Subject: (urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 7, Issue 24

From: Kieran Mullen <kieran at ou.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:30:46 +0000

> I've never really understood how Christian readers of Wolfe can take 
> the
> Christian imagery surrounding the New Sun at face value, ignoring the 
> fact
> that unlike Jesus, it brings not salvation but indiscriminate death and
> damnation.
>

Well, as a Catholic and a reader of Wolfe I have found this thread to 
be rather odd.   Your point seems to be that any change in the future 
of Urth that causes the death of anyone is immoral.   The supposition 
is that the "Frozen Urth" future is the "true future" and that "Reborn 
Urth" is some choice that Severian makes leading to the deaths of 
millions.

Neither future is real until it happens.  We see people from both 
(Master Ash and the Green Man).   It is true that Severian chooses the 
cataclysm of rebirth.   However, to choose the Frozen Future would be 
to condemn the Green Man and all those who might live in the future to 
non-existence.   Is that inately better?

I always thought that the inhabitants of Urth got to choose their 
future - that was the point of the battle in UotNS.   Those who opposed 
the New Sun fought those who favored it.  The New Sun won.

For me the analogy is a poisoned bog that has some critters eking out 
some existence in it.  You might choose to clean it up, but in doing so 
you wreak havoc on those already there, or who are adapted to the 
poisons.   So you should just leave it a toxic dump.

Let's say Severian had to go to Briah to *stop* the arrival of the 
White Fountain and keep the Urth on its current path of freezing in the 
dark.  Are you arguing that that would be a better choice?

Kieran Mullen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1645 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20050331/cc0008fd/attachment.bin

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 23:35:08 +0000

Kieran said:
>Well, as a Catholic and a reader of Wolfe I have found this thread to be 
>rather odd.   Your point seems to be that any change in the future of Urth 
>that causes the death of anyone is immoral.   The supposition is that the 
>"Frozen Urth" future is the "true future" and that "Reborn Urth" is some 
>choice that Severian makes leading to the deaths of millions.

By my reckoning neither is the "true future"; in reality we have no such 
conveniences to fall back on. If that's the case then you are left with the 
immediate effect of your actions on people who already exist. The effect, in 
this case, is devastating.

>I always thought that the inhabitants of Urth got to choose their future - 
>that was the point of the battle in UotNS.   Those who opposed the New Sun 
>fought those who favored it.  The New Sun won.

This sounds just a bit too much like "might makes right". But the trial is 
an interesting issue to explore in its own right. Someone noted that at the 
time they held the trial, at least some involved already knew that Severian 
was the one who was going to bring the New Sun. What *was* the point of the 
trial? Well, if I remember correctly, for one thing, it somehow sealed the 
*inevitable* truth of the New Sun future.

This brings up something odd. I don't bring this up as a rhetorical point 
but as a serious question. Why would the Hierogrammates set up such a 
demanding test for an outcome which was actually *desirable*? (Assuming the 
outcome was, in fact, desirable). Why not, instead, offer it to the first 
Autarch that came along - or just do it on their own accord? The idea that 
they would only put it in motion when it had reached the point of 
inevitability makes the New Sun sound as if it were an undesirable outcome 
for them. Or at least, not an unqualified good.

>For me the analogy is a poisoned bog that has some critters eking out some 
>existence in it.  You might choose to clean it up, but in doing so you 
>wreak havoc on those already there, or who are adapted to the poisons.   So 
>you should just leave it a toxic dump.

Or move the critters to new environs.

>Let's say Severian had to go to Briah to *stop* the arrival of the White 
>Fountain and keep the Urth on its current path of freezing in the dark.  
>Are you arguing that that would be a better choice?

Are you arguing that these are the only two possible choices?

Civet

---

From: maru <marudubshinki at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:25:10 +0000

Chris wrote:

>> is that the "Frozen Urth" future is the "true future" and that 
>> "Reborn Urth" is some choice that Severian makes leading to the 
>> deaths of millions.
>
>
> By my reckoning neither is the "true future"; in reality we have no 
> such conveniences to fall back on. If that's the case then you are 
> left with the immediate effect of your actions on people who already 
> exist. The effect, in this case, is devastating.
>
So you are arguing that any decision procedure based on probabilities is 
impossible?

>> future - that was the point of the battle in UotNS.   Those who 
>> opposed the New Sun fought those who favored it.  The New Sun won.
>
>
> This sounds just a bit too much like "might makes right". But the 
> trial is an interesting issue to explore in its own right. Someone 
> noted that at the time they held the trial, at least some involved 
> already knew that Severian was the one who was going to bring the New 
> Sun. What *was* the point of the trial? Well, if I remember correctly, 
> for one thing, it somehow sealed the *inevitable* truth of the New Sun 
> future.
>
I recall the explanation being that the New Sun, before the trial, was 
*probable* but not certain. After the trial it was dead certain.  Why 
though probably has to do more with consent issues.

> This brings up something odd. I don't bring this up as a rhetorical 
> point but as a serious question. Why would the Hierogrammates set up 
> such a demanding test for an outcome which was actually *desirable*? 
> (Assuming the outcome was, in fact, desirable). Why not, instead, 
> offer it to the first Autarch that came along - or just do it on their 
> own accord? The idea that they would only put it in motion when it had 
> reached the point of inevitability makes the New Sun sound as if it 
> were an undesirable outcome for them. Or at least, not an unqualified 
> good.
>
If you want to perform some risky, yet necessary surgery (like a heart 
bypass), you don't simply do it. You get consent.

>> some existence in it.  You might choose to clean it up, but in doing 
>> so you wreak havoc on those already there, or who are adapted to the 
>> White Fountain and keep the Urth on its current path of freezing in 
>> the dark.  Are you arguing that that would be a better choice?
>
>

Do you see any other choices that don't break down into 'New Sun comes' 
or 'New Sun doesn't come'?
Much as I hate to say, this would seem a pretty solidly binary choice.

~Maru