{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3308", "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": 3308, "subject": "The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt", "messages": 7, "voices": 4, "first": "2002-06-11T16:01:52+00:00", "last": "2002-06-12T16:24:38+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-06-11T16:01:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Emerging from the murky mists of the Internet,\ncomposing on computers their provident remarks,\nJames and Jeff have jointly written:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "... as Dan'l mentioned, from some Roman Catholic perspectives\nthe atonement of the Son is \"eternal\" so it could \"happen\" in\ntime more than once." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I should clarify my point here ... it is _not_ that it could happen\nmore than once in time; it is that the spatiotemporally unique event\ncould be eternally present to many, any, or all points of spacetime.\n(Hey, how often do you get to use relatvisitic terminology in a \nchristological discussion?) What I mean is, ignoring the question of\nother universes, in _this_ universe, we (the Roman Catholic church, \nand I am pretty sure the Orthodox churches also) believe that in the\nsacrifice of the Mass, we are not repeating the sacrifice of Golgotha\nbut participating in it, being present with Christ at that eternally\nunique moment.\n\n(If this is still a bit vague, forgive me; I'm trying _not_ to turn \nthis into a theology list, so I'm making non-Lupine theological remarks\nas brief as possible.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If this was not in Wolfe's mind, then I doubt if we are supposed to \npress the problem of a repeated crucifixion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Whay can't this just be regarded as allegorical? The crucifixion\nwould not be repeated so much as represented, it avoids all\nproblems with time-binding statements and promises attributed to\nG-d, doesn't make a liar out of the translator, and doesn't\nrequire the Book to travel half a universe backward, get translated,\nthen come 1 1/2 forward to be published. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay, applying the above principle to the \"Books\" I think we need\nto look at it with two different heads.\n\nWe can regard the references to the \"theoanthropos,\" etc., either as \n\"allegorical of\" Christ or simply descriptive of Him. Matters not: the \npoint is that from this perspective, Wolfe is describing stuff which \nwe are clearly intended to recognize as in some way referring to Christ.\n\nBut in trying to decipher the proposed internal reality of the books, \nthe universe of the discourse, we need to take a different tack and \nask whether the Theoanthropos, the man enlightened and possessed by\nthe Outsider \"is\" Christ? Now, assuming (as I do assume) that Wolfe\nis not playing us false in claiming that he intends this as a previous \niteration of the universe from Big Bang to Grand Gnab; and assuming\nequally that he, like myself and most Christians, regard the Incarnation\nand Sacrifice as a unique event, then either the Theoanthropos is not\nGod, or the person we call Christ is not God. \n\nA simple and, I think, elegant resolution, which is consistent with\nthe text: in many universes, possibly in many worlds in a single\nuniverse, Man or some other sentient race has Fallen. In one and only\none of these universes, the second Person of the Trinity became \nincarnate and allowed Himself to be sacrificed to reconcile these \nsentient races to the Godhead. In many other times-and-places, however,\nthe Godhead \"enlightened and possessed\" a person to perform acts that,\nin the sense of the Mass but more so, are united with and copresent \nwith the unique Incarnation and Sacrifice. For a person who knows only\nof these events, belief in them is essentially belief in the unique \nevent.\n\nGod is, after all, a torturer.\n\n\nThen seeking to solve philosophical problems,\nof chronic recurrence and Christian belief,\nto the light came Roy Lackey, and limned these brave words:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In addition to the objections raised by others, there are all \nthose stories in the Brown Book, clearly recognizable to students\nof Classical mythology as founded on Earth's mythology. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, that could be dismissed as mythic resonance, hero with a \nthousand faces type stuff, the idea that these archetypes are \neternal. Blablablah. But this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It also contains a direct quote from Genesis, and another from\nMarlowe's FAUSTUS. No. No. No. Urth is in our Earth's far future." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...is just a wee tad more difficult to dismiss. It _is_ hard to \nimagine that in a simple repetition of the repeated Big Bang/Grand\nGnab variety, such details would be repeated. Perhaps, though, we\ncan suppose that Wolfe is borrowing a page from Nietzsche and \nconsidering it all as a species of \"eternal recurrence\"? Or that \nthe Hieros, seeking to guide the recreation of the species that \ncreated their predecessors, do so with the kind of obsessive \naccuracy that actually does result in such recurrence? \n\nThe short of it is, though, that I disagree, because I think \nputting Urth in a past cycle seems to me to make sense, while \nadmitting that I don't have an easy answer to such problems." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Facts aside, as well as theological difficulties, the notion of\nSeverian, turning water into wine, being baptized, dying and being\nresurrected, a world savior, etc., in a previous iteration of\ncreation, makes him the prototype for Jesus. Kind of cheapens the\nwhole Holy Spectacle, doesn't it? Putting the cart before the horse." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ummm ... no more and no less than do the Jesus-parallels you find \nwhen you look at (say) Moses, Samson, Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha.\nAlmost all of Christ's miracles and many of the other events of His\nlife are \"previewed\" in one or more of these characters. It doesn't\nseem particularly more difficult to assume that Severian also figures\nChrist without being Him." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not to mention it plays hell with Nick Gevers' idea of placing 5HC\nin the SUN universe. A separate creation with an Earth, complete\nwith Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and New York City, DAVID COPPERFIELD,\nand Catholic saints (all mentioned in the text), stretches credulity\npast all endurance." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, if you can swallow or could have swallowed quotes from Genesis\nand Marlowe, the rest is not only not harder but in fact necessary \n-- I mean, it would actually be harder (for me at least) to accept the \npresence of such quotes, and then to be told that Ireland, Scotland, \nWales, New York, and _David Copperfield_ were _not_ present in that \nuniverse. At least if they're present, the whole is consistent.\n\n\nA final correction to the \"facts\" used by Crush:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But in my heart of hearts I believe Wolfe concocted this\nexplanation to rescue himself from having to constantly justify\ntheologically everything in the BOTNS. I DO recall that he\ndenied Severian is Christ. He said he was a \"Christ figure\", but\nthat's merely a literary term." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, he went a step further than your memory, Crush -- he \nactually denies that Severian, or any of his protagonists, are\n\"Christ figures,\" and insists that they are rather \"Christian\nfigures.\" I believe that the distinction is made fairly clearly\nin the interview Wolfe gave to James Jordan, to which a link was\nposted in this group within the last day or so." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-06-11T16:56:19+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message ----- " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \nI should clarify my point here ... it is _not_ that it could happen\nmore than once in time; it is that the spatiotemporally unique event\ncould be eternally present to many, any, or all points of spacetime.\n(Hey, how often do you get to use relatvisitic terminology in a \nchristological discussion?) " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Umm, Boethieus, *De Consolatione Philosophae* . . . \n\n hartshorn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at hotpop.com" }, "date": "2002-06-11T19:24:56+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah! Yes. Here's the quote:\nJJ: The holy slaves [Heirodules], Famulimus or one of them tells Severian\nthat he is the center of his race, the savior of his race. That is such\nChristlike language you can see why interpreters would say well Severian is\na Christ figure. But is there a Christ figure in the book, or is he simply\nfor this universe?\nGW: In so far as there is a Christ figure it is Severian. That doesn't mean\nhe has to be identified with Christ. He is in a position similar to that of\nChrist. But really it is a different position because Christ really is both\nGod and man. Severian is not. Severian is a Christian rather than a Christ.\nBut he is been taken as the representative of humanity by whom humanity is\nto be judged. This I think is what has happened perhaps with the actual\nhuman Jesus. He is or was is as fully human as you or I and we are saved by\nHim. By the fact that he passed. That the corruption did not destroy Him. I\nthink that St. Paul is absolutely correct when he says that Jesus was\ntempted in all the ways that we are tempted. I think that Jesus was tempted\nto commit murder or any other sin that you want to name just as the rest of\nus are. And the difference is that He did not sin.\n-- Crush\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes [mailto:ddanehy at siebel.com]\nSent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:02 AM\nTo: 'urth at urth.net'" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-06-11T22:51:12+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Crush:\n\nI suppose this is a question of interpretation... To me, the \"in so\nfar as there is a Christ figure\" seems to me to be a way of saying\nthat there really isn't, but if you have to find one, Severian would\nbe it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: James Wynn [mailto:crushtv at HotPOP.com]\nSent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 12:25 PM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: RE: (urth) The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt\n\n\nAh! Yes. Here's the quote:\nJJ: The holy slaves [Heirodules], Famulimus or one of them \ntells Severian\nthat he is the center of his race, the savior of his race. \nThat is such\nChristlike language you can see why interpreters would say \nwell Severian is\na Christ figure. But is there a Christ figure in the book, or \nis he simply\nfor this universe?\nGW: In so far as there is a Christ figure it is Severian. \nThat doesn't mean\nhe has to be identified with Christ. He is in a position \nsimilar to that of\nChrist. But really it is a different position because Christ \nreally is both\nGod and man. Severian is not. Severian is a Christian rather \nthan a Christ.\nBut he is been taken as the representative of humanity by \nwhom humanity is\nto be judged. This I think is what has happened perhaps with \nthe actual\nhuman Jesus. He is or was is as fully human as you or I and \nwe are saved by\nHim. By the fact that he passed. That the corruption did not \ndestroy Him. I\nthink that St. Paul is absolutely correct when he says that Jesus was\ntempted in all the ways that we are tempted. I think that \nJesus was tempted\nto commit murder or any other sin that you want to name just \nas the rest of\nus are. And the difference is that He did not sin.\n-- Crush\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes [mailto:ddanehy at siebel.com]\nSent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:02 AM\nTo: 'urth at urth.net'" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-06-12T03:30:22+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 6/11/02 4:01 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes at ddanehy at siebel.com wrote:\nEmerging from the murky mists of the Internet,\ncomposing on computers their provident remarks,\nJames and Jeff have jointly written:" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A simple and, I think, elegant resolution, which is consistent with\nthe text: in many universes, possibly in many worlds in a single\nuniverse, Man or some other sentient race has Fallen. In one and only\none of these universes, the second Person of the Trinity became\nincarnate and allowed Himself to be sacrificed to reconcile these\nsentient races to the Godhead. In many other times-and-places, however,\nthe Godhead \"enlightened and possessed\" a person to perform acts that,\nin the sense of the Mass but more so, are united with and copresent\nwith the unique Incarnation and Sacrifice. For a person who knows only\nof these events, belief in them is essentially belief in the unique\nevent.\n\nGod is, after all, a torturer." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So in every universe, there is a figure who is regarded as a sacrificed\nGod-become-man, but only one of these universes has it right? In that case,\nhow do we know that we're the lucky ones?\n\nWhat occurred to me when I first read Wolfe's past-universe comment was that\nthe Theoanthropos could be an anticipated future figure, rather than a past\nfigure. Is there anything in the books which rules this out?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It also contains a direct quote from Genesis, and another from\nMarlowe's FAUSTUS. No. No. No. Urth is in our Earth's far future." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...is just a wee tad more difficult to dismiss. It _is_ hard to\nimagine that in a simple repetition of the repeated Big Bang/Grand\nGnab variety, such details would be repeated. Perhaps, though, we\ncan suppose that Wolfe is borrowing a page from Nietzsche and\nconsidering it all as a species of \"eternal recurrence\"? Or that\nthe Hieros, seeking to guide the recreation of the species that\ncreated their predecessors, do so with the kind of obsessive\naccuracy that actually does result in such recurrence?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If that's the case, then presumably Severian and his story would recur too,\nrendering the whole question academic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The short of it is, though, that I disagree, because I think\nputting Urth in a past cycle seems to me to make sense," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Why? I don't see a single advantage to it, aside from partially answering\nthe question \"How did we get Sev's story?\" which, after all, arises with\nevery SF story set in the future.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at hotpop.com" }, "date": "2002-06-12T13:31:17+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree. Actually, I think the operative sentence here is \"Severian is a\nChristian rather than a Christ.\" Although, to me for some reason, saying\nSeverian is a Christian is a more jarring statement than saying he's a\nChrist.\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes [mailto:ddanehy at siebel.com]\nSent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 5:51 PM\nTo: 'urth at urth.net'\nSubject: RE: (urth) The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt\n\nCrush:\n\nI suppose this is a question of interpretation... To me, the \"in so\nfar as there is a Christ figure\" seems to me to be a way of saying\nthat there really isn't, but if you have to find one, Severian would\nbe it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: James Wynn [mailto:crushtv at HotPOP.com]\nSent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 12:25 PM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: RE: (urth) The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt\n\n\nAh! Yes. Here's the quote:\nJJ: The holy slaves [Heirodules], Famulimus or one of them\ntells Severian\nthat he is the center of his race, the savior of his race.\nThat is such\nChristlike language you can see why interpreters would say\nwell Severian is\na Christ figure. But is there a Christ figure in the book, or\nis he simply\nfor this universe?\nGW: In so far as there is a Christ figure it is Severian.\nThat doesn't mean\nhe has to be identified with Christ. He is in a position\nsimilar to that of\nChrist. But really it is a different position because Christ\nreally is both\nGod and man. Severian is not. Severian is a Christian rather\nthan a Christ.\nBut he is been taken as the representative of humanity by\nwhom humanity is\nto be judged. This I think is what has happened perhaps with\nthe actual\nhuman Jesus. He is or was is as fully human as you or I and\nwe are saved by\nHim. By the fact that he passed. That the corruption did not\ndestroy Him. I\nthink that St. Paul is absolutely correct when he says that Jesus was\ntempted in all the ways that we are tempted. I think that\nJesus was tempted\nto commit murder or any other sin that you want to name just\nas the rest of\nus are. And the difference is that He did not sin.\n-- Crush\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes [mailto:ddanehy at siebel.com]\nSent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:02 AM\nTo: 'urth at urth.net'" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-06-12T16:24:38+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam done wrote:\nSo in every universe, there is a figure who is regarded as a \nsacrificed God-become-man, but only one of these universes has\nit right? In that case, how do we know that we're the lucky ones?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Through faith, of course. 8*)\n\nNo, you see ... the point is that by participation, we're all right,\neven though it only happens the once. Don't think in time, think in\neternity.\n\nOr (for the Gaiman/Pratchett fans amongst us) think ineffability." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What occurred to me when I first read Wolfe's past-universe \ncomment was that the Theoanthropos could be an anticipated\nfuture figure, rather than a past figure. Is there anything\nin the books which rules this out?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nope. And the nature of such prophecies is often to confuse past\nand future. \n\nThis idea would seem to support the whole \"cyclic\" thing, though,\nwouldn't it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "... Perhaps, though, we\ncan suppose that Wolfe is borrowing a page from Nietzsche and\nconsidering it all as a species of \"eternal recurrence\"? Or that\nthe Hieros, seeking to guide the recreation of the species that\ncreated their predecessors, do so with the kind of obsessive\naccuracy that actually does result in such recurrence?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If that's the case, then presumably Severian and his story \nwould recur too, rendering the whole question academic." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yep. I have no problem with this. After all, he himself is aware\nthat there was at least one prevous Severian." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The short of it is, though, that I disagree, because I think\nputting Urth in a past cycle seems to me to make sense," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Why? I don't see a single advantage to it, aside from partially\nanswering the question \"How did we get Sev's story?\" which, after\nall, arises with every SF story set in the future." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "True: the primary difference being that most SF writers simply\nignore the question, where Wolfe, at least as far back as PEACE\nand 5HC, has made a point of including the provenance of the \nstory -- the motives and reliability of the narrator, the time \nat which the story is actually written -- an intrinsic part of\nhis texts.\n\nWhere have you been, my blue-eyed son?" } ] } ] }