00 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes at ddanehy at siebel.com wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Antelopes almost certainly have a radically different opinion of\nlions than you do. For an antelope (at least one with inclinations\ntoward ethical philosophizing), to be killed by a lion is a great\nevil indeed, and lions are evildoers." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For a human to be killed by smallpox is a great evil. But we don't\nregard\nsmallpox viruses as evildoers, because they are incapable of moral\nthought.\nPhilosphical antelopes would presumably reach the same conclusion about\nlions (assuming they remained lions)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm glad someone has begun to make this distinction because I've felt\nthroughout this discussion that matter's have been confused by the loose\nuse of the word 'evil'.\n\nTo my mind an act can only be categorised as evil if there it is comitted\nin the understanding that doing so transgresses some moral or ethical\nimperative.\n\nWhat those constraints are will be defined by culture and belief.\n\nFor example a death by smallpox is tragic in a humanist view, but not\nevil. It's just one of those chances that might happen. It takes some\nadditional input - such as the belief in a deity and a directed purpose to\nsuch an eventuality - to make such a death an evil.\n\nSo we (humanist or deist alike) consider murder wrong. To kill with intent\nis evil. To cause death inadvertantly is not, however tragic.\n\nIn considering the inhumi we should ask if they have an inherant moral\nframework against which their actions can be judged or if their\nconsciousness, being as it is human derived, places them in the moral\nframework of the humans on Blue and Green.\n\nIf one opts for the former it is difficult, if not impossible, to didscern\nfrom the text what shuch a framework would be. However to be\ncomprehensible to us it should certainly include that using prey (lion and\nantelope like) is a life necessity and not an evil.\n\nI personally opt for the second choice. Pragmatically because this allows\nthe author to pose questions of evil in a single framework without the\ncomplications of evaluating the alien. Moreover the mechanism by which\ninhumi attain consciousness seems to suggest that it is only within a\nhuman framework that they act.\n\nIf that is accepted we have the conflict mentioned a while back. To\nsurvive in the form they are they must continually commit acts that are\nseen as evil: and given the premis just made which they must understand as\nevil.\n\nSo we have within a single moral context conscious predators, evil, pitted\nagainst prey which should be contrasted as good or innocent.\n\nNothing Lupine is ever so simple.\n\nClearly we have human elements in the book that are at best ambigous and\neasilly seen as evil. So here there is no innocent at all but rather\nshades of guilt or sin. We have speculted that the \"solution\" to the\ninhumi problem might be becoming \"good\" if that is indeed the solution\nwe're told categorically that the humans can't do it.\n\nThe inhumi cannot both renounce evil and survive as they currently are.\nHumans might do so, and in doing so co-incidentally rehabilitate the inumi\nbut they won't or can't except perhaps for the rare \"saint\". The conflict\nis within human nature: those who cannot enact their own redemption\nagainst those who could but won't.\n\nMatthew" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2002-05-30T18:03:14+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 30 May 2002 matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk wrote:\nFor example a death by smallpox is tragic in a humanist view, but not\nevil. It's just one of those chances that might happen. It takes some\nadditional input - such as the belief in a deity and a directed purpose to\nsuch an eventuality - to make such a death an evil.\n\nSo we (humanist or deist alike) consider murder wrong. To kill with intent\nis evil. To cause death inadvertantly is not, however tragic." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think the Christian way of expressing this is that death by smallpox is\nevil (one of the evils unleashed by humanity's estrangement from God) and\nmurder is sinful.\n\nThe humanist equivalent is probably that death by smallpox is bad and\nmurder is evil.\n\nThus the confusion about the word 'evil'.\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-05-30T19:04:43+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Matthew quoted Adam quoted me..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Antelopes almost certainly have a radically different opinion of\nlions than you do. For an antelope (at least one with inclinations\ntoward ethical philosophizing), to be killed by a lion is a great\nevil indeed, and lions are evildoers." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "For a human to be killed by smallpox is a great evil. But we don't\nregard smallpox viruses as evildoers, because they are incapable of\nmoral thought. Philosphical antelopes would presumably reach the\nsame conclusion about lions (assuming they remained lions)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, fair enough ... I had considered that ungulate philosophers \nmight well consider felids capable of moral choice also, but assuming \nthe contrary, I agree with you (Adam): to be killed by a lion would \nbe an evil, but the lion would not be an evildoer thereby." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm glad someone has begun to make this distinction because I've felt\nthroughout this discussion that matter's have been confused by the\nloose use of the word 'evil'.\n\nTo my mind an act can only be categorised as evil if there it \nis comitted in the understanding that doing so transgresses some\nmoral or ethical imperative." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Matthew, you are (of course) free to think this way, it runs against\nboth common English usage of the word \"evil,\" and the tradition of \nWestern moral philosophy. \n\nAs a simple example of the former, consider the fairly common \nusage, \"That chemical mixture gives off an evil smell.\" Nobody \nwho uses the word this way is imputing any morality to the odor \nor the chemical mixture; they are simply stating that they find \nit extremely unpleasant, even painful, to be exposed olfactorily \nto the chemical mixture.\n\nThe same is true of being killed by smallpox, or a lion. It is\nan \"evil fate,\" it is bad, but it is not in and of itself a \nmoral wrong.\n\nBut wait, there's more ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What those constraints are will be defined by culture and belief." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "... correct. And it is important to remember that in an appropriate \ninterpretive context for Lupine texts, the \"culture and belief\" in\nquestion are Western and Christian, sc., Catholic (and fairly \nconservative American Catholic at that)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For example a death by smallpox is tragic in a humanist view, \nbut not evil. It's just one of those chances that might happen.\nIt takes some additional input - such as the belief in a deity\nand a directed purpose to such an eventuality - to make such a\ndeath an evil." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "See above: such belief is inherent to the Lupine. \n\nH'mmm. I should clarify ... I am not saying that one must be a \nChristian, let alone a fairly conservative American Catholic, to \nappropriately interpret a text Lupine; I am, however, saying that \none must be able to, as it were, simulate that headset to do so, \nmuch as one needs to be able to simulate the headset of a lapsed \nIrish Catholic in order to appropriately interpret _The Portrait \nof the Artist as a Young Man_. Wolfe is more \"dangerous\" for the\ninterpreter than, say, C.S. Lewis (except perhaps for Lewis's \nfinal novel, _Till We Have Faces_, which is much subtler than \nany of his other fiction), in that it is entirely possible for \nsomeone not engaged in a Christian headset to read large amounts \nof Lupine text without ever realizing that Wolfe's is, in fact, \nChristian, and that this deeply imbues (almost?) all his texts." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So we (humanist or deist alike) consider murder wrong. To \nkill with intent is evil. To cause death inadvertantly is not,\nhowever tragic." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay, this is where we differ deeply. I don't know about \n\"deists,\" but from the Christian poing of view, causing death \ninadvertantly, not to mention being stricken by smallpox, et by \na lion, or killed by a falling tree, is not only \"an evil\" in \nthe sense above, but is also related, directly and causally, to \nthe Fall. It is, in other words, the result of evil (that is, \n\"sinful\") moral choices made by human beings." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In considering the inhumi we should ask if they have an \ninherant moral framework against which their actions can be \njudged or if their consciousness, being as it is human derived,\nplaces them in the moral framework of the humans on Blue and\nGreen." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We must (more completely) inquire of the text regarding the way(s)\nin which they relate to the overall Fall -- are they ensouled, but \nun-Fallen beings, who are harmful to humans only because of the \nhuman Fall? Sentient, Fallen beings? Devils? Animals? Etc. The \nanswer to this question is (the beginning of) an answer to the \nquestion regarding the moral framework, if any, by which an inhumo's\nacts should be judged. -- Note that this is not a disagreement with \nyour question but a reframing of it in terms appropriate to the \nLupine context." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If one opts for the former it is difficult, if not impossible, to\ndidscern from the text what shuch a framework would be. However\nto be comprehensible to us it should certainly include that using \nprey (lion and antelope like) is a life necessity and not an evil." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It would not be sinful; it remains an evil, a result of the Fall." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I personally opt for the second choice. Pragmatically because this \nallows the author to pose questions of evil in a single framework\nwithout the complications of evaluating the alien. Moreover the \nmechanism by which inhumi attain consciousness seems to suggest that\nit is only within a human framework that they act." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes. An important point of the Judaeo-Christian framework is that\n\"the blood is the life.\" This has all sorts of ramifications for \nthe Mosaic laws and Talmudic regulations of ritual purity; it is\ntremendously important in understanding the nature of sacrifice in\nthe Vironese faith; and it is, very much, what makes the inhumi \nwhat they are. Thus, an appropriate approach to the reframed question \nis to work from the belief that the inhumi are, essentially, animals\nwith no capacity for moral choice beyond that which they gain from \ntheir feeding upon humans. This in fact does not quite remove from\nus the burden of \"evaluating the alien\" -- we have to evaluate the\nextent to which they actually attain the capacity for moral choice.\n\nAnother critically significant point of the Christian episteme is \nthat sin is a kind of bondage; that as long as we remain sinners, \nwe are not in fact free. The inhumi, in gaining their capacity for\nmoral choice from sinful humans, would appear to gain also the\ntaint of original sin, and the tendency to actual sin (in Catholic\nterms, \"concupiscence\") that results from it. An inhumo trying to \nmake a moral choice about whether to attack a human is less free\nthan a human making most of the moral choices which face us, in \nthat not only concupiscence but actual physical need drives them \nto the \"sinful\" choice; additionally, they seem, as has been \ndiscussed recently, to be \"damned if they don't,\" in that if they \nrefrain from attacking humans, it appears that they will condemn \ntheir own children to insentience -- as the Narr puts it, to the\nintelligence of a crocodile.\n\nI very much like your summary:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The inhumi cannot both renounce evil and survive as they \ncurrently are. Humans might do so, and in doing so\nco-incidentally rehabilitate the inumi but they won't or can't \nexcept perhaps for the rare \"saint\". The conflict is within\nhuman nature: those who cannot enact their own redemption\nagainst those who could but won't." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The conflict is also very much in the purview of Christianity --\nnobody can save himself; they must be saved by the willing \nsacrifice of others. It is possible that the \"answer\" to the\nsecret of the inhumi, which the Narr hints at, is for saintly\nhumans to voluntarily give their blood to them. The next inhumi \ngeneration will then include saintly inhumi who will not attack\nhumans but only accept voluntarily-given blood. If enough humans\nwere to be saintly enough, there would appear a beneficent cycle,\nin which ultimately the humans and the inhumi could live in\npeace.\n\nBut, of course, it will never happen in the Fallen world..." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2002-05-30T19:27:20+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- Andy Robertson wrote:\n----- Original Message -----\nFrom: \"Adam Stephanides\" \non 5/28/02 3:08 PM, Andy Robertson at andywrobertson at clara.co.uk\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Yes, but I'm not sure the inhumi nature is necessarily more of an\nobstacle\nto becoming virtuous persons than human nature. Neither group\ncomes\noff\nvery well in the SS books." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Right. I think I agree with you here." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "How does this square with your original argument that the inhumi's\ntragedy\nwas that they were incapable by nature of being other than evil, and\nthat\nif\nthey were just \"humans in drag\" this tragedy would be meaningless?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The ghost-soul in the inhumi may attain to a sort of human virtue. The\nflesh remains evil. Of course the question is whether \"evil\" in this\ncontext means anything other than \"evil to humans\".\n\nIt depends on what you mean by \"nature\", \"good\" and \"evil\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Definitely!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Also by what \"they\" refers to when you are talking of the inhumi.\n\n\n\nAnd the whole point of the inhumi is to put these concepts to the\nQuestion.\nTo Excruciation" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In fact, as people have been saying, the distinction between humans\nand inhumi seems to be one of degree rather than kind. I would hate\nto share a bedroom with an inhumus, but I'd also hate to share a\nprison cell with a human being if we were fed, say, 2000 calories a\nday for the two of us. In both cases the biological imperatives\nare going to lead to severe harm to me--it's just that humans have\nworked out \"modi vivendi\" [?] that allow us with our biological\nimperatives to co-exist. So if you're going to call inhumi flesh\nevil, I think you have to say the same about human flesh (and you\nwouldn't be the first)--ours is just less evil.\n\nAnd going along with Wolfe's belief in souls, I hardly see that it\nmatters whether one's soul is unique and acquired at or before one's\nbirth, or a copy of an existing soul acquired at or before one's\nhatching.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2002-05-30T19:41:28+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nMatthew quoted Adam quoted me..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I very much like your summary:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The inhumi cannot both renounce evil and survive as they \ncurrently are. Humans might do so, and in doing so\nco-incidentally rehabilitate the inumi but they won't or can't \nexcept perhaps for the rare \"saint\". The conflict is within\nhuman nature: those who cannot enact their own redemption\nagainst those who could but won't." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The conflict is also very much in the purview of Christianity --\nnobody can save himself; they must be saved by the willing \nsacrifice of others. It is possible that the \"answer\" to the\nsecret of the inhumi, which the Narr hints at, is for saintly\nhumans to voluntarily give their blood to them. The next inhumi \ngeneration will then include saintly inhumi who will not attack\nhumans but only accept voluntarily-given blood. If enough humans\nwere to be saintly enough, there would appear a beneficent cycle,\nin which ultimately the humans and the inhumi could live in\npeace.\n\nBut, of course, it will never happen in the Fallen world..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've given this matter more thought than I probably should have, and\nI don't think saintliness is required. The inhumi can pay for the\nblood they drink. Unfortunately, they aren't capable of doing much\nmanual labor (though like the abos, they're okay with ropes--Krait\ncan sail), but Blue certainly needs a good communication system,\nnot to mention maps. Then considering that the inhumi can live on\nanimal blood sometimes, and even beef tea, one might be able to\ndevelop a workable economy in a Fallen world.\n\nBluvians might be wise to limit the inhumi's pre-reproduction blood\nmeal to human volunteers in order to encourage altruism as well as\ncommercialism.\n\nTo get back to something more to the point, why doesn't Silkhorn\ntry \"donating\" blood to inhumi? That would seem like an excellent\nattempt at making improvements. He's too humble to think he\nwould help? Too squeamish? Wolfe didn't like the echoes of the\nEucharist?\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2002-05-30T19:52:43+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nHartshorn wrote..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The ghost-soul in the inhumi may attain to a sort of human \nvirtue. The flesh remains evil. Of course the question is\nwhether \"evil\" in this context means anything other than\n\"evil to humans\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It does indeed ... recall Krait's comment that humans are the\ncattle of the inhumi (from memory, haven't read that passage in\na while...)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of course, we humans generally see non-human animals as our cattle,\nand sometimes we even see humans that way.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jason Ingram", "address": "j_ingram at mac.com" }, "date": "2002-05-31T04:12:16+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 12:41 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\n[. . .]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To get back to something more to the point, why doesn't Silkhorn\ntry \"donating\" blood to inhumi? That would seem like an excellent\nattempt at making improvements. He's too humble to think he\nwould help? Too squeamish? Wolfe didn't like the echoes of the\nEucharist?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I believe that he did so, deliberately opening his veins several times \nto feed an inhumu or two. It seemed that this altered their subsequent \nbehavior, though Jahlee presents a counter-example (I believe that she \nwas a recipient). I couldn't opine whether Silkhorn's intent was simply \nto prevent them from preying on others or he had something else in mind \nwithout rereading.\n\nSepia" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "matthew.malthouse", "address": "matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-05-31T09:44:55+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 31/05/2002 05:12:16 Jason Ingram wrote:\nOn Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 12:41 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\n[. . .]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "To get back to something more to the point, why doesn't Silkhorn\ntry \"donating\" blood to inhumi? That would seem like an excellent\nattempt at making improvements. He's too humble to think he\nwould help? Too squeamish? Wolfe didn't like the echoes of the\nEucharist?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I believe that he did so, deliberately opening his veins several times\nto feed an inhumu or two. It seemed that this altered their subsequent\nbehavior, though Jahlee presents a counter-example (I believe that she\nwas a recipient). I couldn't opine whether Silkhorn's intent was simply\nto prevent them from preying on others or he had something else in mind\nwithout rereading." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thought just appeared out of the blue so perhaps nonsense: if humans\nvolunteered this and inhumu acceded to it would it not create a dependence\nthat ultimately could make the inhumu a slave race? Potentially a\nsolution as ethically problemtaic as the problem.\n\nThis would't happen if all human doners were altruistic. But isn't our\npremis that they (we?) can't be so consistantly and universally?\n\nMatthew" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-05-31T15:26:34+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Matthew wrote..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thought just appeared out of the blue so perhaps nonsense: if humans\nvolunteered [their blood] and inhumu acceded to it would it not create \na dependence that ultimately could make the inhumu a slave race? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, that had occurred to me also ... and immediately \n(inevitably?), the situation wrt the US and OPEC came to mind,\nwith US in the rôle of the inhumi ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Potentially a solution as ethically problemtaic as the problem." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sort of. But predators _are_ dependent upon their prey; in the \ncase of the inhumi, granted, the dependence is a little different \nin that other prey are available but won't give them sentience \n(and, just possibly, souls). But changing a predator/prey \nsituation to one of mutual benefit and dependency seems to me\nto be as close to a purely good thing as you get in the Fallen\nworld." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This would't happen if all human doners were altruistic. But \nisn't our premis that they (we?) can't be so consistantly and\nuniversally?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Depends on what you mean by \"altruistic\" -- if you mean acting\nfrom emotionally altruistic motives, your reading of the premise \nis correct; however, it is possible to behave altruistically for \nreasons other than altruism (this is actually one of the major\ntopics in current* evolutionary biology); if the inhumi were to\ndevelop, from their human \"victims,\" this kind of altruistic\ncharacter, it would be every bit as beneficial to both sides as\n\"emotional\" altruism, and quite probably more so for the inhumi.\n\n-----\n* Where \"current\" means \"long enough ago to be considered an\n exciting topic for current popular-science books.\n-----\n\nIn other words, _assuming_ that we are right in believing that\ntheir character is sufficiently susceptible to alteration by \nthe character of those they prey upon, _then_ the forging of a \nmutually-beneficial détente would not require that it be only\nsaints who open their veins to the inhumi -- utilitarian/\npragmatists will do as well." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-05-31T16:17:18+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \n Depends on what you mean by \"altruistic\" -- if you mean acting\nfrom emotionally altruistic motives, your reading of the premise\nis correct; however, it is possible to behave altruistically for\nreasons other than altruism (this is actually one of the major\ntopics in current* evolutionary biology);" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As a matter if fact, Evolutionary Psychology is the key to understanding the\nwhole mess.\n\n\n\nThere is a case of a planarian that infests a type of water snail.\n\nIt affects the snails' behaviour.\n\nIt makes them climb to the top of grass stalks and perch there waving their\neyes in the air.\n\nThe eyes get nipped of by birds - who are the planarians' secondary host.\n\n\n\nThe case of inhumi/humans, though not analagous, is not essentially\ndifferent.\n\nThe inhumi affect the humans' behaviour, and the humans affect the inhumi.\n\nYet it is more complex, and mutual reciprocal altruism spreading\ncross-species like this and forming a new Evolutionary Stable State would be\nan *exquisite* demonstration of Evolutionary Psychology\n\n\nI wnder if Wolfe understands the disipline, or if he is just so acute that\nhe cannot diagram a world that does not hold these deep truths?\n\n\n hartshorn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-05-31T15:50:39+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hartshorn wrote:\nThe inhumi affect the humans' behaviour, and the humans \naffect the inhumi.\n\nYet it is more complex, and mutual reciprocal altruism spreading\ncross-species like this and forming a new Evolutionary Stable \nState would be an *exquisite* demonstration of Evolutionary\nPsychology" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sounds like you read a lot of the same popsci books I do 8*)\n\n(O'course, for all I know you may be an evolutionary biologist\nor psychologist in real life...) \n\nYeah ... allowing for my (intentionally) looking at things through\nspectacles of moral theology, that was more or less where I was\ngoing, but without going into the technical details -- mostly on \nthe assumption that many folks here _don't_ read the same popsci \nas me and it's too early in the morning to explain evolutionarily\nstable strategies, mixed strategies, and all the rest. 8*|" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I wnder if Wolfe understands the disipline, or if he is just \nso acute that he cannot diagram a world that does not hold these\ndeep truths?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, genetics and evolutionary bio have been part of the \nbackground of Wolfe's writing at least as far back as 5HC, so \nI'd guess he keeps up on the stuff as part of his \"job\" as an\nSF writer." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2002-05-31T20:05:57+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk wrote:\n\n\n\nOn 31/05/2002 05:12:16 Jason Ingram wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 12:41 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\n[. . .]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "To get back to something more to the point, why doesn't Silkhorn\ntry \"donating\" blood to inhumi? That would seem like an excellent\nattempt at making improvements. He's too humble to think he\nwould help? Too squeamish? Wolfe didn't like the echoes of the\nEucharist?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I believe that he did so, deliberately opening his veins several times\nto feed an inhumu or two. It seemed that this altered their subsequent\nbehavior, though Jahlee presents a counter-example (I believe that she\nwas a recipient). I couldn't opine whether Silkhorn's intent was\nsimply\nto prevent them from preying on others or he had something else in mind\nwithout rereading." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Anybody have a cite?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thought just appeared out of the blue so perhaps nonsense: if humans\nvolunteered this and inhumu acceded to it would it not create a\ndependence\nthat ultimately could make the inhumu a slave race? Potentially a\nsolution as ethically problemtaic as the problem." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, we're not the slaves of OPEC (Dan'l's example) or of utilities,\nstill less of farmers.\n\nI think the real problem along these lines might be people forcing\nslaves to give the inhumi blood--those slaves who are adjusted to\ntheir condition, predisposing the future generations of inhumi to\nbe slaves. See the April _Scientific American_ for some not overly\noriginal notes on the psychology of slavery." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This would't happen if all human doners were altruistic. But isn't our\npremis that they (we?) can't be so consistantly and universally?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, or at least Wolfe's premise, but I agree with Dan'l that\nordinary economic behavior and enlightened self-interest could lead\nto an improvement on the situation in the trilogy.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] } ] }