{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4277", "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": 4277, "subject": "urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "messages": 24, "voices": 10, "first": "2004-12-08T16:53:31+00:00", "last": "2004-12-20T05:13:18+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<20041209005328.EC2BD3956@sitemail.everyone.net>", "from": { "name": "turin", "address": "turin at hell.com" }, "date": "2004-12-08T16:53:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I was baiting everyone with the question of magic in TBOTNS. Magic doesn't really exist for Wolfe or Tolkien in the sense that it is \"unnatural\" or \"supernatural\". The idea of the supernatural is actually a Protestant view which almost corresponds to the scientific revolution. One of the things I think Wolfe is saying about the bios and the chems is that there is no fundamental difference between the natural and the artificial. Mechanical life is life, even if it is not \"ensouled\". If you notice American commericials always talk about natural and artificial ingredients, and Reagen passed the \"designer\" drug legislation when he created the ATF. Just because something is created by human design doesn't mean it is unnatural. In academia, we've cut up not only the sciences and the humanities but philosophy and literature from psychology and history. It's true there is specialization and one person like Da Vinci can't write the encyclopedia galatica now, but that doesn't mean we should stop communication between systems of knowledge. In this very general sense of I don't know if it makes sense to talk about genre in the sense of science fiction, fantasy, horror and \"literature\" etc. However, I would categorize most books with scifi/fantasy content, romances. Novels in literary theory at least the definition of the novel is very limited. Besides, Wolfe, H.G. Wells also called his books science romances. Also, in Italy they still call books romanze rather than novelli, this is important, I think, because the novel is both a Protestant and Enlightenment construction. I don't know, then, if any Catholic scifi book can be a novel. \n\nStanislaus launched a preemptive strike with wave functions before me, and did it with Tolkien. One thing I will say about Gandalf's power is that he is an incarnate being rather than one with an assumed body like Tom Bombadil, which has its advantages and disadvantages and is not an issue in order of complexity. Reality in middle-earth in the third age as opposed to Aman is more inflexible. Part of the winding down of the universe is the rigidity and low probability of drastic change. \n\nHowever, the advantage of being human in Ea over anything else is that the permutations of life available to you are more numerous than any other kind of person, especially the Valar. For Tolkien I think power is a kind of black box technology which operates on a level of base secondary reality, which is what he calls creation. This corresponds to Bohr's ideas about assignment in quantum mechanics, so I think it is a good metaphor, but I think the concept of probability is a little bit misleading in that Tolkien's implication is the process is more casually efficacious and direct than quantum mechanics and of course happens at a macroscopic level. It is, I think, conceptually more extreme than Wolfe's idea of the power of the heirodoles, even if there are less manipulations of form that is percieved by humans. Tolkien has a kind of modesty about him. At the same time Namo Mandos is not so much an oracle as a statistician or to use Asimov's idea of pscyhohistory. He is practically blind when it comes to humans. This is why humans are able to maintain incarnation in a rigid world whereas elves cannot. That is a secret post-facto impetus for leaving middle-earth, the prison of disembodiment, which for the elves, is not the desirable or default mode of being.\n\nI don't think Wolfe solve the soul, mind problem, his rejection of Descartes but not A.I. was refreshing and that's why I wanted to talk about it. Even material monists like Seale or Penrose don't think A.I. is possible, and I think that's silly. Medieval europe had not concept of the liberal human subject, and I don't know if the humanities' view of the liberal subject is very helpful. Notice the Catholics accepted evolution and thermodynamics while the Protestants do not, besides the fact Catholics don't deracinate Christianity. I think this has a lot to do with the Catholic culture's ideas about animals and the natural world which extends to ideas about nonhuman persons. The idea of the nonhuman person is an old one which the Enlightement eliminated with the liberal subject and which seems to be remanifesting in the last hundred years. I think that's all we can really came away from the Catholic scifi A.I. debate with. I don't think Protestanism is a problem, I just think it has facilitated the growth of spooky cultural problems, especially in America, and I think our atavism towards \"artifical\" life is a good example of a good cross section of the neurosis of the last three hundred years\n\nEOT; " } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f76173704120910067d6e341e@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-09T10:06:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Generic Considerations", "in_reply_to": "<20041209005328.EC2BD3956@sitemail.everyone.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again, just riffing on something Turin said ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't know if it makes sense to talk about genre in the sense of\nscience fiction, fantasy, horror and \"literature\" etc. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It does, but only if you recognize that \"genres\" of this sort are not \ncategories, that is nouns, pigeonholes, but adjectives. Thus one of\nmy semi-secret vices is Nora Roberts' \"Eve Dallas\" books, a series of\nscience fiction - \"romance\" - police procedural murder mysteries,\nall three of which genre labels accurately but insufficiently \n_describe_ the \"kind\" of books these are. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "However, I would categorize most books with scifi/fantasy content,\nromances." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Agreed. One of the reasons Stephen R. Donaldson is loved and\nloathed by different readers is that he brought the true novelistic\ntradition into the \"genre\" of High Fantasy, and many readers didn't \nwant that.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nFreedom has no barcode.\n --J.G. Ballard" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20041209181535.9821.qmail@web50307.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Nathan Spears", "address": "spearofsolomon at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2004-12-09T10:15:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Generic Considerations", "in_reply_to": "<1f76173704120910067d6e341e@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Agreed. One of the reasons Stephen R. Donaldson is loved and\nloathed by different readers is that he brought the true novelistic\ntradition into the \"genre\" of High Fantasy, and many readers didn't \nwant that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The reason I loathe Donaldson is because I felt like I was going to be sick fifty\npages into the first book in the gap series. I rarely stop reading a book, because\nI don't think it's fair to form an opinion of a work without being fully aware of\nit, but I put that book down pretty quickly. I felt like I was reading loathsome\nfan fiction, and I wouldn't really want to read anything that he wrote. \n\nAlso the Gap book titles are sooooo bad." } ] }, { "message_id": "<006c01c4de3a$3e4d4fa0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2004-12-09T13:58:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "<20041209005328.EC2BD3956@sitemail.everyone.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So much has gone on since my last post I'm hesitant reference quotes\nprecisely so I'll just sum up.\n\nCivit's delineation between a simple and complex soul is astute. For\nconvenience sake I think one should call the \"simple\" version a \"soul\" and\nthe complex version the \"psyche\".\n\nRoy's reference to Sidero is a pertinent one. But there are some weaknesses:\na) Sidero does not question his existence. The conversation between Severian\nand Sidero only touches on how men were formed from less complex and how\nSidero's \"people\" did as well. That men and autonomous robots are complex\nand independent and slowly evovled from less forms does mean that Sidero (or\neven Severian, for that matter) has a soul.\n\nb) That Sidero apologizes for his past does not mean he has a soul or is\neven sentient. Sidero was made to work among and with men and, originally at\nleast, for men. Now one presumes he works for mankind. Social graces would\nbe necessary for such a task and would logically be programmed in.\n\nc) That Sidero felt pleasure in hitting Severian does not mean that he has a\nsoul or is even sentient. Chems in LS take pleasure in good smells because\nthey need to to cook well. Consequently, it would not be unreasonable for\nChems to wear perfume or for Sidero be inclined to take \"pleasure\" in\nwhatever task he is programmed to do. My dog seems to take pleasure in so\nmany things, but despite what Martin Luther may say (and what Able implies\nin The Wizard), my dog (as opposed to Gylf) does not have a soul.\nNote that Sidero does not apologize for striking Severian. In that\n\nd) The fact that Sidero repents does not require that he believes in God.\nAny atheist would tell you that I'm sure.\n\nDoes sentiency (which, I guess, falls under the realm of the psyche) presume\na soul? I don't see why it should. Wolfe provides an example of psyche not\nco-existing with a soul in a recent work. So may argue that it is not\nreasonable to draw parallels between a work of fantasy and a work of science\nfiction. I disagree, because the consideration of the soul spans science\nfiction and fantasy and 2) the Sun cycle decimates any strict genre\nguidelines between the two anyway.\n\nHere examples of the \"soul\" experiments Wolfe offers that I can think of:\nA) The Machine Analogies:\nMr. Million, The Fox, Sidero, Chems, The Whorl Gods, The Short Sun (SS)\nMother.\n\nB) Animals With Souls\nScylla-in-Oreb, Mani-with-his-Elemental-Soul, Gylf, the Inhumi, Babbie\n(remember we see his soul during dream travel)\n\n(other talking animals include Oreb in his natural state and Tick the\nCatachrest, do they have souls? -- btw how did Echidna summon all those\nsnakes?)\n\nThe Possessions:\nThecla in Sev, the line of Autarchs in Sev, Lemur in the chem,\nRose-In-Marble, the Whorl Gods in Humans, Mucor-in-People (IMO:\nMamelta-in-Marble, Molybdenum-in-Marble, Pas-in-Hammerstone, )\n\nMemory experiements:\nLatro (who can't remember anything for more than 18 hours) and the Whorl\nSleepers who can't remember their lives on Urth and seems to have been\nimplanted with false memories)\n\nPot Pouri:\nTyphon and Piaton, Dream-Travel, Mucor's travel (which may not count since\napparently involves remotely imprinting her image on the minds of other\npeople), The Neighbors; Question: When Severian rides in Sidero does that\nconstitute another soul in the same way that Mani and his elemental\nconstitute a temporary soul?\n\nIt is interesting to me that Wolfe never chose to take Marble on a\ndream-travel trip. It would help in this discussion if he had.\n\nAll this does not influence my conviction that Wolfe has betrayed a belief\nin a *soul* instead of merely a *psyche* but he seems deliberately obscure\nregarding where the dividing line is between them and as I said, I could\ndefinitely understand someone seeing it the opposite way." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Notice the Catholics accepted evolution and thermodynamics while the\nProtestants do not, besides the fact Catholics don't deracinate Christianity" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I was not aware of the former, and I'm sure I could make a case that\nCatholics have deracinated as much as anyone with even more vigor. Some\nCatholics believe in evolution and some don't. Just like Protestants, and\nboth are bothered by the idea that the universe material universe is a\nclosed cycle in which only chemical and physical operations apply.\n\nAlso, one of the Pope's primary reasons for coming out against human cloning\nand contraception is a rejection of making humanity a human creation." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f76173704120914561bca1dc6@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-09T14:56:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "<006c01c4de3a$3e4d4fa0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 16:58:40 -0500, James Wynn wrote:\nNotice the Catholics accepted evolution and thermodynamics while the\nProtestants do not, besides the fact Catholics don't deracinate Christianity" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I was not aware of the former," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Though the scientific model of the universe, including the Big Bang\nand evolution, is not \"accepted\" in the sense of being something the\nCatholic church teaches as doctrine, it is, believe it or not, heretical to \ndeny it on the basis of the first bit of Genesis. The argument is a bit\nsubtle, but basically, the ideas is that Genesis teaches that God created\nthe world, but to insist that He had to do it _that way_ because the\nbook says so is to limit God's freedom to create however He chooses.\n\nThis is not to say that Catholics can't believe in seven-day creation if\nthey choose. They just have to have better evidence, or at least they\ncan't deny that God might have done it the other way if He wanted to.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nFreedom has no barcode.\n --J.G. Ballard" } ] }, { "message_id": "<008101c4de43$317f2dd0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2004-12-09T15:02:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "<1f76173704120914561bca1dc6@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Though the scientific model of the universe, including the Big Bang\nand evolution, is not \"accepted\" in the sense of being something the\nCatholic church teaches as doctrine, it is, believe it or not, heretical\nto\ndeny it on the basis of the first bit of Genesis. The argument is a bit\nsubtle, but basically, the ideas is that Genesis teaches that God created\nthe world, but to insist that He had to do it _that way_ because the\nbook says so is to limit God's freedom to create however He chooses.\nThis is not to say that Catholics can't believe in seven-day creation if\nthey choose. They just have to have better evidence, or at least they\ncan't deny that God might have done it the other way if He wanted to." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wasn't aware of that, but I still repudiate the generalization and I've\nnever met a Protestant that denied the laws of Thermodynamics.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "<41B8F577.7080306@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-09T17:01:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "<1f76173704120914561bca1dc6@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wow. That is... the most bizaare religious teaching I've ever seen. So, \ndoes that mean that we can honestly and non-heretically beleive that \nJesus was never crucified? Cause to insist that he had to be crucified \nobviously limits Gods ability to do whatever ve wishes to.\n~Maru" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nThough the scientific model of the universe, including the Big Bang" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "and evolution, is not \"accepted\" in the sense of being something the\n\nCatholic church teaches as doctrine, it is, believe it or not, heretical to \ndeny it on the basis of the first bit of Genesis. The argument is a bit\nsubtle, but basically, the ideas is that Genesis teaches that God created\nthe world, but to insist that He had to do it _that way_ because the\nbook says so is to limit God's freedom to create however He chooses.\n\nThis is not to say that Catholics can't believe in seven-day creation if\nthey choose. They just have to have better evidence, or at least they\ncan't deny that God might have done it the other way if He wanted to.\n\n--Dan'l\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-10T05:06:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "<006c01c4de3a$3e4d4fa0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Notice the Catholics accepted evolution and thermodynamics while the\nProtestants do not, besides the fact Catholics don't deracinate \nChristianity" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That should probably be modified to _some_ (perhaps a minority) Protestants, \nas myself and the Reverend Professor John Polkinghorne would be in deep \ntrouble if, as scientists, we believed in neither evolution nor \nthermodynamics.\n\nIn fact, apart from Ian Paisley, I can't actually think of any high-profile \nCreationist Protestants in the UK; it's more of a US thing.\n\nIorwerth Thomas" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-10T09:17:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oops, sorry if that came across a bit snarky; haven't been getting enough \nsleep recently.\n\nAnd in the interests of interdenominational harmony, I can't think of ANY \nCreationist Catholics.\n\nIorwerth" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Iorwerth Thomas\" \nReply-To: The Urth Mailing List \nTo: urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19\nDate: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:05:41 +0000" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Notice the Catholics accepted evolution and thermodynamics while the\nProtestants do not, besides the fact Catholics don't deracinate \nChristianity" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That should probably be modified to _some_ (perhaps a minority) \nProtestants, as myself and the Reverend Professor John Polkinghorne would \nbe in deep trouble if, as scientists, we believed in neither evolution nor \nthermodynamics.\n\nIn fact, apart from Ian Paisley, I can't actually think of any \nhigh-profile Creationist Protestants in the UK; it's more of a US thing.\n\nIorwerth Thomas\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<00ad01c4deea$81d6fb80$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2004-12-10T11:00:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And in the interests of interdenominational harmony, I can't think of ANY\nCreationist Catholics." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm sure I could find some easily among the nuns a many a parochial school\n(increasingly easily depending on the definition of \"Creationist\"). I don't\nconsider this a put down (although I recognize that many think it is,\nCatholic or not). I know many educated intelligent Creationists of various\nstripes.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f761737041210110115001658@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-10T11:03:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Iorweth,\n\nThird-world Catholics are frequently Creationists." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:16:57 +0000, Iorwerth Thomas\n wrote:\n\nOops, sorry if that came across a bit snarky; haven't been getting enough\nsleep recently.\n\nAnd in the interests of interdenominational harmony, I can't think of ANY\nCreationist Catholics.\n\nIorwerth\nFrom: \"Iorwerth Thomas\" \nReply-To: The Urth Mailing List \nTo: urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19\nDate: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:05:41 +0000" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Notice the Catholics accepted evolution and thermodynamics while the\nProtestants do not, besides the fact Catholics don't deracinate\nChristianity" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "That should probably be modified to _some_ (perhaps a minority)\nProtestants, as myself and the Reverend Professor John Polkinghorne would\nbe in deep trouble if, as scientists, we believed in neither evolution nor\nthermodynamics.\n\nIn fact, apart from Ian Paisley, I can't actually think of any\nhigh-profile Creationist Protestants in the UK; it's more of a US thing.\n\nIorwerth Thomas\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<5.2.1.1.0.20041210220011.00c5d180@pop.ntlworld.com>", "from": { "name": "Matthew Malthouse", "address": "matthew.malthouse at ntlworld.com" }, "date": "2004-12-10T14:11:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Generic Considerations", "in_reply_to": "<20041209181535.9821.qmail@web50307.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 18:15 09/12/2004, Nathan Spears wrote:\nThe reason I loathe Donaldson is because I felt like I was going to be \nsick fifty\npages into the first book in the gap series. I rarely stop reading a \nbook, because\nI don't think it's fair to form an opinion of a work without being fully \naware of\nit, but I put that book down pretty quickly. I felt like I was reading \nloathsome\nfan fiction, and I wouldn't really want to read anything that he wrote." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Did you ever pick it up again? Or tried other of Donaldson's works?\n\n\"The Real Story\" is a very disturbing book and I think an unfortunate \nintroduction to the series. Perhaps it might have been better done \namalgamated into the second volume which at least would have given the \nreader some idea of why TRS is so utterly black.\n\nBut for all its darkness the redemptions of Morn, Angus and others wouldn't \nbe possible without that beginning.\n\nI was about to write that \"Mordant's Need\" (which I happen to have just \nre-read) is entirely different. Well it is, but there is a congruence \nbetween Terisa's sometime vacancy and what brings her out of it and some of \nthe reactions Morn has.\n\nMatthew " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-10T15:14:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Tales of Silk and Horn", "in_reply_to": "<006c01c4de3a$3e4d4fa0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As a preliminary note, I've found the posts laying out the specific examples \nof Wolfe's thought problems to be interesting, although I disagree with the \nproject of dropping them into categories as such. I think it would be more \neffective, actually, to define an axis or two and then place the specific \nexamples within the overall framework, which may point out which examples \ncan most fruitfully be compared (and point out some examples that aren't \nreally so comparable as they appear). For example, the biological/mechanical \ndistinction would be one axis. Memory might be another. Etc, etc. To the \ncases worth looking at which have already been mentioned I would add another \nthat was brought up to me by another reader of this list: the case of Dr. \nTalos, as a creation of Baldanders.\n\nThe main thing I'm going to be concerned with in this post, though, is \ntaking a look at Silkhorn from various different perspectives, in a format \n(inappropriately, perhaps) similar to Kierkegaard's \"Attunement\" when he \nstarted examining Abraham. I'm going to use James Wynn's terms, \"soul\" and \n\"psyche\", which I think are appropriate, with the small qualification that \nthe complex view actually allows two outlooks - one in which there is no \nsuch thing as a \"soul\", and another in which there is, but the \"soul\" is \nnothing other than the \"psyche\" itself. Whereas in the simple view there is \nalways a soul, and it is always distinct from psyche. And on we go..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From the complex (C) view:" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As he lays dying, Horn's psyche is transferred to Silk's body. Silk \neffectively ceases to exist and Horn takes his place; he self-identifies as \nHorn, has continuity of memory with Horn, and has his inclinations, desires, \nand life projects. Bits of Silk's psyche might be considered to linger, in \nthe form of certain mannerisms which *might* indicate that, on a deeper \nlevel, elements of Silk's psyche remains.\n (C1) Over time, these submerged elements of Silk's psyche begin to play a \nlarger and larger part and \"Horn\" slowly starts to become \"Silk\", until \nfinally the elements of psyche most distinctly identified with Horn are \nalmost entirely suppressed [leaving aside the question of whether Horn's \npsyche ended up being transferred elsewhere, etc]. In the end this neo-Silk \nrealizes that he is no longer Horn, and mourns the death of his \"former \nself\".\n (C2) Over time, Horn's attempts to imitate Silk, strengthened by the \nremnants of whatever remnant of Silk's inclinations biologically remain \nwithin his body, succeed in the self-transformation he has strived for - he \nbecomes more and more like Silk, til the point where his psyche resembles \nthe original Silk more than it does Horn, and he can be said to have \n\"become\" Silk. When he comes to terms with the transformation that has taken \nplace, this new Silk mourns the death of his former self, which he in a \nsense deliberately caused.\n\nSimple view, variant 1 (S1):\nThe Neighbor transfers Horn's soul and psyche into Silk, and Silk's soul \ndeparts (along with most, but possibly not all, of his psyche). Over time, \nSilk's psyche re-asserts itself because it is powerfully attached to the \nbody Horn inhabits (S1a), or else Horn's imitation of Silk succeeds in \ntransforming his psyche to be much like Silk's (S1b), as above. At this \npoint Horn becomes overwhelmed, not only by his changed psyche but also by \nthe insistence of everyone else, and despite his continuing inner conviction \nthat he is Horn, finally becomes confused enough about his own identity that \nhe accepts identification as Silk. \"In a way\" he can be said to have become \nSilk, in the same way that a demon imitating a god can be said to have \nbecome that god, but he is still, irreducibly, Horn - albeit a Horn that has \n\"lost himself\".\n\nSimple view, variant 2 (S2):\nThe Neighbor transfers Horn's soul and psyche into Silk, but Silk's soul and \npsyche both remain as well. Silk's soul and psyche do not assert themselves \nat first, because they were on the brink of complete withdrawal and suicide \nwhen Horn arrived. Over time they recover, and are perhaps strengthened by \nHorn's attempt to imitate Silk. They reassert their claim on the body, which \nis more strongly tied to Silk than it is to Horn, and perhaps their psyches \nblend to an extent leaving a psyche which is a combination of Silk and \nHorn's imitation of Silk. Horn's soul eventually departs for parts unknown. \nWhen Silk realizes that Horn is gone for good, he mourns his friend.\n\nSimple view, variant 3 (S3):\nThe Neighbor transfers Horn's psyche, but not his soul (which is moving to \nthe great beyond) into Silk's body. Silk's soul remains present, but his \npsyche, which was despairing, is displaced by Horn's, which \"takes care of \nhim\" and keeps him alive and moving. It is Silk the whole time, but a Silk \nwho looks through the eyes and memories of Horn, and who self-identifies as \nHorn, while his original psyche deals with its grief. Silk's psyche \ngradually recovers and reasserts himself, but it takes additional time for \nSilk, who has gotten into the habit of self-identifying as Horn, to come to \nthe realization of who he is and to face the pain that comes along with that \nrealization.\n\n\nOne or none of these stories may be the one Wolfe was trying to tell; I \nthink they all have some merit and would make a good story in their own \nright. The question I am interested in is, given the rest of the novels, are \nany of these stories particularly incompatible with Wolfe's overall theme, \nand if so what makes them so? Or alternately, do any of the above Silkhorns \nfail to live up to the Silkhorn in BotSS, and if so, can we identify what it \nis that they lack?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So much has gone on since my last post I'm hesitant reference quotes\nprecisely so I'll just sum up.\n\nCivit's delineation between a simple and complex soul is astute. For\nconvenience sake I think one should call the \"simple\" version a \"soul\" and\nthe complex version the \"psyche\".\n\nRoy's reference to Sidero is a pertinent one. But there are some \nweaknesses:\na) Sidero does not question his existence. The conversation between \nSeverian\nand Sidero only touches on how men were formed from less complex and how\nSidero's \"people\" did as well. That men and autonomous robots are complex\nand independent and slowly evovled from less forms does mean that Sidero \n(or\neven Severian, for that matter) has a soul.\n\nb) That Sidero apologizes for his past does not mean he has a soul or is\neven sentient. Sidero was made to work among and with men and, originally \nat\nleast, for men. Now one presumes he works for mankind. Social graces would\nbe necessary for such a task and would logically be programmed in.\n\nc) That Sidero felt pleasure in hitting Severian does not mean that he has \na\nsoul or is even sentient. Chems in LS take pleasure in good smells because\nthey need to to cook well. Consequently, it would not be unreasonable for\nChems to wear perfume or for Sidero be inclined to take \"pleasure\" in\nwhatever task he is programmed to do. My dog seems to take pleasure in so\nmany things, but despite what Martin Luther may say (and what Able implies\nin The Wizard), my dog (as opposed to Gylf) does not have a soul.\nNote that Sidero does not apologize for striking Severian. In that\n\nd) The fact that Sidero repents does not require that he believes in God.\nAny atheist would tell you that I'm sure.\n\nDoes sentiency (which, I guess, falls under the realm of the psyche) \npresume\na soul? I don't see why it should. Wolfe provides an example of psyche not\nco-existing with a soul in a recent work. So may argue that it is not\nreasonable to draw parallels between a work of fantasy and a work of \nscience\nfiction. I disagree, because the consideration of the soul spans science\nfiction and fantasy and 2) the Sun cycle decimates any strict genre\nguidelines between the two anyway.\n\nHere examples of the \"soul\" experiments Wolfe offers that I can think of:\nA) The Machine Analogies:\nMr. Million, The Fox, Sidero, Chems, The Whorl Gods, The Short Sun (SS)\nMother.\n\nB) Animals With Souls\nScylla-in-Oreb, Mani-with-his-Elemental-Soul, Gylf, the Inhumi, Babbie\n(remember we see his soul during dream travel)\n\n(other talking animals include Oreb in his natural state and Tick the\nCatachrest, do they have souls? -- btw how did Echidna summon all those\nsnakes?)\n\nThe Possessions:\nThecla in Sev, the line of Autarchs in Sev, Lemur in the chem,\nRose-In-Marble, the Whorl Gods in Humans, Mucor-in-People (IMO:\nMamelta-in-Marble, Molybdenum-in-Marble, Pas-in-Hammerstone, )\n\nMemory experiements:\nLatro (who can't remember anything for more than 18 hours) and the Whorl\nSleepers who can't remember their lives on Urth and seems to have been\nimplanted with false memories)\n\nPot Pouri:\nTyphon and Piaton, Dream-Travel, Mucor's travel (which may not count since\napparently involves remotely imprinting her image on the minds of other\npeople), The Neighbors; Question: When Severian rides in Sidero does that\nconstitute another soul in the same way that Mani and his elemental\nconstitute a temporary soul?\n\nIt is interesting to me that Wolfe never chose to take Marble on a\ndream-travel trip. It would help in this discussion if he had.\n\nAll this does not influence my conviction that Wolfe has betrayed a belief\nin a *soul* instead of merely a *psyche* but he seems deliberately obscure\nregarding where the dividing line is between them and as I said, I could\ndefinitely understand someone seeing it the opposite way." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Notice the Catholics accepted evolution and thermodynamics while the\nProtestants do not, besides the fact Catholics don't deracinate \nChristianity" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I was not aware of the former, and I'm sure I could make a case that\nCatholics have deracinated as much as anyone with even more vigor. Some\nCatholics believe in evolution and some don't. Just like Protestants, and\nboth are bothered by the idea that the universe material universe is a\nclosed cycle in which only chemical and physical operations apply.\n\nAlso, one of the Pope's primary reasons for coming out against human \ncloning\nand contraception is a rejection of making humanity a human creation.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<00de01c4dfb0$c0858330$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2004-12-11T10:39:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Tales of Silk and Horn", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From the complex (C) view:\nAs he lays dying, Horn's psyche is transferred to Silk's body. Silk\neffectively ceases to exist and Horn takes his place;\n(C1) Over time, these submerged elements of Silk's psyche begin to play a\nlarger and larger part and \"Horn\" slowly starts to become \"Silk\"\n(C2) Over time, Horn's attempts to imitate Silk, strengthened by the\nremnants of whatever remnant of Silk's inclinations biologically remain\nwithin his body,\n\nSimple view, variant 1 (S1):\nThe Neighbor transfers Horn's soul and psyche into Silk, and Silk's soul\ndeparts (along with most, but possibly not all, of his psyche). >\nSimple view, variant 2 (S2):\nThe Neighbor transfers Horn's soul and psyche into Silk, but Silk's soul\nand\npsyche both remain as well.\nSimple view, variant 3 (S3):\nThe Neighbor transfers Horn's psyche, but not his soul (which is moving to\nthe great beyond) into Silk's body." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The question I am interested in is, given the rest of the novels, are\nany of these stories particularly incompatible with Wolfe's overall theme,\nand if so what makes them so? Or alternately, do any of the above\nSilkhorns\nfail to live up to the Silkhorn in BotSS, and if so, can we identify what\nit\nis that they lack?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't have any reason disbelieve that Wolfe might have told any one of\nthese varients. However, I don't think any of them fully explains what is\ngoing on. I am ready to elaborate on my explanation of what is going on\nthere based consideration of matter previously and on this recent\ndiscussion. The truth, I believe, involves the complex and simple varients\nin equal measure:\n\nHorn on the ruinous island sees a Neighbor in the form of a greenbuck. He\nchases after it, falls in a pit, breaks his neck and dies. The reason I say\nhe breaks his neck (aside from being a likely way to die instantaneously in\nthat circumstance) is that Babbie and Seawrack see him in that pit and know\nhe is dead without having to go down there. The Neighbor feels guilt at\nhaving caused Horn's death (in a sense).\n\nThis is the guilt that haunts our Narrator throughout the story, and this\nguilt is the reason that he is adamant on being Horn instead of Silk....if\nhe declares himself Silk or neither Horn nor Silk, it would mean that he had\nkilled Horn and that there was no way to truly repair it.\n\nAt the end of the story, he is reported to say:\n*********************************\nRTTW (HB) pg 411\n\"We will sail tonight...Would you be willing to make my farewells to Hoof\nand Hide?...I've been dreading it--in a sense, I have killed their father,\nthough the Outsider surely knows that I never meant him the least harm. I\ndon't want to have to face his sons...\"\n********************************\n\nThe Neighbor revives Horn by inhabitiing his body as his soul and repairing\nthe damage. It takes three days to do that. Now the \"new Horn\" is Horn's\npsyche with the Neighbor's soul or perhaps more acurately with the Neighbor\n*as his soul*. He-Pen-Sheep and She-Pick-Berry seem to have a lot of\ndiscourse with the Neighbors and recognize on sight Horn's dual nature,\ncalling him \"Neighbor-man\" OBW (HB) pg 261&262\n\nLater our Narrator meets with Neighbors who give him a ring and the deed to\nBlue as a representative of his people. They choose him because he is a\nmixture of Neighbor and human. One of the Neighbors shakes Horn's hand and\nthey \"share blood\".\n\n**********************\nOn Blue's Waters (HB) pg 272\n\"My name is Horn.\" I offered him my hand.\nHe took it, and this time I felt his hand and remembered hard, and seemed to\nbe covered with short, stiff hairs. Beyond that I will not say. \"My name is\nHorn also, \" he told me. I felt that I was being paid an immense compliment,\nand did not know how to reply.\n**************\n\nThe \"short, stiff hairs\" Horn remembers are those that covered his body when\nhe was a greenbuck. Now I don't know if the Neighbor he clasped hands with\nwas his spiritual self or if the Neighbors are a communal intelligence or\nwhat. But when he shares blood with this Neighbor who afterward calls\nhimself \"Horn\", the Narrator has access to some of his former psyche or that\nof the Neighbor. But it is clear that \"Horn\" has ceased to be merely that\nboy who arrived from the Whorl.\n\nThe Narrator says a few pages earlier that he does not remember this event\nmerely in fairly accurate terms, but precisely as it occured. This is\nbecause he remembers it simultaneously from two separate points of view:\nhimself and the Neighbor with whom he clasped hands. This suggests that the\nNeighbors might have a loosely communal consciousness.\n\nLater on Green, as the Narrator lays dying he uses his ring to summon help\nto heal him again.\n\n*******************\nIGJ (HB) pg127\n\"Through the ring a Neighbor saw him, and she came to him in his agony. He\ntold her what was in his heart; and when he had finished, she said, \"I\ncannot make you well again, and if I could you would still be in this place.\nI can do this for you, however, if you desire it. I can send your spirit\ninto someone else, into someone whose own spirit is dying. If you wish, I\nwill find someone in the whorl in which you were born. Then there will be\none whole man there, instead of two dying men, one here and another there.\"\n*******************" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From what she says, the Narrator's agony is not just in that he is dying but\nin that he is going to fail his mission. The Neighbor's solution solves both\nthose problems: giving him a workable body and putting him on the Whorl. She\ncomplicates matters in some ways by choosing the object of the Narrator's\nmission. Her reference to a \"spirit that is dying\" suggests, possibly, the\npsyche since one presumes the soul is immortal. But I think it means that\nSilk's soul has lost its will to remain with the body much longer and he\nwill soon die by his will or by self-inflicted violence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "She sends the Neighbor-in-Horn (and here is the weakest part of my\nexplanation) along with Horn's psyche that he has assumed into Silk.\nPossibly since Silk did not have to be brought back to life, but only his\nsoul released, the Neighbor-in-Horn can retain his further identity. Or\nperhaps this was a special detail performed by the rescuing Neighbor since\notherwise the mission could not be completed. But the Narrator definitely\nasserts:\n\n**************************\nIGJ (HB) pg 122\n\"Was this you for real Incanto? Were you on Green? By Echidna's babies, I\nthink you were!\"\n\nI shook my head and told him it had been someone else, a man whose name I\nhave forgotten, a man who wore a ring with a white stone. My own name is\nHorn, no matter what Oreb may say.\n***********************\n\nSo by the time he starts writing the Book of the Short Sun, the Narrator is\nHorn's psyche and Silk's psyche and a Neighbor's soul and by the end of his\nstory he ultimately realizes that he is neither most truly Horn nor Silk,\nbut the soul inside or, perhaps, something entirely different from all\nthree.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-11T11:03:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "<1f761737041210110115001658@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Fair enough. Same probably goes for third world Protestants - I should have \nended thaat statement with an 'in my rather limited' experience. Mea culpa.\n\nIorwerth" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nReply-To: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ,The Urth Mailing List \n\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSubject: Re: (urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19\nDate: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:01:43 -0800\n\nIorweth,\n\nThird-world Catholics are frequently Creationists.\n\n\nOn Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:16:57 +0000, Iorwerth Thomas\n wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Oops, sorry if that came across a bit snarky; haven't been getting \nenough\nsleep recently.\n\nAnd in the interests of interdenominational harmony, I can't think of \nANY\nCreationist Catholics.\n\nIorwerth\nFrom: \"Iorwerth Thomas\" \nReply-To: The Urth Mailing List \nTo: urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19\nDate: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:05:41 +0000" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Notice the Catholics accepted evolution and thermodynamics while the\nProtestants do not, besides the fact Catholics don't deracinate\nChristianity" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "That should probably be modified to _some_ (perhaps a minority)\nProtestants, as myself and the Reverend Professor John Polkinghorne \nwould\nbe in deep trouble if, as scientists, we believed in neither evolution \nnor\nthermodynamics.\n\nIn fact, apart from Ian Paisley, I can't actually think of any\nhigh-profile Creationist Protestants in the UK; it's more of a US \nthing.\n\nIorwerth Thomas\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-11T11:33:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "<00ad01c4deea$81d6fb80$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm sure I could find some easily among the nuns a many a parochial school\n(increasingly easily depending on the definition of \"Creationist\")." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On reflection, the same is probably true of many an Anglican Sunday school \nteacher..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't\nconsider this a put down (although I recognize that many think it is,\nCatholic or not). I know many educated intelligent Creationists of various\nstripes." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A friend of mine was (and is, as far as I'm aware) a Creationist Mormon - \nand he was one of the best educated and intelligent people I've met. I \nstill think that he's wrong, though :) (And he was prepared to admit that \nthe evidence was against him, which is fair enough.) But there's no logical \nlink between being a Creationist and being stupid; it may just be difficult \nto be one and an evolutionary biologist...\n\nI think that what originally got my goat was the suggestion that attempting \nto harmonise one's scientific and religous beliefs was not something that \nProtestants did, which is false - it also appeared to iilegitamately \ngeneralise over all the thousands of Protestant groups, which is a bit \nrisky, since as well as Creationists, these various denominations and \nschools of thought include Anglicans (who don't agree on anything [1]) and \nliberal Protestant process philosophers (eg. David Ray Griffin), for whom \nevolutionary thought is an important part of their theology.\n\nIorwerth\n\n[1] This is an empirical observation made by myself, as an Anglican." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Don Doggett", "address": "harlekin at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2004-12-11T23:22:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Tales of Silk and Horn", "in_reply_to": "<00de01c4dfb0$c0858330$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Saturday, December 11, 2004, at 10:39 AM, James Wynn wrote:\n\nSo by the time he starts writing the Book of the Short Sun, the \nNarrator is\nHorn's psyche and Silk's psyche and a Neighbor's soul and by the end \nof his\nstory he ultimately realizes that he is neither most truly Horn nor \nSilk,\nbut the soul inside or, perhaps, something entirely different from all\nthree." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I believe he is at long last, the Silk of LS (or \"The Book of Silk\" if \nyou will), a character who never truly existed until Horn made him.\n\nDon" } ] }, { "message_id": "<018001c4e11d$889edbb0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2004-12-13T06:10:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Tales of Silk and Horn", "in_reply_to": "<00de01c4dfb0$c0858330$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So by the time he starts writing the Book of the Short Sun, the Narrator is\nHorn's psyche and Silk's psyche and a Neighbor's soul and by the end of his\nstory he ultimately realizes that he is neither most truly Horn nor Silk,\nbut the soul inside or, perhaps, something entirely different from all\nthree." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Incidentally - for those might ask \"what is the thematic import of this?\" -\nI say this makes the Narrator simultaneously a \"father, son, and (holy)\nspirit\" although I'll wait for an opportune moment to come around before I\nprove that. (No, I don't think Horn is Silk's son)\n\nThere is a discussion in \"Return To The Whorl\" about how a certain god can\nbe the son of a human and a son of Pas at the same time. I think an\nimportant part of what Wolfe is doing in the \"Short Sun\" is\nrationalizing/apologizing for the mysteries of the Trinity and the\nIncarnation\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f761737041213083816ec02f1@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-13T08:38:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Iorwerth -\n\nIf I gave the impression that I had no respect for Protestant intellect,\nor that I don't think any Protestants have struggled to make their faith\nwork in the light of modern scientific data, please accept my apology.\nI certainly intended no such thing.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nFreedom has no barcode.\n --J.G. Ballard" } ] }, { "message_id": "<01a101c4e137$d5fe24f0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2004-12-13T09:19:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "<1f761737041213083816ec02f1@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If I gave the impression that I had no respect for Protestant intellect,\nor that I don't think any Protestants have struggled to make their faith\nwork in the light of modern scientific data, please accept my apology.\nI certainly intended no such thing.\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think you did that, Blattid, nor did I get the idea it was really\nyou Iorwerth was responding to." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-13T10:17:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "<01a101c4e137$d5fe24f0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think I owe Blattid an apology - I should have tracked back and checked \nwho made the remark I was responding to in the first place... My bad. Sorry \nfor any upset caused.\n\nMoving on... When I first read the BotNS, I was rather struck by the \nsimilarity between the Pancreator/Increate duality and the \n'dipolar-opposite' theories of the nature of God in process theology.\n\nA quick explanation: in process thought, God is thought of as having an \neternal, metaphysically necessary and transcendant component to his nature, \nand a temporal, contingent, changing and immanent component (exact \nimplementations vary with the process thinker: Chales Harsthorne has a \ndifferent interpretation from his mentor, A N Whitehead, with most who are \ninterested in the area following Harsthorne).\n\nA better explanation: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/\n\nThe similarity is rather superficial (I don't know if Wolfe has heard of \nWhitehead et. al., and I doubt he'd approve of some of their more heterodox \nbeliefs, eg. the rejection of traditional formulations of omnipotence in \nfavour of divine persuasion) but I wonder if he may be drinking from similar \nmetaphysical wells... Or maybe it has more to do with the incorporation of \nHindu categories of thought into the future theology of Urth.\n\nAny thoughts? (I'm probably talking utter drivel.)\n\nIorwerth" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"James Wynn\" " } ] }, { "message_id": "<01b001c4e143$73296e50$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2004-12-13T10:42:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "When I first read the BotNS, I was rather struck by the\nsimilarity between the Pancreator/Increate duality and the\n'dipolar-opposite' theories of the nature of God in process theology.\n\nA quick explanation: in process thought, God is thought of as having an\neternal, metaphysically necessary and transcendant component to his nature,\nand a temporal, contingent, changing and immanent component (exact\nimplementations vary with the process thinker: Chales Harsthorne has a\ndifferent interpretation from his mentor, A N Whitehead, with most who are\ninterested in the area following Harsthorne).\n\nA better explanation: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Interesting. This theory (that God is mutable) seems very similar to \"Open\nTheism\" (the theory that God does not know the future) which has made quite\na stir in recently certain Evangelical colleges. I didn't know it had an\nearlier iteration.\n\nCan you give more detail in how you think Process Theism is exemplified in\nthe Sun cycle?\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "<41C1F7FD.8040809@link.com>", "from": { "name": "Charles Reed", "address": "cmreed at link.com" }, "date": "2004-12-16T12:59:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Tales of Silk and Horn", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nothing to add, really. Just thought I'd say that this is a lovely, \nlovely thought. I've ruminated on it for some time now, and still find \nit pleasing to think about. Thanks, Don.\n\nCharles" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Don Doggett wrote:\n\nI believe he is at long last, the Silk of LS (or \"The Book of Silk\" if \nyou will), a character who never truly existed until Horn made him.\n\nDon" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2004-12-20T05:13:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19", "in_reply_to": "<01b001c4e143$73296e50$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Interesting. This theory (that God is mutable) seems very similar to \"Open\nTheism\" (the theory that God does not know the future) which has made quite\na stir in recently certain Evangelical colleges. I didn't know it had an\nearlier iteration." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah, I think it probably had some influence on it - if only because it \nshows that alternative ways of thinking of God can be valid" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Can you give more detail in how you think Process Theism is exemplified in\nthe Sun cycle?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'll give it a shot over Christmas - I'll actually have the books with me \nonce I'm home for the holidays!\n\nMind you, I'm not convinced that any examples I find will be that \nconvincing; I'm prone to rather extreme extrapolations from limited \nevidence...\n\nIorwerth" } ] } ] }