{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3305", "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": 3305, "subject": "Some problems if the Pancreator/Outsider is theHoly", "messages": 10, "voices": 6, "first": "2002-06-10T21:02:15+00:00", "last": "2002-06-12T16:18:39+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at cox.net" }, "date": "2002-06-10T21:02:15+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Some problems if the Pancreator/Outsider is theHoly", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 03:08 PM 6/10/2002 -0500, you wrote:\nJames Jordan wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": ".... remember that Urth is a universe-cycle before ours. These events\npredate the promise to Noah by about 50 billion years maybe. We don't know\nthat such a promise had been given to any Urnoah in Urth history. Nor,\nreturning to the first point, do we have to assume that God managed Briah\nprecisely the same way He manages our cycle." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I've come across this stated in the archives before; is the source an\nextra-textual Wolfe interview or the like?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Yes." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The reason I ask is because it seems\nodd that in a whole different cycle of creation you'd still get the Apollo \nmoon\nlanding whose picture is recognizable as such. And as someone else mentioned,\nhow would Severian's box with BOTNS make it through the singularity?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Well, the fact that is does somehow pass through the singularity, \non board the Ship perhaps, or in the Yesod Library, is the intra-textual \nindicator that these events are in our past. That's always the problem with \nWolfe: which of the tiny hints are important and which of the hints are not \nhints at all?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That aside, what's going on with that window into the 20th c. in the botanical\ngardens?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Protestant missionaries of the Theoanthropos. Well, like the \nApollo picture, somehow this earlier BangganB of the cosmos is much like \nours, but not quite the same. I do think we have an incarnation of the 2nd \nperson of God in this earlier cosmos, the aforementioned Theoanthropos, the \noriginal Conciliator of which Severian is an application, but as \nDan'l mentioned, from some Roman Catholic perspectives the atonement of \nthe Son is \"eternal\" so it could \"happen\" in time more than once. If this \nwas not in Wolfe's mind, then I doubt if we are supposed to press the \nproblem of a repeated crucifixion.\n But then, if we allow Wolfe the \"liberty\" to have a previous \nincarnation and atonement-of-infinite-worth in the Briah cosmos, then how \nare we to \"know\" that Severian's manuscript is from a previous cosmos and \nhas made it into ours? Which \"hint\" do we take as simply a liberty we grant \nthe author, and which \"hint\" we take as internal to the argument of the \nnarrative? After all, maybe Wolfe just \"somehow\" got Severian's book from \nthe future and \"somehow\" (golden spectacles?) was able to translate it, and \nwe are not supposed to ponder further? Or, maybe it fell back to him \nthrough the corridors of time, instead of proceeding forward to him from \nthe previous BanggnaB. Is there another \"hint\" that resolves the question? \nThis is the problem and frustration when reading Wolfe!\n\nJBJordan Nutria" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2002-06-11T02:36:14+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Some problems if the Pancreator/Outsider is theHoly", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: James Jordan " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 03:08 PM 6/10/2002 -0500, you wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "James Jordan wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": ".... remember that Urth is a universe-cycle before ours. These events\npredate the promise to Noah by about 50 billion years maybe. We don't know\nthat such a promise had been given to any Urnoah in Urth history. Nor,\nreturning to the first point, do we have to assume that God managed Briah\nprecisely the same way He manages our cycle." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I've come across this stated in the archives before; is the source an\nextra-textual Wolfe interview or the like?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " Yes." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\tDid he explain why he has completely reversed his statements in the\nappendix of Shadow?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The reason I ask is because it seems\nodd that in a whole different cycle of creation you'd still get the Apollo\nmoon\nlanding whose picture is recognizable as such. And as someone else mentioned,\nhow would Severian's box with BOTNS make it through the singularity?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " Well, the fact that is does somehow pass through the singularity,\non board the Ship perhaps, or in the Yesod Library, is the intra-textual\nindicator that these events are in our past. That's always the problem with\nWolfe: which of the tiny hints are important and which of the hints are not\nhints at all?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\tWhere is this \"fact\" documented?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "That aside, what's going on with that window into the 20th c. in the botanical\ngardens?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " Protestant missionaries of the Theoanthropos. Well, like the\nApollo picture, somehow this earlier BangganB of the cosmos is much like\nours, but not quite the same. I do think we have an incarnation of the 2nd\nperson of God in this earlier cosmos, the aforementioned Theoanthropos, the\noriginal Conciliator of which Severian is an application, but as\nDan'l mentioned, from some Roman Catholic perspectives the atonement of\nthe Son is \"eternal\" so it could \"happen\" in time more than once. If this\nwas not in Wolfe's mind, then I doubt if we are supposed to press the\nproblem of a repeated crucifixion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\tWhay can't this just be regarded as allegorical? The crucifixion would\nnot be repeated so much as represented, it avoids all problems with\ntime-binding statements and promises attributed to G-d, doesn't make a\nliar out of the translator, and doesn't require the Book to travel half\na universe backward, get translated, then come 1 1/2 forward to be\npublished. " }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson\nHow Am I Posting? 1-800-555-6789\n\"If your SecOp can see you, so can the enemy.\" -Cpt Law\n\n\n-- " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "matthew.malthouse", "address": "matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-06-11T07:14:14+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Some problems if the Pancreator/Outsider is theHoly", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 11/06/2002 06:58:32 Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nIn addition to the objections raised by others, there are all those\nstories\nin the Brown Book, clearly recognizable to students of Classical\nmythology\nas founded on Earth's mythology. It also contains a direct quote from\nGenesis, and another from Marlowe's FAUSTUS. No. No. No. Urth is in our\nEarth's far future.\n\nFacts aside, as well as theological difficulties, the notion of Severian,\nturning water into wine, being baptized, dying and being resurrected, a\nworld savior, etc., in a previous iteration of creation, makes him the\nprototype for Jesus. Kind of cheapens the whole Holy Spectacle, doesn't\nit?\nPutting the cart before the horse.\n\nNot to mention it plays hell with Nick Gevers' idea of placing 5HC in the\nSUN universe. A separate creation with an Earth, complete with Ireland,\nScotland, Wales, and New York City, DAVID COPPERFIELD, and Catholic\nsaints\n(all mentioned in the text), stretches credulity past all endurance." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree. The internal evidence of tBotNS is only consistant with it being\nset in the very far future.\n\nI'd be curious to know if the external statements were delivered\nex-cathedra or if they were accompanied by any explanation or rational\nthat gives reason for the change. I have to suspect pure mischief.\n\nMatthew" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-06-11T14:01:14+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Some problems if the Pancreator/Outsider is theHoly", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "on 6/10/02 4:02 PM, James Jordan at jbjordan4 at cox.net wrote:\n.... remember that Urth is a universe-cycle before ours. These events\npredate the promise to Noah by about 50 billion years maybe. We don't know\nthat such a promise had been given to any Urnoah in Urth history. Nor,\nreturning to the first point, do we have to assume that God managed Briah\nprecisely the same way He manages our cycle." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I've come across this stated in the archives before; is the source an\nextra-textual Wolfe interview or the like?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Textual and theological difficulties aside, I really don't like this idea.\nI won't say it ruins the books for me, but it does detract substantially\nfrom their sense of wonder and the uncanny. It's as if had declared that\nTHE DYING EARTH was really the Dying\nsome-other-planet-that-happens-to-be-called-Earth.\n\nSince, afaik, there's no indication in the original BotNS that the books are\ntaking place in a previous universe, I'm tempted to speculate (and hope)\nthat this was an idea Wolfe thought of after writing the original books.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at cox.net" }, "date": "2002-06-11T14:55:18+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Some problems if the Pancreator/Outsider is theHoly", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "JJ: This universe that you sought in Briah are part of it. Is that our \nuniverse? Or is that a universe that resurrected saints have set up in the \nworld to come as part of the cities that they made?\nGW: No. I thought of it as a long past universe. Something that we are \nrepeating rather than something that we are.\n\nhttp://www.op.net/~pduggan/gwjbj3.html\n\nThat was my source.\n\nNutria (JJ)" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2002-06-12T01:28:51+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Some problems if the Pancreator/Outsider is theHoly", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: James Jordan [mailto:jbjordan4 at cox.net]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "JJ: This universe that you sought in Briah are part of it. Is that our\nuniverse? Or is that a universe that resurrected saints have set up in the\nworld to come as part of the cities that they made?\nGW: No. I thought of it as a long past universe. Something that we are\nrepeating rather than something that we are.\n\nhttp://www.op.net/~pduggan/gwjbj3.html\n\nThat was my source." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well yes, =Yesod= is a previous universe, an extension of one, or at the\nvery least, a place settled by refugees from one according to Mantiss. \n\t" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson\nHow Am I Posting? 1-800-555-6789\n\"If your SecOp can see you, so can the enemy.\" -Cpt Law\n\n\n-- " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "matthew.malthouse", "address": "matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-06-12T07:37:58+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Some problems if the Pancreator/Outsider is theHoly", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 11/06/2002 15:55:18 James Jordan wrote:\nJJ: This universe that you sought in Briah are part of it. Is that our\nuniverse? Or is that a universe that resurrected saints have set up in\nthe\nworld to come as part of the cities that they made?\nGW: No. I thought of it as a long past universe. Something that we are\nrepeating rather than something that we are.\n\nhttp://www.op.net/~pduggan/gwjbj3.html\n\nThat was my source." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks.\n\nBut that does seem like mischief because the explanation of the origin of\nthe manuscript is in the book, so we have to add a further wrap around it\nto account for the book arriving in our hands.\n\nOn a metaphysical level I also cavil somewhat - the similarities of the\nbooks ancient past with our world are too similar. Either it's not just\ncyclic but the repetition is near identical or we have to interpolate\nadditional holes through which things like the moon picture have been\nmoved.\n\nFor sheer fun I quite like the idea of Ultan's library being part of L\nspace. Just as the shelves reach might the archive of the House Absolute\nso too one might hope to turn an unexpected corner and come across a\nrusset furred Librarian subjecting a minor grimoire to some remedial\nbook-binding.\n\nBut no, placing tBotNS in a distant past distresses me. It's too complex.\n Not that we expect anything but complexity from Wolfe; but this is\npurposely complex and purposelessness is not a lupine characteristic.\n\nMatthew" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-06-12T15:49:36+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Some problems if the Pancreator/Outsider is theHoly", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 6/12/02 10:28 AM, Andy Robertson at andywrobertson at clara.co.uk wrote:\nIt is logical and straightforward. It is called Quantum Electrodynamics." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, QED combines special relativity and quantum mechanics. The problem of\nreconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics is still unsolved.\n\n--Adam" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"James Wynn\" \n\"Toying\" is an important word here. Based on the Wolfe answer I'm quoting\nhere, I'd say trying to make tBotNS fit with Christian theology in every\nway\n(or most ways) is like trying to create a perpetual motion machine or\ntrying\nto rectify general relativity with quantum mechanics: It seems so logical\nand straightforward, but then...." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2002-06-12T16:15:00+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Some problems if the Pancreator/Outsider is theHoly", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, James Jordan wrote:\nOr, maybe it fell back to him \nthrough the corridors of time, instead of proceeding forward to him from \nthe previous BanggnaB. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If you're going to count the intros/appendix where Wolfe talks about\ntranslating Severian's manuscript, Wolfe directly refers to all the stuff\nof Severian's time being in the future, or \"futurity.\"\n\nI guess Wolfe could have been mistaken...\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-06-12T16:18:39+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Some problems if the Pancreator/Outsider is theHoly", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Rostrum saith:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If you're going to count the intros/appendix where Wolfe talks about\ntranslating Severian's manuscript, Wolfe directly refers to all the\nstuff of Severian's time being in the future, or \"futurity.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes. But on the other hand, he also writes of having been allowed\nto tour and photograph the \"surviving\" buildings of that distant\nfuture period. Which seems to put the distant future into the distant\npast and make the whole thing cyclic after all, dunnit?\n\n--Dan'l" } ] } ] }