{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4388", "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": 4388, "subject": "urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 7, Issue 24", "messages": 3, "voices": 3, "first": "2005-03-31T15:30:46+00:00", "last": "2005-04-07T15:25:10+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<758c5e2609fad677a6c73f172f8bd0c2@ou.edu>", "from": { "name": "Kieran Mullen", "address": "kieran at ou.edu" }, "date": "2005-03-31T15:30:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 7, Issue 24", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I've never really understood how Christian readers of Wolfe can take \nthe\nChristian imagery surrounding the New Sun at face value, ignoring the \nfact\nthat unlike Jesus, it brings not salvation but indiscriminate death and\ndamnation." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, as a Catholic and a reader of Wolfe I have found this thread to \nbe rather odd. Your point seems to be that any change in the future \nof Urth that causes the death of anyone is immoral. The supposition \nis that the \"Frozen Urth\" future is the \"true future\" and that \"Reborn \nUrth\" is some choice that Severian makes leading to the deaths of \nmillions.\n\nNeither future is real until it happens. We see people from both \n(Master Ash and the Green Man). It is true that Severian chooses the \ncataclysm of rebirth. However, to choose the Frozen Future would be \nto condemn the Green Man and all those who might live in the future to \nnon-existence. Is that inately better?\n\nI always thought that the inhabitants of Urth got to choose their \nfuture - that was the point of the battle in UotNS. Those who opposed \nthe New Sun fought those who favored it. The New Sun won.\n\nFor me the analogy is a poisoned bog that has some critters eking out \nsome existence in it. You might choose to clean it up, but in doing so \nyou wreak havoc on those already there, or who are adapted to the \npoisons. So you should just leave it a toxic dump.\n\nLet's say Severian had to go to Briah to *stop* the arrival of the \nWhite Fountain and keep the Urth on its current path of freezing in the \ndark. Are you arguing that that would be a better choice?\n\n\nKieran Mullen" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-02T23:35:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 7, Issue 24", "in_reply_to": "<758c5e2609fad677a6c73f172f8bd0c2@ou.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Kieran said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, as a Catholic and a reader of Wolfe I have found this thread to be \nrather odd. Your point seems to be that any change in the future of Urth \nthat causes the death of anyone is immoral. The supposition is that the \n\"Frozen Urth\" future is the \"true future\" and that \"Reborn Urth\" is some \nchoice that Severian makes leading to the deaths of millions." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "By my reckoning neither is the \"true future\"; in reality we have no such \nconveniences to fall back on. If that's the case then you are left with the \nimmediate effect of your actions on people who already exist. The effect, in \nthis case, is devastating." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I always thought that the inhabitants of Urth got to choose their future - \nthat was the point of the battle in UotNS. Those who opposed the New Sun \nfought those who favored it. The New Sun won." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This sounds just a bit too much like \"might makes right\". But the trial is \nan interesting issue to explore in its own right. Someone noted that at the \ntime they held the trial, at least some involved already knew that Severian \nwas the one who was going to bring the New Sun. What *was* the point of the \ntrial? Well, if I remember correctly, for one thing, it somehow sealed the \n*inevitable* truth of the New Sun future.\n\nThis brings up something odd. I don't bring this up as a rhetorical point \nbut as a serious question. Why would the Hierogrammates set up such a \ndemanding test for an outcome which was actually *desirable*? (Assuming the \noutcome was, in fact, desirable). Why not, instead, offer it to the first \nAutarch that came along - or just do it on their own accord? The idea that \nthey would only put it in motion when it had reached the point of \ninevitability makes the New Sun sound as if it were an undesirable outcome \nfor them. Or at least, not an unqualified good." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For me the analogy is a poisoned bog that has some critters eking out some \nexistence in it. You might choose to clean it up, but in doing so you \nwreak havoc on those already there, or who are adapted to the poisons. So \nyou should just leave it a toxic dump." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Or move the critters to new environs." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Let's say Severian had to go to Briah to *stop* the arrival of the White \nFountain and keep the Urth on its current path of freezing in the dark. \nAre you arguing that that would be a better choice?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Are you arguing that these are the only two possible choices?\n\nCivet" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4255B33F.4040408@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-07T15:25:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: New Sun dilemna", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nKieran said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Well, as a Catholic and a reader of Wolfe I have found this thread to \nbe rather odd. Your point seems to be that any change in the future \nof Urth that causes the death of anyone is immoral. The supposition \nis that the \"Frozen Urth\" future is the \"true future\" and that \n\"Reborn Urth\" is some choice that Severian makes leading to the \ndeaths of millions." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "By my reckoning neither is the \"true future\"; in reality we have no \nsuch conveniences to fall back on. If that's the case then you are \nleft with the immediate effect of your actions on people who already \nexist. The effect, in this case, is devastating." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So you are arguing that any decision procedure based on probabilities is \nimpossible?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I always thought that the inhabitants of Urth got to choose their \nfuture - that was the point of the battle in UotNS. Those who \nopposed the New Sun fought those who favored it. The New Sun won." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This sounds just a bit too much like \"might makes right\". But the \ntrial is an interesting issue to explore in its own right. Someone \nnoted that at the time they held the trial, at least some involved \nalready knew that Severian was the one who was going to bring the New \nSun. What *was* the point of the trial? Well, if I remember correctly, \nfor one thing, it somehow sealed the *inevitable* truth of the New Sun \nfuture." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I recall the explanation being that the New Sun, before the trial, was \n*probable* but not certain. After the trial it was dead certain. Why \nthough probably has to do more with consent issues." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This brings up something odd. I don't bring this up as a rhetorical \npoint but as a serious question. Why would the Hierogrammates set up \nsuch a demanding test for an outcome which was actually *desirable*? \n(Assuming the outcome was, in fact, desirable). Why not, instead, \noffer it to the first Autarch that came along - or just do it on their \nown accord? The idea that they would only put it in motion when it had \nreached the point of inevitability makes the New Sun sound as if it \nwere an undesirable outcome for them. Or at least, not an unqualified \ngood." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If you want to perform some risky, yet necessary surgery (like a heart \nbypass), you don't simply do it. You get consent." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "For me the analogy is a poisoned bog that has some critters eking out \nsome existence in it. You might choose to clean it up, but in doing \nso you wreak havoc on those already there, or who are adapted to the \npoisons. So you should just leave it a toxic dump." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Or move the critters to new environs." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Let's say Severian had to go to Briah to *stop* the arrival of the \nWhite Fountain and keep the Urth on its current path of freezing in \nthe dark. Are you arguing that that would be a better choice?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Are you arguing that these are the only two possible choices?\n\nCivet" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Do you see any other choices that don't break down into 'New Sun comes' \nor 'New Sun doesn't come'?\nMuch as I hate to say, this would seem a pretty solidly binary choice.\n\n~Maru" } ] } ] }