{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4134",
    "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": 4134,
    "subject": "wright's book",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "2003-07-29T16:05:04+00:00",
    "last": "2003-07-29T16:05:04+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0307-3817@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Sam Keyes",
        "address": "skeyes at richmond.edu"
      },
      "date": "2003-07-29T16:05:04+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) wright's book",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "In other news, Peter Wright's book-length study of GW,\nAttending Daedalus, is due out in a few months, and\nI've put up pre-order links through Ultan's Library's\nassociation with Amazon UK at www.ultan.co.uk...."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Interesting.  After searching through the archives of this list, it seems\nto me that it's been a while since anyone talked much about the thesis of\nPeter Wright's \"God-games\" articles (though I suspect it is in the\nbackground).  Of course, I'm still quite new to all this--and, at the\nmoment, interrupting all sorts of other things--but I figured I'd ask: \nany new thoughts about it?\n\nI, as would many others, appreciate many of the things Wright says, but\nwhat bothers me in the Foundation articles (and I presume, the book) is\nthe idea that he is somehow demythologizing Urth, Severian, etc.  It seems\nto me that this is largely a good thing to do (removing masks, etc.), but\nthe problem is that there appears to be the assumption (still) that,\nhaving done all this deconstructing, we have finally arrived and can\nunderstand that all the mythic, religious metaphor was only artifice.  And\nthat seems to me fundamentally opposed to the assumptions of the very\nmethod used to remove these masks in the first place--there is no end to\ninterpretation, \"nothing\" (hello Derrida) \"outside the text,\" which means\nthat though Wright might have removed one layer of mythology, he has only\nsucceeded in replacing it with another (his own?).\n\nRemember, in relation to all of that, Master Ash's statement about\nreligion and science.\n\nsnk"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}