{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4271", "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": 4271, "subject": "silk horn", "messages": 6, "voices": 5, "first": "2004-12-05T13:05:19+00:00", "last": "2004-12-09T13:10:08+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<20041205210516.CCFF5725F@sitemail.everyone.net>", "from": { "name": "turin", "address": "turin at hell.com" }, "date": "2004-12-05T13:05:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) silk horn", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think Chris is right, and the Silk/Horn problem is central to the debate of the soul, the mind-body problem (which is different because we have already ruled out, thank gooness, Descartes), and identity.\n\nSilk/Horn is a more complex of Severian's own identity \"crisis\", (I don't konw if any situations like this is in Cerebus or Latro), but I think Severian's acquisition of extra personae has anything to do with the part of our debate that concerns the soul, and here's why.\n\nWith Severians acquisition of Thecla's\n Both are examples of communion, though one is profane and the other well if not exactly sacred as in communing with God, it is certainly not evil. I don't think there is anything \"mystical\" about it, how a drug and a bit of muscle tissue transfer memories or even eating a piece of neocortex is unclear, and how that effects Severian's neurophyisology is unclear, but Wolfe is writing creative neuroscience; however, I think it's safe to assume he means that they are downloading mindware, not only narrative memories but also cognitive processes and sensory memory, which minds he is downloading in full or in part of the model of that person's entire mind. f Wolfe fails to mention a change in Severian's neural pathways or how it is supported within his body, that's understandable, but I definitely think we are meant to see this as a biological if fantastic process.\n\nIn the same way I don't think Marble is sharing a body with Rose. It seems rose had a secondary memory storage, a harddrive, if you will which Marble acquired in a physical way, a way that is similar to Severian ingesting the flesh of Thecla and the Autarch. these events in many ways are scientistic if not scientific, they involve hardware or meatware. I would argue the same for Auk and Chenille's possession by the god's. Of this class, I am not sure which of these cases is the most complex or represnetative of what Wolfe is trying to say.\n\nSeverians \"ressurection\", however, is of the same type as Silk/Horn and the Inhumi. I think of this class, it is fairly obvious Silk/Horn is the most important case.\n\nAs far as the \"complex\" and \"simple\" views are concerned, I think the first class if complex and the second simple. We would call them instead the dynamic and static self, though this isn't very desciptive either. Here is a question. Descartes believed the soul is an \"object\" outside of time and space which somehow corresponds to consciousness and is interact with the meat world. This is of course logically impossible. However, for Wolfe it does not seem the soul is the mind, otherwise why the distinction between the cases we've looked at, if of course, you think the the distinction is valid. However, does Wolfe think of the soul outside of time? \n\nThe reason I say this is because for medieval Catholicism, and this is translating it into our terms today,it seems the soul is an object inside time and space corresponding to the mind and emotions supported by an unknown energy structure called \"spirit\" which supports these processes of cognition etc after bodily death but in a different way, since incarnation means you are subject to certain changes in emotions and cognition due to changes in your body.\n\nIn the same way does Wolfe treat the soul at any time treat informational singularity? I am not sure how Wolfe if he does, reconcile the complex view with the static view or even tries to present a discourse on the simple view in the same way as he has with the complex one." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370412061107260f265f@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-06T11:12:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) silk horn", "in_reply_to": "<20041205210516.CCFF5725F@sitemail.everyone.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:05:16 -0800 (PST), turin wrote:\nI think Chris is right, and the Silk/Horn problem is central to the debate of \nthe soul, the mind-body problem (which is different because we have\nalready ruled out, thank gooness, Descartes), and identity." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ummm, yeah. Please read the archives on this. I've been preaching this \nbasic idea for a couple of years now." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Silk/Horn is a more complex of Severian's own identity \"crisis\", (I don't\nkonw if any situations like this is in Cerebus or Latro), " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, the only interesting identity crisis I can think of in Cerebus is Artemis,\nthe Roach, but perhaps you're thinking of Cerberus? 8*)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "but I think Severian's acquisition of extra personae has anything to\ndo with the part of our debate that concerns the soul, and here's why." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nThere are two basic mechanisms of memory and/or soul transfer in the\nSolar books: \n\n1. Some kind of pan-and-scan, which allows people to be \"uploaded\" to\nMainframe, downloaded to chems, possession, and so on. (Analogous \nto the scanning that creates Mr. Million in 5HC, though apparently not \nas destructive.) I would posit that some form of this basic process is also\nbehind Jonas' possession of the dead Miles and the Narrator's translation\nby the Neighbors from the Horn-body to the Silk-body.\n\n2. \"Communion,\" ranging from the Alzabo and the analeptic, to the\nsharing of body parts. Severian's communions, of course; but also the\nway memory seems to transfer with chem parts, the blooddrinking of the\ninhumi, and many other things.\n\nI suspect that Wolfe is writing from instinct here and has not really worked\nout a full \"techne\" of soul/memory transference. But if we can find some\nintersection point between these two major categories, we might find\nwhat he has in mind (whether or not he is fully consciously aware that\nhe has it in mind)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "With Severians acquisition of Thecla's" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Paragraph lost?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " Both are examples of communion, though one is profane and the\nother well if not exactly sacred as in communing with God, it is\ncertainly not evil. I don't think there is anything \"mystical\" about it,\nhow a drug and a bit of muscle tissue transfer memories or even eating\na piece of neocortex is unclear, and how that effects Severian's\nneurophyisology is unclear, but Wolfe is writing creative neuroscience;\nhowever, I think it's safe to assume he means that they are downloading\nmindware, not only narrative memories but also cognitive processes\nand sensory memory, which minds he is downloading in full or in part\nof the model of that person's entire mind. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I think we need to start with the idea of memory as hologrammatic,\nso that one piece contains an image of the whole, but in less detail. \nThus, the earlier Autarchs are less clear in Severian's memory than that\nof his immediate predecessor. (Hologrammatology - yes, that word is quite\ndeliberate - is also a major if hidden theme of the whole _BotNS_; indeed,\nthe _Book_ itself is hologrammatic, with the shape of the whole contained,\nin a least a vague image, in any significant (say a few chapters) portion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "f Wolfe fails to mention a change in Severian's neural pathways or how\nit is supported within his body, that's understandable, but I definitely\nthink we are meant to see this as a biological if fantastic process." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "One of Wolfe's major techniques is to blur the distinction between the\n\"natural/scientific\" and the \"supernatural/religious.\" One of the more\nobvious signs of this is his constantly providing \"scientific\" explanations\nfor the more obivously \"supernatural\" events, which turn out not to be\nvery good explanations at all - such as Crane's explanation of Silk's\nenlightenment as a brain accident." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In the same way I don't think Marble is sharing a body with Rose.\nIt seems rose had a secondary memory storage, a harddrive, if you\nwill which Marble acquired in a physical way, a way that is similar\nto Severian ingesting the flesh of Thecla and the Autarch. these\nevents in many ways are scientistic if not scientific, they involve\nhardware or meatware. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That is the sign that they are moments of communion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " I would argue the same for Auk and Chenille's possession by the\ngod's." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "How do you find this similar?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Severians \"ressurection\", however, is of the same type as Silk/Horn and\nthe Inhumi. I think of this class, it is fairly obvious Silk/Horn is the most\nimportant case." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You've clearly divided matters into some interesting duality but you have\nnot made clear what the division is, at least to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As far as the \"complex\" and \"simple\" views are concerned, I think the\nfirst class if complex and the second simple. We would call them\ninstead the dynamic and static self, though this isn't very desciptive\neither. Here is a question. Descartes believed the soul is an \"object\"\noutside of time and space which somehow corresponds to consciousness\nand is interact with the meat world. This is of course logically impossible. \nHowever, for Wolfe it does not seem the soul is the mind, otherwise why\nthe distinction between the cases we've looked at, if of course, you think\nthe the distinction is valid. However, does Wolfe think of the soul\noutside of time?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I suspect that he thinks it capable of existing outside of time, but as\nbound to time as long as it is bound to a body." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The reason I say this is because for medieval Catholicism, and this is\ntranslating it into our terms today,it seems the soul is an object inside\ntime and space corresponding to the mind and emotions supported\nby an unknown energy structure called \"spirit\" which supports these\nprocesses of cognition etc after bodily death but in a different way,\nsince incarnation means you are subject to certain changes in\nemotions and cognition due to changes in your body." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The relation between soul, spirit, and body is complex and not at\nall well understood - indeed, I don't think that there is any really\ndefinitive Catholic teaching on the subject (certainly it is not \ncovered in the Catechism of the 1990s, which is supposed to be\nan encyclopaedic referrence of the definitive teachings).\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nFreedom has no barcode.\n --J.G. Ballard" } ] }, { "message_id": "<00fd01c4dc15$c27ca8b0$a784d2d1@VALUED7B9600FA>", "from": { "name": "Alan Lewis", "address": "alanarc at frontiernet.net" }, "date": "2004-12-06T20:32:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Thecla/Severian", "in_reply_to": "<20041205210516.CCFF5725F@sitemail.everyone.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "turin wrote:\n\nWith Severians acquisition of Thecla's\nBoth are examples of communion, though one is profane and the other well \nif not exactly sacred as in communing with God, it is certainly not evil. \nI don't think there is anything \"mystical\" about it, how a drug and a bit \nof muscle tissue transfer memories or even eating a piece of neocortex is \nunclear, and how that effects Severian's neurophyisology is unclear, but \nWolfe is writing creative neuroscience; however, I think it's safe to \nassume he means that they are downloading mindware, not only narrative \nmemories but also cognitive processes and sensory memory, which minds he \nis downloading in full or in part of the model of that person's entire \nmind. f Wolfe fails to mention a change in Severian's neural pathways or \nhow it is supported within his body, that's understandable, but I \ndefinitely think we are meant to see this as a biological if fantastic \nprocess." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I can't agree with this, interesting as most of the analysis is. One may \nargue the line of previous autarchs are within Severian by a purely \nmechanical process, but Thecla within Severian poses us with an entirely \ndifferent situation. There are many examples, but to name a few: the girl \nin the antechamber believes there is a lady present when Severian is there, \nthe Cumaen (sp?) knows there is another entity present at their ritual, \nThecla takes control of Severian to confront the Autarch, etc. Later on, \nSeverian will say that the Claw brought Thecla back. At one point Thecla \neven narrates part of the text. In short, it's clear that the only \nexplanation that will seem to suffice is that Thecla's soul is present in \nSeverian's body, which is I suppose about as mystical as it can get. The \ninteresting thing is that Severian becomes fully aware of it, but derives no \ncomfort from it as his soul does not seem able to interact with Thecla \ndirectly, just access her memories. They are 'together', but as two souls \neffectively 'alone.' I think one explanation for this is that Thecla is \nbasically dormant in there, she is the visitor and takes possession only \nwhen Severian is weak. The other point is that without Thecla in her own \nbody, she cannot be the Thecla that Severian loves.\n\nThough there is no direct evidence for this, note that the \nThecla-in-Severian references cease in the last part of UotNS, and I like to \nthink the reason why is that when Tzadkiel gives Severian his Reward -- a \nnight sleeping with a woman he never sees, but knows is Thecla -- Tzadkiel \nhas taken Thecla out of Severian and given her another body, in much the \nsame way as Severian produces a new one when he needs one. It's interesting \nthat she must disappear from the narrative after this point however, that \nnotion that the perfect moment can't last.\n\nAlan " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-08T11:10:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) silk horn", "in_reply_to": "<20041205210516.CCFF5725F@sitemail.everyone.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Turin said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As far as the \"complex\" and \"simple\" views are concerned, I think the first \nclass if complex and the second simple. We would call them instead the \ndynamic and static self, though this isn't very desciptive either. Here is \na question. Descartes believed the soul is an \"object\" outside of time and \nspace which somehow corresponds to consciousness and is interact with the \nmeat world. This is of course logically impossible. However, for Wolfe it \ndoes not seem the soul is the mind, otherwise why the distinction between \nthe cases we've looked at, if of course, you think the the distinction is \nvalid. However, does Wolfe think of the soul outside of time?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I should clarify something here, the way I was using the terms, none of \nthese examples are in themselves complex or simple. There are just complex \nand simple *views* you can take of each case. Example:\n\nA complex view of Severian/Thecla would say that Sev's body actually \ncombines both identities, Severian and Thecla, sometimes acting as one, the \nother, or a combination of the two. From this view you can either argue that \nboth Severian and Thecla's souls are present, *or* alternately that they \nhave become a single entity that is neither Severian nor Thecla but a sort \nof Theclaverian.\n\nA simple view of this same case would say that Severian is Severian, period; \nThecla is not present in soul, it's just that Severian sometimes behaves \nlike Thecla sometimes. (I leave out the possibility that you could argue, \neven with the simple view, that Thecla's soul really was transferred to \nSeverian by some other means - it's just that such a transfer could not be \naccomplished by the mere ingesting of memories).\n\n**\n\nThe case of Rose in Marble has a breakdown that is more or less similar. \nWhat I think Silk (and possibly Wolfe) is doing with that case is, finally, \nthrowing his hands up and giving up on the attempt to answer, in truth, \nwhether Rose is really in there (in soul) and instead focussing on the moral \naspect: if it thinks it is a moral agent (thinks it is, more specifically, \nRose) and behaves like a moral agent (Rose) then you should treat it as \nsuch, lacking any realy way to know for sure. This would apply to all \nethical issues, including reward/punishment and promise-keeping - if you had \nmade a promise to Thecla and she spoke to you through Severian, you would be \nbound to keep that promise. Similarly, Silk feels a duty to apologize to \nRose-in-Marble for problems he had had with Rose.\n\nThis ethical synthesis doesn't favor either the complex or simple views. In \nfact, a \"true believer\" of either of these views would be unlikely to adopt \nsuch a stance: the \"simple view\" would tend to say that you're only bound by \nyour obligations to *Severian* (since Thecla isn't really there), and the \ndie-hard proponent of the \"complex view\" generally has only the most tenuous \ngrounds for honoring any promise/obligation at all - because identity is \nchanging constantly your obligation isn't to that person, who no longer \nexists, but rather your obligation is *at most* to uphold the institution of \npromise-keeping, which would pretty much allow you to violate any promise so \nlong as nobody knows about it (as long as nobody witnesses your violation, \ntheir faith in the institution of promises won't be undermined). So you \nwould be as likely to honor a promise to Thecla as to Severian, unless \nnobody was looking.\n\nThis is something of an oversimplification. The complex and simple views \ndon't really lock you into an ethical position, but they do make certain \nethical positions easier to hold than others.\n\nSilk/Horn is a more complex case which I don't have time to go into right \nnow, but what's interesting there is that there are 2-4 alternate accounts \nof what happened to choose from if you take the simple view, and 2-4 more on \nthe complex view (just choosing the obvious possibilities). And these \nalternate accounts end up being substantially different when it comes to \ndescribing what happened in the Short Sun series, to the point where it \nmight actually be possible to eliminate one of the views as being \nincompatible with Wolfe's overall theme. But I haven't really worked all \nthat out yet.\n\nCivet" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f76173704120812401cad26a5@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-08T12:41:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) silk horn", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Chris,\n\nWhile this is more of a riff on what you wrote than a driect response to it, \nI should like to observe that a lot of the problems of identity in the solar\nbooks (and 5HC) are extensions of real problems encountered today, where\nneurobiology and psychology meet theology (specifically pneumatology).\n\nExamples: \n\n* V, abused as a child, develops a second personality as a protector. \n This personality, V', is active about one third of the time, and has a \n complex life of her own. V is unaware of the existence of V', and she \n of him. Is there one soul or two present here?\n\n* W undergoes neurological damage due to alcohol abuse, following \n which he becomes aggressive, impatient, belligerent, and violent. Is\n he morally responsible for his behavior - are his violent outbursts moral\n sins?\n\n* X undergoes a more severe trauma, resulting in functional amnesia;\n all memories of identity and relationships vanish. She wanders off\n and begins a new life as X', with a new husband,a job unlike her old\n one, etc. Is this a separate person with a separate soul? Suppose\n some other circumstance restores her old memories - what is the identity\n of the personality who now has memories of being X and X'?\n\n* Y is born profoundly autistic, unable to respond to other human beings\n in any way. Y develops certain \"savant\" talents, such as the ability to\n draw extraordinarily accurate and detailed pictures of any face he has\n seen. Is he an ensoulled human being or a biological machine?\n\n* In the near future, following a terrible accident, large parts of Z's body\n are replaced by prosthetic devices, including parts of her central nervous\n system. Is she human any more? If so, is she the same person she was\n prior to the accident and prostheses?\n\nIt seems to me that problems like Severian-Thecla-Autarchs, Chenille- \nKypris-Scylla, and Rose-Marble are clearly extensions of these problems. \nGene Wolfe is using SF for its by now time-honored function of taking \nreal problems and exaggerating or isolating them to examine them more \nclosely.\n\nAs it happens, in this case, doing so makes the problems even more \nproblematic........\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nFreedom has no barcode.\n --J.G. Ballard" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Seth Lombardi", "address": "sethlombardi at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-09T13:10:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) silk horn", "in_reply_to": "<1f76173704120812401cad26a5@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A complex view of Severian/Thecla would say that Sev's body actually \ncombines both identities, Severian and Thecla, sometimes acting as one, the \nother, or a combination of the two. From this view you can either argue \nthat both Severian and Thecla's souls are present, *or* alternately that \nthey have become a single entity that is neither Severian nor Thecla but a \nsort of Theclaverian." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It probably means I'm a geek, but I snickered so loud in my amusement at \n\"Theclaverian\" that I garnered strange looks in the library.\n\nCarry on!\n\nseth\n*****************************\nSeth Lombardi\nsethlombardi at hotmail.com\nsethopopotropolis: http://pages.prodigy.net/nlom/blogg.html\nAIM: melombardi\n\"Two faces are alike; neither is funny by itself, but side by side their \nlikeness makes us laugh\" -Pascal" } ] } ] }