{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5332", "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": 5332, "subject": "Wolfean theologies", "messages": 83, "voices": 22, "first": "2009-02-04T15:12:28+00:00", "last": "2009-02-11T15:40:19+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<4989B05C.8040303@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-02-04T15:12:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps, but I don't see the relevance, or rather the parallels, to the discussion. Following your understanding of these terms, one must always call the Catholic christ-interpretation \"Christ\" and the \"heretical\" christ-interpretations \"Christ-like.\" This is or would be patently absurd and useless and irrelevant, and I object. Feel free to adopt that convention, but recognize that it is merely a convention. \n\nNone of this affects what Wolfe believes or how that affects interpretation---only how such data are asserted.\n\nI am indeed arguing for a broader field of potential interpretations than some here seem comfortable with. But I have not argued what you have said. To repeat myself, this has as much to do with forum etiquette as anything else. I don't mind arguments from theology. I object to arguments from authority rather than logic---as I have very clearly stated." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 23:55:57 +0000\nFrom: Chris P \nSubject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 53, Issue 59\nTo: \nMessage-ID: \nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"windows-1252\"\n\n\nThere is wiggle-room for interpretation, but generally interpretation is supposed to stay close to the original intention of the speaker or at least not contradict it without absolute necessity. This may sound nitpicky but without it you get \"radical\" interpretation where everything can mean anything you want at any time.\n\nI could basically use the same form of argument you used there to say that well, to me in my belief system, calling someone \"Christ\" or \"Christ-like\" is the same as saying that they are Richard Nixon. Thus you can't argue that my interpretation of BotNS as a retelling of the Watergate story without privileging an interpretation based on Wolfe's religious beliefs, right?\n\n-- \"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is \nabout to set.\" -- Lin Yutang" } ] }, { "message_id": "<569650.38075.qm@web37605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2009-02-04T16:12:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<4989B05C.8040303@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Catholicism makes all of this a bit tricky, too. Catholicism, of course, immediately brings up questions of orthodoxy vs. whatever. It's easy to assume that since Wolfe is Catholic, his beliefs are orthodox. It's also easy to assume that since he's comfortable sharing his personal beliefs, that his fictions all ultimately match those beliefs. But to go from Catholic orthodoxy straight to interpretation misses two important mediators: fiction and the author.\n\nMy questions are always: why must an author's fiction necessarily match their personal beliefs? Couldn't their fiction explore alternatives, express doubts, raise questions, etc. (With Wolfe, I'm always curious how an engineer might reconceptualize Catholic theology in a completely mechanical way...I see points where Wolfe toys with these ideas that, to me, aren't heretical but certainly aren't orthodox, either.) And just because Wolfe is Catholic, can we assume he's an orthodox Catholic? There's an interview where he discussed converting to Catholicism,* saying that he didn't read a lot of theology but read Chesterton and other Catholic writers. The interview also suggests that he might (and this is of course reading between the lines) have rationalized himself into Catholicism rather than simply accepting it whole cloth in one swoop. (Although what his attitude is now might be incredibly different.) Furthermore, he wrote the books at different times\n during his life when his relationship to his faith might have changed. In other words, turning to orthodox theology as a way to interpret the fiction seems to miss a few steps. The point is that knowing a few general things about Wolfe's general relation to Catholic orthodoxy in general never tells us much about specifics.\n\nI'm also never comfortable talking about an author's intentions. An author can, of course, misunderstand him/herself. (Look at the later PKDick, for example...an extreme one since he was losing his mind, but it still applies.) Or maybe an author failed to communicate as he wanted? Or maybe the story was more complex than they intended? You don't have to be a raging postmodernist to recognize that writing and story-telling, no matter how well crafted, are media -- at once communicating but also a barrier between writer-as-person and reader-as-person. (That insight is at least as old as Plato.) While that never means that \"anything goes\" in interpretation, it also means that authorial intention is only one factor.\n\nOf course Wolfe's religion informs his fiction. You have to be blind not to see that. But it takes textual argument to connect an author's personal beliefs to the words/story in a substantial way. There's never a necessary connection. When interpreters get into discussions about theology or mythology, I'm always skeptical when they want to suggest that because a source puts something one way, Wolfe must as well. Instead, I'm almost most interested in how the details of the text relate to the source material and what they change. After all, isn't that the entire point of the Brown Book: Nothing is ever completely different, but nothing is ever completely the same when filtered through time/culture/writing.\n\n\n\n*\"About his conversion, Wolfe says: \"I was raised in a\nrather lax fashion as a Presbyterian. I don't think my\nfather had any particular religious convictions. My\nmother had been raised as a Presbyterian and so I was\nnominally a Presbyterian. It was largely an answer to\ngive when people asked you. . . . I married a Roman\nCatholic and had to take instruction in it in order that\nwe could have a Catholic wedding I became interested\nin it, read and studied, and talked to people about\nit and so forth, and eventually converted. . . . I didn't\nread a lot of theology.... I read Chesterton's book on\nSt. Thomas Aquinas . . . and ended up reading everything\nof Chesterton's that I could find. I had gone\nthrough very much the same thing earlier with C.S.\nLewis.\"\"\n\n(Quoted in John Farrel's \"The Distant Suns of Gene Wolfe,\" First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life; Apr2007 Issue 172, p28.)\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: David Stockhoff \nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nSent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 9:12:28 AM\nSubject: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nPerhaps, but I don't see the relevance, or rather the parallels, to the discussion. Following your understanding of these terms, one must always call the Catholic christ-interpretation \"Christ\" and the \"heretical\" christ-interpretations \"Christ-like.\" This is or would be patently absurd and useless and irrelevant, and I object. Feel free to adopt that convention, but recognize that it is merely a convention. \nNone of this affects what Wolfe believes or how that affects interpretation---only how such data are asserted.\n\nI am indeed arguing for a broader field of potential interpretations than some here seem comfortable with. But I have not argued what you have said. To repeat myself, this has as much to do with forum etiquette as anything else. I don't mind arguments from theology. I object to arguments from authority rather than logic---as I have very clearly stated." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 23:55:57 +0000\nFrom: Chris P \nSubject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 53, Issue 59\nTo: \nMessage-ID: \nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"windows-1252\"\n\n\nThere is wiggle-room for interpretation, but generally interpretation is supposed to stay close to the original intention of the speaker or at least not contradict it without absolute necessity. This may sound nitpicky but without it you get \"radical\" interpretation where everything can mean anything you want at any time.\n\nI could basically use the same form of argument you used there to say that well, to me in my belief system, calling someone \"Christ\" or \"Christ-like\" is the same as saying that they are Richard Nixon. Thus you can't argue that my interpretation of BotNS as a retelling of the Watergate story without privileging an interpretation based on Wolfe's religious beliefs, right?\n\n-- \"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set.\" -- Lin Yutang" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4989BFB3.1050105@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-02-04T16:17:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<569650.38075.qm@web37605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l:\n\nI have no desire to be childish or insulting, but obviously I felt a point had to be made, and I have made it.\n\nYes, you are saying exactly what I think. As only a semiliterate person in these areas, as well as being an atheist, I am naturally leery of a too-theological interpretation. And one could just as well construct an interpretation of TBotNS as a Celtic romance, as I have suggested---and I'd prefer to. But I would not want to set aside any part of Wolfe's vast knowledge, which spans both these literary/historical areas and more. I suspect there are plenty of New Testament/Catholic parallels and references that I can only dimly intuit or follow along when someone more knowledgeable explains them---and I'd like to hear more about these. \n\nSeverian as Christ or \"a\" christ is indeed less interesting in many ways. It would push the work toward some kind of forced theological propaganda, and unless it is of the most subtle sort---too subtle to be propaganda at all---I would object to that. I especially agree with this:\n\n*But to make Severian \"a Christ\" seems to me to require us to seek these parallels everywhere in the text, even where they simply don't exist.*\n\nThis is exactly what I was thinking when I raised my original questions: \n\nFirst (long ago), why exactly can't Severian \"be\" Christ or \"another\" christ? In other words, can Severian be---within the work, not outside the work---a manifestation of whatever it was that \"walked in Galilee,\" as the Baptists sing. Given enough time, isn't the \"universe\" big enough for two or fifteen anyway? I got some good answers to this, and I was relieved to hear that no one thought so. Common sense tells the writer to stay away from that third rail, for starters. From there, as you say, it would metastasize to overwhelm the work and its interpretations.\n\nHowever, outside the work, I personally don't see much difference, because to me they are all characters, and the world is plainly big enough for infinite variations. Christ himself was partly derived from characters who preceded him. I would identify a character with stigmata and a spear wound who carries the Divine Spark as one with a much more *specific* relation to the Christ than Frodo would have. \n\nThat's a fundamental and useful distinction---but not all that fundamental or useful. Draw a black line between them, and you will start finding examples that blur the line. And it's a category of 1, after all---like Earth itself. Not as useful for extrapolation into fiction as for imitation and distortion.\n\nSecond, I asked, if Severian experiences in TUotNS, as he relates he does, at least a glimpse of what it's like to be God/a god/a godling/whatever (I don't see support in the text for useful distinctions between these), then what does that mean for the work? To this question, I got John's suggestion that Severian's divinity might have been temporary, and Brunian's. It's still open. Is this passage part of TUotNS's New-Sun-for-Dummies role, or does it tell us something specific, like Severian is divine? is he divine temporarily or inherently? Or am I jumping to conclusions? Perhaps, read properly, it tells us Severian is NOT divine?\n\nFinally, I agree that much of this comes down to the deployment---and thus the enforcement---of terminology. I am less interested in sharp distinctions in this area than some, and I've offered some arguments for that, for which I don't expect universal acceptance. I also am less interested in narrowing the range of the discussion than I perceive some to be.\n\nBrunians:\n\nIf you were addressing me---yes, Wolfe is closer to me than most religious writers and indeed most writers. However, it's all relative. And the more Catholic he is as a writer, the less he is like me.\n\nIf I understood your answer to my second question above, you were saying this:\n\n-Yes, Severian is divine at that moment at least\n-But only Christ is a Divine Man\n-and there is only one Christ\n-therefore, just ignore that passage.\n\nAm I right? I'm sure you can see why I considered that an abrupt and inadequate answer." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 3\nDate: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:11:27 -0800\nFrom: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 53, Issue 59\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID:\n\t<1f7617370902031611l2a8ec3d3kf2c94236ec11acdb at mail.gmail.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1\n\nDavid,\n\n\"Guardian of the Sacred Texts\" is childish and insulting.\n\nBut I should lay my cards open on the table: I am, like Wolfe, an adult\nconvert to Roman Catholicism.\n\n*Independently of this,* I believe that the Catholic episteme offers\nperspectives on Wolfe's work that point, if not to his achievement, at\nleast to his intent.\n\nFor example, there are a _lot_ of scenes in the Briah cycle that parallel,\nparody, or otherwise reflect upon the Eucharist. Reading these scenes\nwith a knowledge of the Eucharist imbues them with a narrative energy\nthat is simply not present without that knowledge.\n\nThat doesn't mean that a specifically-Catholic reading of Wolfe is \"right\" or\neven \"better than others.\"\n\nBut it _does_ make a reading that's aware of Catholic practice and\nimagery a whole lot more interesting -- at least, to me.\n\nThe text is the text and, finally, any reading in good faith is a good\nreading. (But we are always already in bad faith with this or any\ntext...) A reading that completely ignores the generically Christian\nand specifically Catholic imagery and ideas can be valid.\n\nSuch a reading, however, strikes me as like a reading of \"Ulysses\"\nby someone without (or who doesn't show) the slightest knowledge\nof the Odyssey. I've read such readings, and they can be interesting\nenough, but they lack a dimension." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is where we disagree: \"As a result, it is legitimate to say that\nSeverian is \"Christ-like,\" but\nnot to say that he is \"a Christ.\" \"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nI overspoke my case by saying \"legitimate.\" I would say however that\na reading that made Severian \"a Christ\" would be (a) contrary to the\nauthor's intent, for what that may matter to you, and (b) less interesting\nthan one where Severian is \"Christ-like.\"\n\nWhy less interesting? Well: for one thing, \"a Christ\" is too far removed\nfrom the merely-human for me to find much application to my daily\nlife. (This is a problem for me in my own religious life, you betcha.)\nA Christ-like person, with the sinfulness and failings that beset all\nhumans but One, is far more interesting to me.\n\n(And, as a side note, Severian is clearly a sinful human himself in\nneed of redemption, not a perfect Redeemer.)\n\nFor another, making Severian \"a Christ\" forces a schema on the book\nthat I think just doesn't fit. Some of Severian's adventures clearly\nreflect, refract, distort some of the episodes of the Gospels - probably\nmost obvious, his encounter with Typhon, as a reflection of Christ's\ntemptation in the desert; but there are quite a number of others.\n\nBut to make Severian \"a Christ\" seems to me to require us to seek\nthese parallels everywhere in the text, even where they simply\ndon't exist.\n\nBut then ... you seem to mean something different by \"a Christ\" than\nwhat I would mean. It may be that, if we could decode each other\nproperly, \"a Christ\" in your language might mean something more like\nwhat \"a Christlike person\" does in mine.\n\nOr not?\n\n-- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: \nTue, 3 Feb 2009 21:09:18 -0500 (EST) From: brunians at brunians.org \nSubject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 53, Issue 59 To: \"The Urth Mailing \nList\" Message-ID: \n<3865.67.142.130.16.1233713358.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: \ntext/plain;charset=iso-8859-1" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "David,\n\n\"Guardian of the Sacred Texts\" is childish and insulting.\n\nBut I should lay my cards open on the table: I am, like Wolfe, an adult\nconvert to Roman Catholicism." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nAnd politically and culturally and so on you are very much like him,\nwouldn't you agree? You and he share many attitudes about the individual\nand society and traditional roles and values etc?\n\n\n\n\n\n.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "<93d4039f0902040833n8443ab2p994f575480ab07c8@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-04T16:33:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<4989BFB3.1050105@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 11:17 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nDan'l:However, outside the work, I personally don't see much difference,\nbecause to me they are all characters, and the world is plainly big enough\nfor infinite variations. Christ himself was partly derived from characters\nwho preceded him. I would identify a character with stigmata and a spear\nwound who carries the Divine Spark as one with a much more *specific*\nrelation to the Christ than Frodo would have." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I chuckled here because this isn't a great example of your point (which I do\ntake.) Frodo obviously does not have a stigmata or a spear wound in the\nside (he is stabbed in the side by a spear, but his mithril coat deflects\nthe thrust.) But there is specific imagery from the Stations of the Cross\napplied to him--he is wounded three times in the text (stabbed in the\nshoulder, stung by Shelob, and loses his finger) paralleling Christ's three\nfalls carrying the cross. What we're supposed to take from this, of course,\nis that Frodo partakes of the Christ-nature in a very specific way--he is a\ntype of Christ the Cross-bearer, not Christ the Teacher or the Son of God.\n\nLikewise I think Severian might be an attempt to isolate and examine\nChrist's career as a miracle worker uninformed by moral teachings. (It is\nlogical that such a figure would at least have pretentions of being an\ndivine figure.) Silk (in Long Sun, anyway) might be said to be the\nopposite--a great moral teacher and religious/political leader who is not a\nmiracle worker or disguised transcendent being." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Second, I asked, if Severian experiences in TUotNS, as he relates he does,\nat least a glimpse of what it's like to be God/a god/a godling/whatever (I\ndon't see support in the text for useful distinctions between these), then\nwhat does that mean for the work? To this question, I got John's suggestion\nthat Severian's divinity might have been temporary, and Brunian's. It's\nstill open. Is this passage part of TUotNS's New-Sun-for-Dummies role, or\ndoes it tell us something specific, like Severian is divine? is he divine\ntemporarily or inherently? Or am I jumping to conclusions? Perhaps, read\nproperly, it tells us Severian is NOT divine?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it tells us that Severian is an instrument of the something far\ngreater than himself--it's his experience, one might say, of being\n\"possessed.\" I think there are parallel sequences in That Hideous Strength\nwhen planetary angels possess mortals--Lewis does not thereby posit that\nplanetary intelligences are equivalent to God, but just that to a human\nbeing, the angel is sufficiently above him to induce a numinous experience.\n\n\nWhat I think it doesn't tell us is that Wolfe's conception of the divine in\ncompatible with the flaws in Severian's character. That is too wildly\nimplausible for a writer of Wolfe's background to suggest. My biggest issue\nis not with the idea of interrogating Severian's role as a chosen one, an\ninstrument, or a savior figure--it's with imputing moral sanction to all of\nhis actions and especially the destruction of Urth simply because Wolfe is a\nCatholic and bestows Christ-like attributes to Severian." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 3\nDate: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:11:27 -0800\nFrom: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \n\n\nSubject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 53, Issue 59\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID:\n <1f7617370902031611l2a8ec3d3kf2c94236ec11acdb at mail.gmail.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1\n\nDavid,\n\n\"Guardian of the Sacred Texts\" is childish and insulting.\n\nBut I should lay my cards open on the table: I am, like Wolfe, an adult\nconvert to Roman Catholicism.\n\n*Independently of this,* I believe that the Catholic episteme offers\nperspectives on Wolfe's work that point, if not to his achievement, at\nleast to his intent.\n\nFor example, there are a _lot_ of scenes in the Briah cycle that parallel,\nparody, or otherwise reflect upon the Eucharist. Reading these scenes\nwith a knowledge of the Eucharist imbues them with a narrative energy\nthat is simply not present without that knowledge.\n\nThat doesn't mean that a specifically-Catholic reading of Wolfe is \"right\"\nor\neven \"better than others.\"\n\nBut it _does_ make a reading that's aware of Catholic practice and\nimagery a whole lot more interesting -- at least, to me.\n\nThe text is the text and, finally, any reading in good faith is a good\nreading. (But we are always already in bad faith with this or any\ntext...) A reading that completely ignores the generically Christian\nand specifically Catholic imagery and ideas can be valid.\n\nSuch a reading, however, strikes me as like a reading of \"Ulysses\"\nby someone without (or who doesn't show) the slightest knowledge\nof the Odyssey. I've read such readings, and they can be interesting\nenough, but they lack a dimension." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is where we disagree: \"As a result, it is legitimate to say that\nSeverian is \"Christ-like,\" but\nnot to say that he is \"a Christ.\" \"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I overspoke my case by saying \"legitimate.\" I would say however that\na reading that made Severian \"a Christ\" would be (a) contrary to the\nauthor's intent, for what that may matter to you, and (b) less interesting\nthan one where Severian is \"Christ-like.\"\n\nWhy less interesting? Well: for one thing, \"a Christ\" is too far removed\nfrom the merely-human for me to find much application to my daily\nlife. (This is a problem for me in my own religious life, you betcha.)\nA Christ-like person, with the sinfulness and failings that beset all\nhumans but One, is far more interesting to me.\n\n(And, as a side note, Severian is clearly a sinful human himself in\nneed of redemption, not a perfect Redeemer.)\n\nFor another, making Severian \"a Christ\" forces a schema on the book\nthat I think just doesn't fit. Some of Severian's adventures clearly\nreflect, refract, distort some of the episodes of the Gospels - probably\nmost obvious, his encounter with Typhon, as a reflection of Christ's\ntemptation in the desert; but there are quite a number of others.\n\nBut to make Severian \"a Christ\" seems to me to require us to seek\nthese parallels everywhere in the text, even where they simply\ndon't exist.\n\nBut then ... you seem to mean something different by \"a Christ\" than\nwhat I would mean. It may be that, if we could decode each other\nproperly, \"a Christ\" in your language might mean something more like\nwhat \"a Christlike person\" does in mine.\n\nOr not?\n\n-- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue,\n3 Feb 2009 21:09:18 -0500 (EST) From: brunians at brunians.org Subject: Re:" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-04T17:39:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<93d4039f0902040833n8443ab2p994f575480ab07c8@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is all very interesting.\nI don't understand how there can be only one interpretation of Christ, especially argued by Catholics, who are considered Heretics by the oldest, most traditional and unchanged Christian Church, The Eastern Orthodox.\nAnd even then, Christ's Divinity is EXEGESIS. It's in the Creed, and it's the Catholics that changed the creed and caused the Great Schism.\n\nI don't need to argue it any more though. Severian is as Christ as it gets in New Sun. if that helps me understand it, fine. If one needs to call him Christ Like in deference to dear Jesus, fine. The line from Wolfe outside of BotNS that means the most to me is that he wanted to explore the \"implications of his faith\" We're supposed to pick up the cross and become Christ-like. Mystic Hermetic Cosmic Christians would say you have to become CHRIST. not \"like\" him. And between Severian and Horn, you've got two characters who BECAME the myth that inspired and motivated them. talk about exploring the implications of some cosmic event on a personal level.\nThis is beautiful stuff here, and hair splitting between Christ & Christ-like is sorta off the mark. It's only exegesis. For me, the text renders a sort of temporary divinity to him. but in my view, everyone is always also divine, and Severian just got a real glimpse of it as he was used, by the hand of God, at a much higher level than most of us are. But I think one of the most major points I get from reading between the lines on Jesus's story is that we're all crucified on the crossroads between base & divine.\n\n~SonOfWitz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Craig Brewer [mailto:cnbrewer at yahoo.com]\nSent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 08:12 AM\nTo: 'The Urth Mailing List'\nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nCatholicism makes all of this a bit tricky, too. Catholicism, of course, immediately brings up questions of orthodoxy vs. whatever. It's easy to assume that since Wolfe is Catholic, his beliefs are orthodox. It's also easy to assume that since he's comfortable sharing his personal beliefs, that his fictions all ultimately match those beliefs. But to go from Catholic orthodoxy straight to interpretation misses two important mediators: fiction and the author.\n\nMy questions are always: why must an author's fiction necessarily match their personal beliefs? Couldn't their fiction explore alternatives, express doubts, raise questions, etc. (With Wolfe, I'm always curious how an engineer might reconceptualize Catholic theology in a completely mechanical way...I see points where Wolfe toys with these ideas that, to me, aren't heretical but certainly aren't orthodox, either.) And just because Wolfe is Catholic, can we assume he's an orthodox Catholic? There's an interview where he discussed converting to Catholicism,* saying that he didn't read a lot of theology but read Chesterton and other Catholic writers. The interview also suggests that he might (and this is of course reading between the lines) have rationalized himself into Catholicism rather than simply accepting it whole cloth in one swoop. (Although what his attitude is now might be incredibly different.) Furthermore, he wrote the books at different times\nduring his life when his relationship to his faith might have changed. In other words, turning to orthodox theology as a way to interpret the fiction seems to miss a few steps. The point is that knowing a few general things about Wolfe's general relation to Catholic orthodoxy in general never tells us much about specifics.\n\nI'm also never comfortable talking about an author's intentions. An author can, of course, misunderstand him/herself. (Look at the later PKDick, for example...an extreme one since he was losing his mind, but it still applies.) Or maybe an author failed to communicate as he wanted? Or maybe the story was more complex than they intended? You don't have to be a raging postmodernist to recognize that writing and story-telling, no matter how well crafted, are media -- at once communicating but also a barrier between writer-as-person and reader-as-person. (That insight is at least as old as Plato.) While that never means that \"anything goes\" in interpretation, it also means that authorial intention is only one factor.\n\nOf course Wolfe's religion informs his fiction. You have to be blind not to see that. But it takes textual argument to connect an author's personal beliefs to the words/story in a substantial way. There's never a necessary connection. When interpreters get into discussions about theology or mythology, I'm always skeptical when they want to suggest that because a source puts something one way, Wolfe must as well. Instead, I'm almost most interested in how the details of the text relate to the source material and what they change. After all, isn't that the entire point of the Brown Book: Nothing is ever completely different, but nothing is ever completely the same when filtered through time/culture/writing.\n\n\n\n*\"About his conversion, Wolfe says: \"I was raised in a\nrather lax fashion as a Presbyterian. I don't think my\nfather had any particular religious convictions. My\nmother had been raised as a Presbyterian and so I was\nnominally a Presbyterian. It was largely an answer to\ngive when people asked you. . . . I married a Roman\nCatholic and had to take instruction in it in order that\nwe could have a Catholic wedding I became interested\nin it, read and studied, and talked to people about\nit and so forth, and eventually converted. . . . I didn't\nread a lot of theology.... I read Chesterton's book on\nSt. Thomas Aquinas . . . and ended up reading everything\nof Chesterton's that I could find. I had gone\nthrough very much the same thing earlier with C.S.\nLewis.\"\"\n\n(Quoted in John Farrel's \"The Distant Suns of Gene Wolfe,\" First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life; Apr2007 Issue 172, p28.)\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: David Stockhoff \nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nSent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 9:12:28 AM\nSubject: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nPerhaps, but I don't see the relevance, or rather the parallels, to the discussion. Following your understanding of these terms, one must always call the Catholic christ-interpretation \"Christ\" and the \"heretical\" christ-interpretations \"Christ-like.\" This is or would be patently absurd and useless and irrelevant, and I object. Feel free to adopt that convention, but recognize that it is merely a convention. \nNone of this affects what Wolfe believes or how that affects interpretation---only how such data are asserted.\n\nI am indeed arguing for a broader field of potential interpretations than some here seem comfortable with. But I have not argued what you have said. To repeat myself, this has as much to do with forum etiquette as anything else. I don't mind arguments from theology. I object to arguments from authority rather than logic---as I have very clearly stated.\n\n------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 23:55:57 +0000\nFrom: Chris P \nSubject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 53, Issue 59\nTo: \nMessage-ID: \nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"windows-1252\"\n\n\nThere is wiggle-room for interpretation, but generally interpretation is supposed to stay close to the original intention of the speaker or at least not contradict it without absolute necessity. This may sound nitpicky but without it you get \"radical\" interpretation where everything can mean anything you want at any time.\n\nI could basically use the same form of argument you used there to say that well, to me in my belief system, calling someone \"Christ\" or \"Christ-like\" is the same as saying that they are Richard Nixon. Thus you can't argue that my interpretation of BotNS as a retelling of the Watergate story without privileging an interpretation based on Wolfe's religious beliefs, right?\n\n-- \"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set.\" -- Lin Yutang\n\n\n\n---\navast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.\nVirus Database (VPS): 090203-1, 02/03/2009\nTested on: 2/4/2009 10:12:29 AM\navast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.\nhttp://www.avast.com\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<93d4039f0902040943m66ba19b1ke1459e317d7287eb@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-04T17:43:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\nThis is all very interesting.\nI don't understand how there can be only one interpretation of Christ,\nespecially argued by Catholics, who are considered Heretics by the oldest,\nmost traditional and unchanged Christian Church, The Eastern Orthodox." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Catholics are, I believe, considered schismatics, not heretics, by the\nOrthodox." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And even then, Christ's Divinity is EXEGESIS. It's in the Creed, and it's\nthe Catholics that changed the creed and caused the Great Schism.\n\nI don't need to argue it any more though. Severian is as Christ as it gets\nin New Sun. if that helps me understand it, fine. If one needs to call him\nChrist Like in deference to dear Jesus, fine. The line from Wolfe outside\nof BotNS that means the most to me is that he wanted to explore the\n\"implications of his faith\" We're supposed to pick up the cross and become\nChrist-like. Mystic Hermetic Cosmic Christians would say you have to become\nCHRIST. not \"like\" him. And between Severian and Horn, you've got two\ncharacters who BECAME the myth that inspired and motivated them. talk about\nexploring the implications of some cosmic event on a personal level.\nThis is beautiful stuff here, and hair splitting between Christ &\nChrist-like is sorta off the mark. It's only exegesis. For me, the text\nrenders a sort of temporary divinity to him. but in my view, everyone is\nalways also divine, and Severian just got a real glimpse of it as he was\nused, by the hand of God, at a much higher level than most of us are. But I\nthink one of the most major points I get from reading between the lines on\nJesus's story is that we're all crucified on the crossroads between base &\ndivine.\n\n~SonOfWitz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Craig Brewer [mailto:cnbrewer at yahoo.com]\nSent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 08:12 AM\nTo: 'The Urth Mailing List'\nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nCatholicism makes all of this a bit tricky, too. Catholicism, of course,\nimmediately brings up questions of orthodoxy vs. whatever. It's easy to\nassume that since Wolfe is Catholic, his beliefs are orthodox. It's also\neasy to assume that since he's comfortable sharing his personal beliefs,\nthat his fictions all ultimately match those beliefs. But to go from\nCatholic orthodoxy straight to interpretation misses two important\nmediators: fiction and the author.\n\nMy questions are always: why must an author's fiction necessarily match\ntheir personal beliefs? Couldn't their fiction explore alternatives, express\ndoubts, raise questions, etc. (With Wolfe, I'm always curious how an\nengineer might reconceptualize Catholic theology in a completely mechanical\nway...I see points where Wolfe toys with these ideas that, to me, aren't\nheretical but certainly aren't orthodox, either.) And just because Wolfe is\nCatholic, can we assume he's an orthodox Catholic? There's an interview\nwhere he discussed converting to Catholicism,* saying that he didn't read a\nlot of theology but read Chesterton and other Catholic writers. The\ninterview also suggests that he might (and this is of course reading between\nthe lines) have rationalized himself into Catholicism rather than simply\naccepting it whole cloth in one swoop. (Although what his attitude is now\nmight be incredibly different.) Furthermore, he wrote the books at different\ntimes\nduring his life when his relationship to his faith might have changed. In\nother words, turning to orthodox theology as a way to interpret the fiction\nseems to miss a few steps. The point is that knowing a few general things\nabout Wolfe's general relation to Catholic orthodoxy in general never tells\nus much about specifics.\n\nI'm also never comfortable talking about an author's intentions. An author\ncan, of course, misunderstand him/herself. (Look at the later PKDick, for\nexample...an extreme one since he was losing his mind, but it still\napplies.) Or maybe an author failed to communicate as he wanted? Or maybe\nthe story was more complex than they intended? You don't have to be a raging\npostmodernist to recognize that writing and story-telling, no matter how\nwell crafted, are media -- at once communicating but also a barrier between\nwriter-as-person and reader-as-person. (That insight is at least as old as\nPlato.) While that never means that \"anything goes\" in interpretation, it\nalso means that authorial intention is only one factor.\n\nOf course Wolfe's religion informs his fiction. You have to be blind not\nto see that. But it takes textual argument to connect an author's personal\nbeliefs to the words/story in a substantial way. There's never a necessary\nconnection. When interpreters get into discussions about theology or\nmythology, I'm always skeptical when they want to suggest that because a\nsource puts something one way, Wolfe must as well. Instead, I'm almost most\ninterested in how the details of the text relate to the source material and\nwhat they change. After all, isn't that the entire point of the Brown Book:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Nothing is ever completely different, but nothing is ever completely the\nsame when filtered through time/culture/writing." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "*\"About his conversion, Wolfe says: \"I was raised in a\nrather lax fashion as a Presbyterian. I don't think my\nfather had any particular religious convictions. My\nmother had been raised as a Presbyterian and so I was\nnominally a Presbyterian. It was largely an answer to\ngive when people asked you. . . . I married a Roman\nCatholic and had to take instruction in it in order that\nwe could have a Catholic wedding I became interested\nin it, read and studied, and talked to people about\nit and so forth, and eventually converted. . . . I didn't\nread a lot of theology.... I read Chesterton's book on\nSt. Thomas Aquinas . . . and ended up reading everything\nof Chesterton's that I could find. I had gone\nthrough very much the same thing earlier with C.S.\nLewis.\"\"\n\n(Quoted in John Farrel's \"The Distant Suns of Gene Wolfe,\" First Things: A\nMonthly Journal of Religion & Public Life; Apr2007 Issue 172, p28.)\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: David Stockhoff \nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nSent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 9:12:28 AM\nSubject: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nPerhaps, but I don't see the relevance, or rather the parallels, to the\ndiscussion. Following your understanding of these terms, one must always\ncall the Catholic christ-interpretation \"Christ\" and the \"heretical\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "christ-interpretations \"Christ-like.\" This is or would be patently absurd\nand useless and irrelevant, and I object. Feel free to adopt that\nconvention, but recognize that it is merely a convention." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "None of this affects what Wolfe believes or how that affects\ninterpretation---only how such data are asserted.\n\nI am indeed arguing for a broader field of potential interpretations than\nsome here seem comfortable with. But I have not argued what you have said." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To repeat myself, this has as much to do with forum etiquette as anything\nelse. I don't mind arguments from theology. I object to arguments from\nauthority rather than logic---as I have very clearly stated." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 23:55:57 +0000\nFrom: Chris P \nSubject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 53, Issue 59\nTo: \nMessage-ID: \nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"windows-1252\"\n\n\nThere is wiggle-room for interpretation, but generally interpretation is\nsupposed to stay close to the original intention of the speaker or at least\nnot contradict it without absolute necessity. This may sound nitpicky but\nwithout it you get \"radical\" interpretation where everything can mean\nanything you want at any time.\n\nI could basically use the same form of argument you used there to say that\nwell, to me in my belief system, calling someone \"Christ\" or \"Christ-like\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "is the same as saying that they are Richard Nixon. Thus you can't argue that\nmy interpretation of BotNS as a retelling of the Watergate story without\nprivileging an interpretation based on Wolfe's religious beliefs, right?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "-- \"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is\nabout to set.\" -- Lin Yutang\n\n\n\n---\navast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.\nVirus Database (VPS): 090203-1, 02/03/2009\nTested on: 2/4/2009 10:12:29 AM\n >avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.\nhttp://www.avast.com\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "palaeologos at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-04T17:44:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Son of Witz wrote:\nThis is all very interesting.\nI don't understand how there can be only one interpretation of Christ,\nespecially argued by Catholics, who are considered Heretics by the oldest,\nmost traditional and unchanged Christian Church, The Eastern Orthodox.\nAnd even then, Christ's Divinity is EXEGESIS. It's in the Creed, and it's\nthe Catholics that changed the creed and caused the Great Schism." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Heterodox the RCC may be in Orthodox eyes, but not in its christology. In\nthat, at least, the Catholics & Orthodoxen are in full agreement. And\ninserting \"filioque\" into the Creed was just the straw that broke the\ncamel's back; there had been a long series of misunderstandings and strains\non fellowship before then, on both sides." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Matt +\n\nLet early education be a sort of amusement; you will then be better able to\nfind out the natural bent.\nPlato (c. 428-348 B.C.), The Republic, bk. VII, 537" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-04T18:31:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Having a sort of mystic bent to my understandings of this stuff, think the Filioque is a huge change. It takes the basic form of the Trinity and turns it into a flat, hierarchical line. Triangles are one of the most fundamental forms in creation, and I think it's no accident that the Trinity is a triangle. It's foundational. Flatten that out and you've done some serious root level damage to the very structure of the message. It's no wonder all of the screwed up situations that follow that change. Inquisition,Crusades, Celibate Clergy, PriestRapists, Vatican II, and now the Oecumenical stuff...\n\nand, I don't know about all of them, but some of the Orthodox I know DEFINITELY consider Catholicism a heresy. I find it a little shrill, but that's just me. I should say for myself I don't consider them heretics. I'm in no position to judge that, my own ideas probably being heretical.\n\n~Witz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Matthew Weber [mailto:palaeologos at gmail.com]\nSent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 09:44 AM\nTo: 'The Urth Mailing List'\nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nOn Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Son of Witz wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is all very interesting.\nI don't understand how there can be only one interpretation of Christ,\nespecially argued by Catholics, who are considered Heretics by the oldest,\nmost traditional and unchanged Christian Church, The Eastern Orthodox.\nAnd even then, Christ's Divinity is EXEGESIS. It's in the Creed, and it's\nthe Catholics that changed the creed and caused the Great Schism." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Heterodox the RCC may be in Orthodox eyes, but not in its christology. In\nthat, at least, the Catholics & Orthodoxen are in full agreement. And\ninserting \"filioque\" into the Creed was just the straw that broke the\ncamel's back; there had been a long series of misunderstandings and strains\non fellowship before then, on both sides.\n\n\n-- \nMatt +\n\nLet early education be a sort of amusement; you will then be better able to\nfind out the natural bent.\nPlato (c. 428-348 B.C.), The Republic, bk. VII, 537" } ] }, { "message_id": "<11720.67.142.130.28.1233772538.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2009-02-04T18:35:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Whatever.\n\nThey will take communion from each other's priests, in emergency. Neither\none of them will take communion from your priests.\n\n\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Having a sort of mystic bent to my understandings of this stuff, think the\nFilioque is a huge change. It takes the basic form of the Trinity and\nturns it into a flat, hierarchical line. Triangles are one of the most\nfundamental forms in creation, and I think it's no accident that the\nTrinity is a triangle. It's foundational. Flatten that out and you've\ndone some serious root level damage to the very structure of the message.\nIt's no wonder all of the screwed up situations that follow that change.\nInquisition,Crusades, Celibate Clergy, PriestRapists, Vatican II, and now\nthe Oecumenical stuff...\n\nand, I don't know about all of them, but some of the Orthodox I know\nDEFINITELY consider Catholicism a heresy. I find it a little shrill, but\nthat's just me. I should say for myself I don't consider them heretics.\nI'm in no position to judge that, my own ideas probably being heretical.\n\n~Witz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Matthew Weber [mailto:palaeologos at gmail.com]\nSent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 09:44 AM\nTo: 'The Urth Mailing List'\nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nOn Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Son of Witz\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "This is all very interesting.\nI don't understand how there can be only one interpretation of Christ,\nespecially argued by Catholics, who are considered Heretics by the\noldest,\nmost traditional and unchanged Christian Church, The Eastern Orthodox.\nAnd even then, Christ's Divinity is EXEGESIS. It's in the Creed, and\nit's\nthe Catholics that changed the creed and caused the Great Schism." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Heterodox the RCC may be in Orthodox eyes, but not in its christology.\nIn\nthat, at least, the Catholics & Orthodoxen are in full agreement. And\ninserting \"filioque\" into the Creed was just the straw that broke the\ncamel's back; there had been a long series of misunderstandings and\nstrains\non fellowship before then, on both sides.\n\n\n--\nMatt +\n\nLet early education be a sort of amusement; you will then be better able\nto\nfind out the natural bent.\nPlato (c. 428-348 B.C.), The Republic, bk. VII, 537" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-04T18:37:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<11720.67.142.130.28.1233772538.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "LOL.\n~m" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: brunians at brunians.org [mailto:brunians at brunians.org]\nSent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 10:35 AM\nTo: 'The Urth Mailing List'\nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nWhatever.\n\nThey will take communion from each other's priests, in emergency. Neither\none of them will take communion from your priests.\n\n\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Having a sort of mystic bent to my understandings of this stuff, think the\nFilioque is a huge change. It takes the basic form of the Trinity and\nturns it into a flat, hierarchical line. Triangles are one of the most\nfundamental forms in creation, and I think it's no accident that the\nTrinity is a triangle. It's foundational. Flatten that out and you've\ndone some serious root level damage to the very structure of the message.\nIt's no wonder all of the screwed up situations that follow that change.\nInquisition,Crusades, Celibate Clergy, PriestRapists, Vatican II, and now\nthe Oecumenical stuff...\n\nand, I don't know about all of them, but some of the Orthodox I know\nDEFINITELY consider Catholicism a heresy. I find it a little shrill, but\nthat's just me. I should say for myself I don't consider them heretics.\nI'm in no position to judge that, my own ideas probably being heretical.\n\n~Witz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Matthew Weber [mailto:palaeologos at gmail.com]\nSent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 09:44 AM\nTo: 'The Urth Mailing List'\nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nOn Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Son of Witz\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "This is all very interesting.\nI don't understand how there can be only one interpretation of Christ,\nespecially argued by Catholics, who are considered Heretics by the\noldest,\nmost traditional and unchanged Christian Church, The Eastern Orthodox.\nAnd even then, Christ's Divinity is EXEGESIS. It's in the Creed, and\nit's\nthe Catholics that changed the creed and caused the Great Schism." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Heterodox the RCC may be in Orthodox eyes, but not in its christology.\nIn\nthat, at least, the Catholics & Orthodoxen are in full agreement. And\ninserting \"filioque\" into the Creed was just the straw that broke the\ncamel's back; there had been a long series of misunderstandings and\nstrains\non fellowship before then, on both sides.\n\n\n--\nMatt +\n\nLet early education be a sort of amusement; you will then be better able\nto\nfind out the natural bent.\nPlato (c. 428-348 B.C.), The Republic, bk. VII, 537" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "palaeologos at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-04T18:38:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<11720.67.142.130.28.1233772538.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:35 AM, wrote:\nWhatever.\n\nThey will take communion from each other's priests, in emergency. Neither\none of them will take communion from your priests." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Whose priests are we talking about? I came into this conversation late,\nafter having been away from urth-l for several years..." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Matt +\n\nLet early education be a sort of amusement; you will then be better able to\nfind out the natural bent.\nPlato (c. 428-348 B.C.), The Republic, bk. VII, 537" } ] }, { "message_id": "<15105.67.142.130.28.1233775058.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2009-02-04T19:17:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Various Catholic Christian churches.\n\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:35 AM, wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Whatever.\n\nThey will take communion from each other's priests, in emergency.\nNeither\none of them will take communion from your priests." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Whose priests are we talking about? I came into this conversation late,\nafter having been away from urth-l for several years...\n\n--\nMatt +\n\nLet early education be a sort of amusement; you will then be better able\nto\nfind out the natural bent.\nPlato (c. 428-348 B.C.), The Republic, bk. VII, 537\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1661202702.20090204204405@poczta.fm>", "from": { "name": "Stanislaus B.", "address": "sbocian at poczta.fm" }, "date": "2009-02-04T19:44:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<4989BFB3.1050105@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hello!\n\nOn 4 lutego 2009, David Stockhoff wrote:\n\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, you are saying exactly what I think. As only a semiliterate\nperson in these areas, as well as being an atheist, I am naturally\nleery of a too-theological interpretation." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "However, outside the work, I personally don't see much difference,\nbecause to me they are all characters, and the world is plainly big\nenough for infinite variations. Christ himself was partly derived\nfrom characters who preceded him. I would identify a character with\nstigmata and a spear wound who carries the Divine Spark as one with\na much more *specific* relation to the Christ than Frodo would have. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Second, I asked, if Severian experiences in TUotNS, as he relates\nhe does, at least a glimpse of what it's like to be God/a god/a\ngodling/whatever (I don't see support in the text for useful\ndistinctions between these), then what does that mean for the work?\nTo this question, I got John's suggestion that Severian's divinity\nmight have been temporary, and Brunian's. It's still open. Is this\npassage part of TUotNS's New-Sun-for-Dummies role, or does it tell\nus something specific, like Severian is divine? is he divine\ntemporarily or inherently? Or am I jumping to conclusions? Perhaps,\nread properly, it tells us Severian is NOT divine?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...\n\nSince you yourself said that your knowledge of theology is limited, I\nwill try to explain some basic conceptions of that science. They are\nnot exclusive to Christianity BTW, in fact they have been discovered\nby the Greek philosophy.\n\nGod is categorically different from all other things which exists\n(including gods/divinities/godlings/angels/saints). God is the\nfundamental ground of all existence, outside the world, space and\ntime. Whatever exists, exists because of God. Moreover, no words\nwhich can be used to describe any other things can be rightly used\nabout God. In fact, saying that God exists, is good, wise, powerful\netc is in a sense untrue - all those words do not describe God\ncorrectly.\n\nFor that reason saying that Severian is Christ makes no sense. Even\nsaying that Severian resembles Christ is meaningless if you do not\nunderstand that categorical difference.\n\nHere you can find a good description of the problem by\nPseudo-Dionysios Areopagita. He is my favourite author when\nexplaining Wolfe, since he is heavily influenced by Neoplatonists.\nThe introduction by translator to \"On the Divine Names\" is very\ngood and should explain things.\n\nhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/rolt/dionysius.iii.ii.html\n\nhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06614a.htm\n\nThat fundamental difference is quite clearly explained by Wolfe in\nthe Melito's story in \"The Citadel of the Autarch\";\n\n\"\"The eagle looked at the angel when he heard what the cock said,\n and the angel looked at the eagle. 'The Pancreator is infinitely\n far from us,' the angel said. 'And thus infinitely far from me,\n though I fly so much higher than you. I guess at his desires?\n no one can do otherwise.'\"\n\n Note that this is NOT an orthodox position. It a Neoplatonic, not\n Christian idea (as is most of the New Sun, of course),\n but it clearly shows the difference between the True\n God and all other divinities, of which there is so many in the\n series." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Best regards,\nStanislaus B.\n\n\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\nPokieruj psem-bohaterem i uratuj Penny!\nSkaczesz i gryziesz >> zagraj >> http://link.interia.pl/f204f" } ] }, { "message_id": "<208634.96534.qm@web59603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Matt Teel", "address": "adeodatus43 at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2009-02-05T02:08:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wow ... I don't comment much on this list, but ... damn. Do you suppose you could lay off the Catholics for a while? \"Priest Rapists\" are a result of the Filioque clause? Come on. I didn't subscribe to this list to read crap like this. The conversation was interesting until you felt the need to vomit on the page and share it with the rest of us.\n\nMatt Teel\n\n--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 6:31 PM\n\nHaving a sort of mystic bent to my understandings of this stuff, think the\nFilioque is a huge change. It takes the basic form of the Trinity and turns it\ninto a flat, hierarchical line. Triangles are one of the most fundamental forms\nin creation, and I think it's no accident that the Trinity is a triangle.\nIt's foundational. Flatten that out and you've done some serious root\nlevel damage to the very structure of the message. It's no wonder all of\nthe screwed up situations that follow that change. Inquisition,Crusades,\nCelibate Clergy, PriestRapists, Vatican II, and now the Oecumenical stuff....\n\nand, I don't know about all of them, but some of the Orthodox I know\nDEFINITELY consider Catholicism a heresy. I find it a little shrill, but\nthat's just me. I should say for myself I don't consider them heretics.\nI'm in no position to judge that, my own ideas probably being heretical.\n\n~Witz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Matthew Weber [mailto:palaeologos at gmail.com]\nSent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 09:44 AM\nTo: 'The Urth Mailing List'\nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nOn Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Son of Witz\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is all very interesting.\nI don't understand how there can be only one interpretation of\nChrist,\nespecially argued by Catholics, who are considered Heretics by the\noldest,\nmost traditional and unchanged Christian Church, The Eastern Orthodox.\nAnd even then, Christ's Divinity is EXEGESIS. It's in the\nCreed, and it's\nthe Catholics that changed the creed and caused the Great Schism." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Heterodox the RCC may be in Orthodox eyes, but not in its christology. In\nthat, at least, the Catholics & Orthodoxen are in full agreement. And\ninserting \"filioque\" into the Creed was just the straw that broke\nthe\ncamel's back; there had been a long series of misunderstandings and\nstrains\non fellowship before then, on both sides.\n\n\n-- \nMatt +\n\nLet early education be a sort of amusement; you will then be better able to\nfind out the natural bent.\nPlato (c. 428-348 B.C.), The Republic, bk. VII, 537" } ] }, { "message_id": "<08685A67-7D57-4D71-BB71-A58BCFC39560@butcherbaker.org>", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-05T03:19:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<208634.96534.qm@web59603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not harshing on Catholics,\nI'm harshing on the Catholic Church. Like I might bag on Iran without \noffense to Iranians.\nI've couched any critique with apologies to Catholics who might be \noffended.\nI suggested the priest rapists are one step in a chain of errors that \nresult from a doctrinal change.\nPapal infaliability, Celibate Clergy, these are insertions and \ndistortions and they seem to have led to a lot of problems.\nI don't think what i wrote is vomit at all, it's what MANY people feel \nabout the Catholic Church's problems.\nCare to show my how I'm wrong? Lots of people think the Filioque is no \nbig deal, and others think it's The Problem that allows all the others \nto come in. I'm happy to learn your argument.\nI'll admit \"It's no wonder all that...\" should have been stated as \"It \nseems as if all that...\"\n\n~SonOfWitz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Matt Teel wrote:\nWow ... I don't comment much on this list, but ... damn. Do you \nsuppose you could lay off the Catholics for a while? \"Priest \nRapists\" are a result of the Filioque clause? Come on. I didn't \nsubscribe to this list to read crap like this. The conversation was \ninteresting until you felt the need to vomit on the page and share \nit with the rest of us.\n\nMatt Teel\n\n--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Son of Witz wrote:\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 6:31 PM\n\nHaving a sort of mystic bent to my understandings of this stuff, \nthink the\nFilioque is a huge change. It takes the basic form of the Trinity \nand turns it\ninto a flat, hierarchical line. Triangles are one of the most \nfundamental forms\nin creation, and I think it's no accident that the Trinity is a \ntriangle.\nIt's foundational. Flatten that out and you've done some serious root\nlevel damage to the very structure of the message. It's no wonder \nall of\nthe screwed up situations that follow that change. \nInquisition,Crusades,\nCelibate Clergy, PriestRapists, Vatican II, and now the Oecumenical \nstuff...\n\nand, I don't know about all of them, but some of the Orthodox I know\nDEFINITELY consider Catholicism a heresy. I find it a little \nshrill, but\nthat's just me. I should say for myself I don't consider them \nheretics.\nI'm in no position to judge that, my own ideas probably being \nheretical.\n\n~Witz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Matthew Weber [mailto:palaeologos at gmail.com]\nSent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 09:44 AM" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "palaeologos at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-05T03:53:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<08685A67-7D57-4D71-BB71-A58BCFC39560@butcherbaker.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "First off : clerical sexual abuse is not confined to the RCC. If it is\nmore prevalent in the Roman Church (which may or may not be true), it might\nhave more to do with the discipline of celibacy attracting men with\nsexuality issues than it has with the difference between single or double\nprocession.\n\nSecond : the jurisdictional chaos whose inhabitants affectionately refer to\nit as \"Orthodoxy\" has plenty of its own problems, among them (to quote a\nfriend) \"willed ignorance of history, the pretense that things always were\nas the now-dominant party wanted them to be, and the systematic\nmisrepresentation and exclusion of difference.\" In the end, no ekklesia is\nperfect; churches are full of hypocrites, but as Bishop Block once said,\n\"There's always room for one more\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\nI'm not harshing on Catholics,\nI'm harshing on the Catholic Church. Like I might bag on Iran without\noffense to Iranians.\nI've couched any critique with apologies to Catholics who might be\noffended.\nI suggested the priest rapists are one step in a chain of errors that\nresult from a doctrinal change.\nPapal infaliability, Celibate Clergy, these are insertions and distortions\nand they seem to have led to a lot of problems.\nI don't think what i wrote is vomit at all, it's what MANY people feel\nabout the Catholic Church's problems.\nCare to show my how I'm wrong? Lots of people think the Filioque is no big\ndeal, and others think it's The Problem that allows all the others to come\nin. I'm happy to learn your argument.\nI'll admit \"It's no wonder all that...\" should have been stated as \"It\nseems as if all that...\"\n\n~SonOfWitz" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Matt +\n\nLet early education be a sort of amusement; you will then be better able to\nfind out the natural bent.\nPlato (c. 428-348 B.C.), The Republic, bk. VII, 537" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-05T04:04:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Fair points.\nI won't argue, because I don't completely endorse the ideas I \nmentioned, or very well educated about this. I especially agree with \n\"there's always room for one more\".\nSorry I offended anyone. I certainly did NOT mean to dismiss anyone's \nbeliefs. I was only trying to talk about it at the Institutional level \nof Doctrine manipulation, and not what goes on in each believer's \nheart and soul.\nMy point was that something as seemingly inoffensive as a change of a \ncouple of words in the creed can have disastrous affects. It can be, \nand seems to be, a big deal.\n~witz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:53 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:\nFirst off : clerical sexual abuse is not confined to the RCC. If \nit is more prevalent in the Roman Church (which may or may not be \ntrue), it might have more to do with the discipline of celibacy \nattracting men with sexuality issues than it has with the difference \nbetween single or double procession.\n\nSecond : the jurisdictional chaos whose inhabitants affectionately \nrefer to it as \"Orthodoxy\" has plenty of its own problems, among \nthem (to quote a friend) \"willed ignorance of history, the pretense \nthat things always were as the now-dominant party wanted them to be, \nand the systematic misrepresentation and exclusion of difference.\" \nIn the end, no ekklesia is perfect; churches are full of hypocrites, \nbut as Bishop Block once said, \"There's always room for one more\".\n\nOn Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Son of Witz ", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-05T04:08:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<08685A67-7D57-4D71-BB71-A58BCFC39560@butcherbaker.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, Son of, as someone who happens to believe in those doctrines\n(like about a billion others), I do feel like you were \"harshing\" on\nme--it seems as though you blame my beliefs for the rape of children.\n\nNo doubt you don't mean it. But that is what it sounds like, just a bit." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 2/4/09, Son of Witz wrote:\nI'm not harshing on Catholics,\nI'm harshing on the Catholic Church. Like I might bag on Iran without\noffense to Iranians.\nI've couched any critique with apologies to Catholics who might be\noffended.\nI suggested the priest rapists are one step in a chain of errors that\nresult from a doctrinal change.\nPapal infaliability, Celibate Clergy, these are insertions and\ndistortions and they seem to have led to a lot of problems.\nI don't think what i wrote is vomit at all, it's what MANY people feel\nabout the Catholic Church's problems.\nCare to show my how I'm wrong? Lots of people think the Filioque is no\nbig deal, and others think it's The Problem that allows all the others\nto come in. I'm happy to learn your argument.\nI'll admit \"It's no wonder all that...\" should have been stated as \"It\nseems as if all that...\"\n\n~SonOfWitz\n\nOn Feb 4, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Matt Teel wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Wow ... I don't comment much on this list, but ... damn. Do you\nsuppose you could lay off the Catholics for a while? \"Priest\nRapists\" are a result of the Filioque clause? Come on. I didn't\nsubscribe to this list to read crap like this. The conversation was\ninteresting until you felt the need to vomit on the page and share\nit with the rest of us.\n\nMatt Teel\n\n--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Son of Witz wrote:\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 6:31 PM\n\nHaving a sort of mystic bent to my understandings of this stuff,\nthink the\nFilioque is a huge change. It takes the basic form of the Trinity\nand turns it\ninto a flat, hierarchical line. Triangles are one of the most\nfundamental forms\nin creation, and I think it's no accident that the Trinity is a\ntriangle.\nIt's foundational. Flatten that out and you've done some serious root\nlevel damage to the very structure of the message. It's no wonder\nall of\nthe screwed up situations that follow that change.\nInquisition,Crusades,\nCelibate Clergy, PriestRapists, Vatican II, and now the Oecumenical\nstuff...\n\nand, I don't know about all of them, but some of the Orthodox I know\nDEFINITELY consider Catholicism a heresy. I find it a little\nshrill, but\nthat's just me. I should say for myself I don't consider them\nheretics.\nI'm in no position to judge that, my own ideas probably being\nheretical.\n\n~Witz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Matthew Weber [mailto:palaeologos at gmail.com]\nSent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 09:44 AM" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew King", "address": "automatthew at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-05T04:19:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:\nFirst off : clerical sexual abuse is not confined to the RCC. If it is\nmore prevalent in the Roman Church (which may or may not be true), it might\nhave more to do with the discipline of celibacy attracting men with\nsexuality issues than it has with the difference between single or double\nprocession." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ephebophilia is quite far removed from pedophilia, and conflating them\ndoes no one any good.\n\nMatthew\n(Not RC, BTW, FWIW)" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew King", "address": "automatthew at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-05T04:24:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Matthew King wrote:\nOn Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "First off : clerical sexual abuse is not confined to the RCC. If it is\nmore prevalent in the Roman Church (which may or may not be true), it might\nhave more to do with the discipline of celibacy attracting men with\nsexuality issues than it has with the difference between single or double\nprocession." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ephebophilia is quite far removed from pedophilia, and conflating them\ndoes no one any good.\n\nMatthew\n(Not RC, BTW, FWIW)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I should add that I'm not responding to the other Matthew, but to\nthose who attack the Roman Catholic church. I'll go even farther than\nhe did and say that the discipline of celibacy is not at fault here,\nbut rather the positive and pronounced efforts of some American Roman\nCatholic priests to recruit men afflicted with sexual attraction to\nother men. It is also hardly secret that many seminaries harass and\ndiscourage men who do not play along." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew King", "address": "automatthew at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-05T04:35:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<08685A67-7D57-4D71-BB71-A58BCFC39560@butcherbaker.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\nI'm not harshing on Catholics,\nI'm harshing on the Catholic Church." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Son, if I may call you that, this is akin to declaring, \"I'm not\nsaying you're a son of a bitch, just that your mother is a\nfoul-mouthed whore.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Like I might bag on Iran without\noffense to Iranians" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Most of the rest of the inhabitants of the world have not yet\nconvinced themselves that they are wholly unconcerned with the fate\nand reputation of their communities. I submit that you would meet\nmuch the same reaction in badmouthing Iran to Persians." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-05T07:14:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "sorry I've got some critical things to say about your momma.\nIt ain't like she's innocent.\n*resists yo mama joke*\nNo one complained when I bagged on Scientific Materialism.\nand \"Foul Mouth Whore\" is insulting language, which I did not use.\nI suggested that one error perhaps led to some real problems.\nJust as my mother's drinking led to her neglect of her children and \nherself.\nI think the Catholic Church has real, big time issues. sorry if it \noffends y'all, but how long can you talk about doctrinal differences \nbetween sect's interpretations without stepping on some toes?\n\nI'm trying to be thoughtful about my comments, knowing that there are \nbound to be a lot of Catholics here, as Wolfe is a self-proclaimed \n\"Catholic Writer\". I don't think Wolfe's writing is at all orthodox \nthough. I dug the situation with Quetzal because the idea of a vampire \nat the top of the church is EXACTLY what I've felt about the Pope my \nENTIRE life. Fucking Literally. Should I not say that here because \nsome of you are down with the Pope? Surely you all have tougher skin \nthan that. Sorry, if your faith or church can't withstand some tough \nquestions, what is it worth?\n\nI think Satanists are selfish idiots. anyone offended?\n\n~Son" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Matthew King wrote:\nOn Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Son of Witz ", "from": { "name": "Chris P", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-05T07:37:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Priest rapists\", your mother, her drinking habits, and Satanists are - as far as I can tell - immaterial to Wolfe's work.\n\nI'm sure some people probably were offended by what you said. But others probably checked their email, browsed through messages on the list and wondered \"why are we talking about priest rapists?\" And the answer, as near as I can tell, is \"No good reason at all.\" Digressions happen, but when they're presented in a way that's deliberately designed to an angry (and equally pointless) response for everyone else to read through, it's just trolling." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "\"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set.\" -- Lin Yutang" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nDate: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 23:14:37 -0800\nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nsorry I've got some critical things to say about your momma.\nIt ain't like she's innocent.\n*resists yo mama joke*\nNo one complained when I bagged on Scientific Materialism.\nand \"Foul Mouth Whore\" is insulting language, which I did not use.\nI suggested that one error perhaps led to some real problems.\nJust as my mother's drinking led to her neglect of her children and \nherself.\nI think the Catholic Church has real, big time issues. sorry if it \noffends y'all, but how long can you talk about doctrinal differences \nbetween sect's interpretations without stepping on some toes?\n\nI'm trying to be thoughtful about my comments, knowing that there are \nbound to be a lot of Catholics here, as Wolfe is a self-proclaimed \n\"Catholic Writer\". I don't think Wolfe's writing is at all orthodox \nthough. I dug the situation with Quetzal because the idea of a vampire \nat the top of the church is EXACTLY what I've felt about the Pope my \nENTIRE life. Fucking Literally. Should I not say that here because \nsome of you are down with the Pope? Surely you all have tougher skin \nthan that. Sorry, if your faith or church can't withstand some tough \nquestions, what is it worth?\n\nI think Satanists are selfish idiots. anyone offended?\n\n~Son\n\n\n\nOn Feb 4, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Matthew King wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Son of Witz ", "from": { "name": "matthew at calmeilles.co.uk", "address": "matthew at calmeilles.co.uk" }, "date": "2009-02-05T09:47:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "automatthew at gmail.com wrote:\nCatholic priests to recruit men afflicted with sexual attraction to" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Afflicted\"?\n\nNow you've offended me.\n\n\nMatthew" } ] }, { "message_id": "<63FB9AC7E0AEC7459DBCC99DC44247CA01F6B695@BOSIDEXDB.Bankofscotland.ie>", "from": { "name": "O'Donnell, Tim BOSI", "address": "tim.o'donnell at bankofscotland.ie" }, "date": "2009-02-05T11:49:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "SonOfWitz, as a long standing member of the Church of Odin (I am due to receive my celebratory pair of imitation ravens this weekend in the\nValhalla Restaurant and Public House) I take serious offence to your remarks on Satanists. While the Odinists broke away from the Satanists in\nthe great schism of 4003 BC (on our first anniversary) in what has since been described as the \"Dirty Hanky\" scandal (this pivoted on whether cleanliness\nwas indeed next to godliness - an issue that occupied our immoral philosophers for some time) I still recognise myself as belonging to the greater Satanic church\nand so would like you to retract what you said.\n\nSeriously though, I have my private beliefs which I would prefer not to discuss and I have some knowledge of various religions (most particularly Catholicism) having\nbecome very interested in the topic in my early 20s. But I recognise the difference between what I believe and what I understand that other people believe. Instead of \narguing this out with people on the list can we not leave the \"Wolfe as Catholic writer\" vs \"Wolfe as writer with many influences, many of them Catholic\" to the realm of\n\"Are Blue/Green Urth/Lune?\" in the camp of intractable Lupine questions? \n\nI would prefer to discuss other items than to argue about beliefs and disappear into tangents on the Church in the world today. \n\nSo in that spirit I asked about the following passage in BOTNS a while back and there were no takers:\n\nAs I had suspected, the Cumaean was not a woman at all; yet neither was she one\nof the horrors I had beheld in the gardens of the House Absolute. Something\nsleekly reptilian coiled about the glowing rod. I looked for the head but found\nnone, though each of the patternings on the reptile's back was a face, and the\neyes of each face seemed lost in rapture.\nDorcas woke while I looked from one to another.\n\n\nI have long hoped that this was an Inhumu (Inhumi?) on Urth in the time of Severian. \nReasons it is possible:\n*\tReptilian in nature\n*\tElement of Soul Travel seems to be occurring here\n\nReasons it may not be an inhumi:\n*\tThe description of the faces on the reptile's back does not tie in with BOTSS, unless it is the faces of the Inhumu's victims?\n\nAny takers?\n\n\n\n\n\n************************************************************************************************\nFind out more about us at www.bankofscotland.ie \n\nThe information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator immediately. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. This mail and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Bank of Scotland Ireland's network. \nBank of Scotland Ireland will not be liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on. Bank of Scotland (Ireland) reserves the right to monitor and record e-mail messages sent to and from this address for the purposes of investigating or detecting any unauthorised use of its system and ensuring its effective operation.\n\nBank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited is part of HBOS plc and is regulated by the Financial Regulator. Registered in Ireland Number: 8545. Registered office: Bank of Scotland House, 124-127 St. Stephens Green, Dublin 2\n\n****************************************************************************************************" } ] }, { "message_id": "<810669.30502.qm@web59604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Matt Teel", "address": "adeodatus43 at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2009-02-05T11:57:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Amen to that, Chris. \n\nI am full of responses to your idiotic assertions, witz, but I'm going to resist, because this conversation has little-if-anything to do with GENE WOLFE. If that makes you feel like you won the argument, great. If it makes you feel like you lost, then console yourself with how broad-minded and inquisitive you are (and how narrow-minded and thin-skinned those Catholics are) and let's get on with the interpretation of this man's life work.\n\nMatt Teel\n\n--- On Thu, 2/5/09, Chris P wrote:\n\nFrom: Chris P \nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nDate: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 7:37 AM\n\n\n\n\n#yiv445330995 .hmmessage P\n{\nmargin:0px;padding:0px;}\n#yiv445330995 {\nfont-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}\n\n\"Priest rapists\", your mother, her drinking habits, and Satanists are - as far as I can tell - immaterial to Wolfe's work.\n\nI'm sure some people probably were offended by what you said. But others probably checked their email, browsed through messages on the list and wondered \"why are we talking about priest rapists?\" And the answer, as near as I can tell, is \"No good reason at all.\" Digressions happen, but when they're presented in a way that's deliberately designed to an angry (and equally pointless) response for everyone else to read through, it's just trolling.\n\n-- \"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set.\" -- Lin Yutang" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nDate: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 23:14:37 -0800\nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nsorry I've got some critical things to say about your momma.\nIt ain't like she's innocent.\n*resists yo mama joke*\nNo one complained when I bagged on Scientific Materialism.\nand \"Foul Mouth Whore\" is insulting language, which I did not use.\nI suggested that one error perhaps led to some real problems.\nJust as my mother's drinking led to her neglect of her children and \nherself.\nI think the Catholic Church has real, big time issues. sorry if it \noffends y'all, but how long can you talk about doctrinal differences \nbetween sect's interpretations without stepping on some toes?\n\nI'm trying to be thoughtful about my comments, knowing that there are \nbound to be a lot of Catholics here, as Wolfe is a self-proclaimed \n\"Catholic Writer\". I don't think Wolfe's writing is at all orthodox \nthough. I dug the situation with Quetzal because the idea of a vampire \nat the top of the church is EXACTLY what I've felt about the Pope my \nENTIRE life. Fucking Literally. Should I not say that here because \nsome of you are down with the Pope? Surely you all have tougher skin \nthan that. Sorry, if your faith or church can't withstand some tough \nquestions, what is it worth?\n\nI think Satanists are selfish idiots. anyone offended?\n\n~Son\n\n\n\nOn Feb 4, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Matthew King wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Son of Witz ", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2009-02-05T12:33:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And in any case, the rule doesn't say anything about what you are chaste\nfrom, just so long as you are chaste.\n\nIf they get rid of all of the gay priests, what are they going to do for\npriests? There's a lot of gay priests, and I don't think that this is\nanything new.\n\n\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "automatthew at gmail.com wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Catholic priests to recruit men afflicted with sexual attraction to" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"Afflicted\"?\n\nNow you've offended me.\n\n\nMatthew\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew King", "address": "automatthew at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-05T14:50:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Matthew King wrote:\nsome inappropriate stuff." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What I said was not appropriate to this forum, and I apologize." } ] }, { "message_id": "<29789.66613.qm@web37605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2009-02-05T15:05:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Spenser and Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've checked the archives, but I can't locate very much on the relationship between Wolfe and Edmund Spenser. So I wanted to ask if anyone had any other leads or references they've found. (And, of course, if anyone knows of anywhere Wolfe mentions have read Spenser would be wonderful.) Of course the back of the current editing of Shadow and Claw lists Spenser on the back along with Dickens. And the general allegorical landscape of New Sun in particular immediately asks to be compared to other allegories.\n\nBut Spenser specifically?\n\nThe closet immediate connection is Talos/Talus. In Book V of the Faerie Queene, the knight of Justice, Artegall, travels with a huge golem who metes out harsh justice. The golem's name is Talus. Of course this brings to mind the taluses of Long Sun, but also Dr. Talos...who, of course, writes his own allegorical play.\n\nNow of course Wolfe could just be referring, like Spenser, to the Talos or bronze giant in Greek myth. But the fact that Dr. Talos is the one who writes the allegory got me thinking whether this was a nod to Spenser. Then, of course, I got to thinking about other possible Spenserianisms in Wolfe. I've always known they were alike in spirit, but now I'd like to know whether there's something more substantive.\n\nSpenser also has a Phaedria, but there are a number of Phaedria's out there, and the resemblances are vague.\n\nAnd on a note on the recent religious discussion, it would be incredibly interesting to look at how Wolfe integrated a militantly Protestant poet like Spenser...\n\n(The only bit on Spenser I could find in the archives was a wonderful note by Nigel Price here: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0024/0051.shtml)\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-05T15:14:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<810669.30502.qm@web59604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "my very small tangent did have to do with BotNS, in that people are \narguing about the Severian Christ issue as if there is one \nunderstanding of Christ, so I pointed out that even the dominant \nunderstanding of Christ is considered Heresy by some. It wasn't way \noff topic. IMO, it was not \"No good reason at all\". Look at the title \nof the thread. \"Wolfean Theologies\" well isn't Wolfe Catholic? can't \nI talk about Catholicism? Sorry if what I have to say isn't peaches \nand cream.\n\nMatt,\nWin? Lose? what are you talking about? I made some, uh, \"idiotic \nassertions\" and people were offended that I expressed what I felt.\nI certainly don't care to argue about what any of us here believe, but \ndiscussing different interpretations of texts, Wolfe's or those that \ninformed Wolfe, are FAIR GAME. I'm not presenting myself as better \nthan any Catholics here. I made a critique about an institution's \nproblems. Can't I? I'll obviously try to refrain since people think \nI'm talking about THEM when I'm talking about an institutional church \ndecision made in the 12th century.\nI'd challenge anyone to dig through my messages and find something \nnegative I said about Catholic Worshipers. I don't think it happened.\n\nTim,\nCleanliness IS next to Godliness.\npick up the hanky.\n\n~Son" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Feb 5, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Matt Teel wrote:\nAmen to that, Chris.\n\nI am full of responses to your idiotic assertions, witz, but I'm \ngoing to resist, because this conversation has little-if-anything to \ndo with GENE WOLFE. If that makes you feel like you won the \nargument, great. If it makes you feel like you lost, then console \nyourself with how broad-minded and inquisitive you are (and how \nnarrow-minded and thin-skinned those Catholics are) and let's get on \nwith the interpretation of this man's life work.\n\nMatt Teel\n\n--- On Thu, 2/5/09, Chris P wrote:\nFrom: Chris P \nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nDate: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 7:37 AM\n\n\"Priest rapists\", your mother, her drinking habits, and Satanists \nare - as far as I can tell - immaterial to Wolfe's work.\n\nI'm sure some people probably were offended by what you said. But \nothers probably checked their email, browsed through messages on the \nlist and wondered \"why are we talking about priest rapists?\" And the \nanswer, as near as I can tell, is \"No good reason at all.\" \nDigressions happen, but when they're presented in a way that's \ndeliberately designed to an angry (and equally pointless) response \nfor everyone else to read through, it's just trolling.\n\n-- \"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun \nis about to set.\" -- Lin Yutang" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nDate: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 23:14:37 -0800\nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nsorry I've got some critical things to say about your momma.\nIt ain't like she's innocent.\n*resists yo mama joke*\nNo one complained when I bagged on Scientific Materialism.\nand \"Foul Mouth Whore\" is insulting language, which I did not use.\nI suggested that one error perhaps led to some real problems.\nJust as my mother's drinking led to her neglect of her children and\nherself.\nI think the Catholic Church has real, big time issues. sorry if it\noffends y'all, but how long can you talk about doctrinal differences\nbetween sect's interpretations without stepping on some toes?\n\nI'm trying to be thoughtful about my comments, knowing that there \nare\nbound to be a lot of Catholics here, as Wolfe is a self-proclaimed\n\"Catholic Writer\". I don't think Wolfe's writing is at all orthodox\nthough. I dug the situation with Quetzal because the idea of a \nvampire\nat the top of the church is EXACTLY what I've felt about the Pope my\nENTIRE life. Fucking Literally. Should I not say that here because\nsome of you are down with the Pope? Surely you all have tougher skin\nthan that. Sorry, if your faith or church can't withstand some tough\nquestions, what is it worth?\n\nI think Satanists are selfish idiots. anyone offended?\n\n~Son\n\n\n\nOn Feb 4, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Matthew King wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Son of Witz ", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-05T15:23:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Son of Witz wrote:\n\n\nI certainly don't care to argue about what any of us here believe, but\ndiscussing different interpretations of texts, Wolfe's or those that\ninformed Wolfe, are FAIR GAME. I'm not presenting myself as better than any\nCatholics here. I made a critique about an institution's problems. Can't\nI?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, no, you really shouldn't, because a) your opinion about the\nhistorical consequences of the Filioque is irrelevant, as far as I can tell,\nto anything Wolfe has ever written, and b) it pollutes the list because\nnaturally Catholics will want to defend themselves and their Church.\nHair-pulling to get a reaction, well, gets reactions. That's why it doesn't\nbelong." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Feb 5, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Matt Teel wrote:\n\nAmen to that, Chris." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I am full of responses to your idiotic assertions, witz, but I'm going to\nresist, because this conversation has little-if-anything to do with GENE\nWOLFE. If that makes you feel like you won the argument, great. If it\nmakes you feel like you lost, then console yourself with how broad-minded\nand inquisitive you are (and how narrow-minded and thin-skinned those\nCatholics are) and let's get on with the interpretation of this man's life\nwork.\n\nMatt Teel\n\n--- On Thu, 2/5/09, Chris P wrote:\nFrom: Chris P \nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nDate: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 7:37 AM\n\n\"Priest rapists\", your mother, her drinking habits, and Satanists are - as\nfar as I can tell - immaterial to Wolfe's work.\n\nI'm sure some people probably were offended by what you said. But others\nprobably checked their email, browsed through messages on the list and\nwondered \"why are we talking about priest rapists?\" And the answer, as near\nas I can tell, is \"No good reason at all.\" Digressions happen, but when\nthey're presented in a way that's deliberately designed to an angry (and\nequally pointless) response for everyone else to read through, it's just\ntrolling.\n\n-- \"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is\nabout to set.\" -- Lin Yutang" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "From: sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nDate: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 23:14:37 -0800\nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nsorry I've got some critical things to say about your momma.\nIt ain't like she's innocent.\n*resists yo mama joke*\nNo one complained when I bagged on Scientific Materialism.\nand \"Foul Mouth Whore\" is insulting language, which I did not use.\nI suggested that one error perhaps led to some real problems.\nJust as my mother's drinking led to her neglect of her children and\nherself.\nI think the Catholic Church has real, big time issues. sorry if it\noffends y'all, but how long can you talk about doctrinal differences\nbetween sect's interpretations without stepping on some toes?\n\nI'm trying to be thoughtful about my comments, knowing that there are\nbound to be a lot of Catholics here, as Wolfe is a self-proclaimed\n\"Catholic Writer\". I don't think Wolfe's writing is at all orthodox\nthough. I dug the situation with Quetzal because the idea of a vampire\nat the top of the church is EXACTLY what I've felt about the Pope my\nENTIRE life. Fucking Literally. Should I not say that here because\nsome of you are down with the Pope? Surely you all have tougher skin\nthan that. Sorry, if your faith or church can't withstand some tough\nquestions, what is it worth?\n\nI think Satanists are selfish idiots. anyone offended?\n\n~Son\n\n\n\nOn Feb 4, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Matthew King wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Son of Witz <\nsonofwitz at butcherbaker.org\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "I'm not harshing on Catholics,\nI'm harshing on the Catholic Church." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Son, if I may call you that, this is akin to declaring, \"I'm not\nsaying you're a son of a bitch, just that your mother is a\nfoul-mouthed whore.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Like I might bag on Iran without\noffense to Iranians" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Most of the rest of the inhabitants of the world have not yet\nconvinced themselves that they are wholly unconcerned with the fate\nand reputation of their communities. I submit that you would meet\nmuch the same reaction in badmouthing Iran to Persians.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<498B059F.1040504@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-02-05T15:28:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<93d4039f0902050723k17a74b4uadcbab7dbe480278@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's a very interesting and useful analysis of Frodo---not just the correspondences, which are easy enough to create/find/project/whatever, but the construction of the orthodox or doctrinaire Christ (let's just call him the OTC, or One True Christ, and assume we are talking about the Catholic one). \n\nIt did occur to me that even the OTC is an incredibly complex idea with any number of aspects. You point to 3: Cross-bearer, Teacher, and SoG. This last one is the most problematic for any kind of analysis (I can't decide whether it's central or peripheral!), and I almost threw it in with the stigmata etc., but it seemed too big. One could add Healer. One could also add, from medieval literature, Lover. Thus all the high-medieval love songs to Jesus (see a certain episode of South Park as well). \n\nIt makes sense that a work of literature would pick at most 2 of these aspects or divisions (I don't know what to call them) to examine. It also makes sense, then, to regard a character that is OTC-like in only 1 or 2 aspects to be incomplete, not whole, NOT an attempt to replicate the OTC entire. And Severian seems to relate most of all to the Crossbearer (but ironically, since he is the Torturer) and to the Healer. He seems to be a Lover too, although\nperhaps that can be taken as sci-fi convention. SoG he ain't---but then there is that passage. Nor is he a Teacher. Characters with these limited connections would legitimately be termed \"figures.\"\n\nThanks, John, this is really useful! For Silk as well, as you suggest.\n\nSo I gather you read that passage not as God/Severian suddenly, briefly, being conscious of fitting himself into a tiny human mind, but as Severian getting a \"high\" off the Increate's doing so to him. Severian therefore is not himself divine, merely \"touched by His noodly appendage.\" \n\nAs you say, even this momentary experience of divinity could have huge and problematic implications as far as the Increate's implied approval of Severian, his puppetmasters, his crimes, etc. And the stronger the connection, the bigger the problem. I wouldn't want to bring all that in on the strength of this single passage." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:33:46 -0500\nFrom: John Watkins \nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID:\n\t<93d4039f0902040833n8443ab2p994f575480ab07c8 at mail.gmail.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"iso-8859-1\"\n\nOn Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 11:17 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l:However, outside the work, I personally don't see much difference,\nbecause to me they are all characters, and the world is plainly big enough\nfor infinite variations. Christ himself was partly derived from characters\nwho preceded him. I would identify a character with stigmata and a spear\nwound who carries the Divine Spark as one with a much more *specific*\nrelation to the Christ than Frodo would have." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\n\nI chuckled here because this isn't a great example of your point (which I do\ntake.) Frodo obviously does not have a stigmata or a spear wound in the\nside (he is stabbed in the side by a spear, but his mithril coat deflects\nthe thrust.) But there is specific imagery from the Stations of the Cross\napplied to him--he is wounded three times in the text (stabbed in the\nshoulder, stung by Shelob, and loses his finger) paralleling Christ's three\nfalls carrying the cross. What we're supposed to take from this, of course,\nis that Frodo partakes of the Christ-nature in a very specific way--he is a\ntype of Christ the Cross-bearer, not Christ the Teacher or the Son of God.\n\nLikewise I think Severian might be an attempt to isolate and examine\nChrist's career as a miracle worker uninformed by moral teachings. (It is\nlogical that such a figure would at least have pretentions of being an\ndivine figure.) Silk (in Long Sun, anyway) might be said to be the\nopposite--a great moral teacher and religious/political leader who is not a\nmiracle worker or disguised transcendent being." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Second, I asked, if Severian experiences in TUotNS, as he relates he does,\nat least a glimpse of what it's like to be God/a god/a godling/whatever (I\ndon't see support in the text for useful distinctions between these), then\nwhat does that mean for the work? To this question, I got John's suggestion\nthat Severian's divinity might have been temporary, and Brunian's. It's\nstill open. Is this passage part of TUotNS's New-Sun-for-Dummies role, or\ndoes it tell us something specific, like Severian is divine? is he divine\ntemporarily or inherently? Or am I jumping to conclusions? Perhaps, read\nproperly, it tells us Severian is NOT divine?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \nI think it tells us that Severian is an instrument of the something far\ngreater than himself--it's his experience, one might say, of being\n\"possessed.\" I think there are parallel sequences in That Hideous Strength\nwhen planetary angels possess mortals--Lewis does not thereby posit that\nplanetary intelligences are equivalent to God, but just that to a human\nbeing, the angel is sufficiently above him to induce a numinous experience.\n\n\nWhat I think it doesn't tell us is that Wolfe's conception of the divine in\ncompatible with the flaws in Severian's character. That is too wildly\nimplausible for a writer of Wolfe's background to suggest. My biggest issue\nis not with the idea of interrogating Severian's role as a chosen one, an\ninstrument, or a savior figure--it's with imputing moral sanction to all of\nhis actions and especially the destruction of Urth simply because Wolfe is a\nCatholic and bestows Christ-like attributes to Severian.\n\n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "<498B08B7.2020209@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-02-05T15:41:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<498B059F.1040504@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Right. And for the Man vs Divine crux to really work, we do have to assume the concept of the OTC as Man + Divine, not just Man. \n\nSeverian is 99% just Man. And that 1% is plenty enough divinity.\n\nPer my last post, I can now frame some concrete arguments as to why Severian does not even make it to the level of Arian christ. But I still think it's an interesting comparison (it eliminates the awkward SoG factor, for one thing). \n\nHe is Man only, and he is a Healer, but he is incomplete (or, plainly, ironic) in other ways. He is a Torturer, not tortured. He considers himself a poor student, not a Teacher, and that seems accurate. He is a King, but not a fisher of men. He is probably even more immoral, especially, than even he admits to being. And so on. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMessage: 1\nDate: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:39:20 +0000\nFrom: \"Son of Witz\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies" } ] }, { "message_id": "<93d4039f0902050815t399b182bw86535d7614f5a234@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-05T16:15:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<498B059F.1040504@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:28 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nThat's a very interesting and useful analysis of Frodo---not just the\ncorrespondences, which are easy enough to create/find/project/whatever, but\nthe construction of the orthodox or doctrinaire Christ (let's just call him\nthe OTC, or One True Christ, and assume we are talking about the Catholic\none). ....Thanks, John, this is really useful! For Silk as well, as you\nsuggest." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks! I think about this stuff too much." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As you say, even this momentary experience of divinity could have huge and\nproblematic implications as far as the Increate's implied approval of\nSeverian, his puppetmasters, his crimes, etc. And the stronger the\nconnection, the bigger the problem. I wouldn't want to bring all that in on\nthe strength of this single passage.\n\nYes. I've written before that while I find the general critiques others\nhave written of the Hierowhatevers and their motives compelling, I also keep\ncoming back to the notion, which is more fully developed in Long Sun, of\nevil pretending to be good and advancing the goals of good. Pas is\nTyphon--he's a false god, briefly plays the role of the Devil in the New Sun\nand then has a return appearance as Pontius Pilate--pretty much as obviously\na Bad Guy as anyone in the entire cycle. But Pas pretends to be a good\nguy--the creator-god and god most worthy of worship, and the Outsider's\nplans in the Long Sun series, anyway, dovetail almost entirely with the Plan\nof Pas. Likewise Quetzal is a vampiric inhumu pretending to be a kindly,\nwell-respected religious leader, but aside from his habit of feeding on\nchildren, most of his actions aid the cause of good, and even his final act\nof \"betrayal\" may--*may*--have served the plans of the One True God anyway." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This leads me to suspect that although Severian is a false messiah figure\npropped up by artificial insectoid lifeforms pretending to be angels in\norder to advance their eugenic goals, he is *also *the instrument of the\nIncreate. This renders the destruction of Urth *not *a perfectly justified,\ndivinely ordained slaughter *but rather *some kind of *felix culpa*.\n\nOr so I suspect. I have no idea what the mechanics of such a plot actually\nare--I can't answer \"what's so great about Ushas.\" I simply assume that\nthere's something deeper going on that I've missed, possibly having to do\nwith the Green Man, possibly (although I'm not convinced of this) having to\ndo with the plot of Short Sun." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:33:46 -0500\nFrom: John Watkins \nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID:\n <93d4039f0902040833n8443ab2p994f575480ab07c8 at mail.gmail.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"iso-8859-1\"\n\nOn Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 11:17 AM, David Stockhoff ", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-05T17:17:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<93d4039f0902050815t399b182bw86535d7614f5a234@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: John Watkins [mailto:john.watkins04 at gmail.com]\nSent: Thursday, February 5, 2009 07:23 AM\nTo: 'The Urth Mailing List'\nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\n\nOn Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Son of Witz wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I certainly don't care to argue about what any of us here believe, but\ndiscussing different interpretations of texts, Wolfe's or those that\ninformed Wolfe, are FAIR GAME. I'm not presenting myself as better than any Catholics here. I made a critique about an institution's problems. Can't I?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, no, you really shouldn't, because a) your opinion about the\nhistorical consequences of the Filioque is irrelevant, as far as I can tell,\nto anything Wolfe has ever written, and b) it pollutes the list because\nnaturally Catholics will want to defend themselves and their Church.\nHair-pulling to get a reaction, well, gets reactions. That's why it doesn't\nbelong." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": ":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\n\nYou can't critique ANYTHING without SOMEONE getting offended.\n\nB first) \"Hair-pulling to get a reaction\" what, so you're saying I'm a troll, just spouting BS to get a reaction? Wrong dude. I'm way to earnest to be a troll, and I don't throw things out just for reactions, unless I'm making a joke. I'm genuinely sorry people's feelings are hurt, but I'm not sorry about any of my views.\n\nA) My opinion about the historical consequences of the Filioque may be irrelevant, fair enough, but that was not the meat of my point. The concept of the Filioque (itself, not it's perceived consequences) is relevant to the discussion of Wolfe's writing. I brought up the Filioque because every time I've come to this list with my ideas about Severian and Christ, people here, Catholics and others, have sort of trashed my ideas based on a sort of \"official understanding\" of Christ. (as a current post said \"(let's just call him the OTC, or One True Christ, and assume we are talking about the Catholic one). \" Well, that's a fine assumption for some, to assume that you've got the bead on understanding Christ, and I guess everything that doesn't fit that is obviously poppycock. \n\nI brought up the Filioque for two main reasons. \nFirst, to demonstrate that even the Catholic view has been historically questioned, even to the point of being called Heresy, and that the Catholic view has MODIFIED itself over time, changing it's very creed. \nSecondly, which no one has touched, that the nature of the Filioque CHANGES the shape of the our understanding of Christ. It changes the Trinity from a triangle into a flat, hierarchical line. A few simple words and an entire foundational structure has been dramatically altered. That foundational structure is the very understanding of who or what Christ is. \n\nNow, I question how much Wolfe's writing should be viewed through the lens of strict Catholicism. He's got the Pope, or Bishop of Viron as a vampire leading people to their doom. Hello? He feeds on children. Hello?\nHe's got a Torturer as a Christ figure who eventually ends up becoming the myth that shaped him, and to embody and give voice to that myth, he cites a derivative play as his source material. It's almost a farce. He's got a Eucharist that involves exhuming and eating corpses. Real Kosher stuff.\n\nBut if that's not relevant enough for you all, I suggest you ignore me and go back to important stuff like \"Would there be shadows in the valleys of the Whorl?\" and the mechanics of the Shade. Heavy stuff there. deeply relevant.\n\nGo Team.\n~SonOfWitz" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370902050950j7b833c63t8372125eec90a15d@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-05T17:50:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Son of Witz wrote:\nYou can't critique ANYTHING without SOMEONE getting offended." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's a wide space between \"critiquing\" and (a) calling people heretics\nand (b) dragging painful stuff like the sexual abuse scandals into the\ndiscussion at a point where they aren't relevant." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "B first) \"Hair-pulling to get a reaction\" what, so you're saying I'm a troll,\njust spouting BS to get a reaction?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I at least am _not_ calling you a troll. You've made some interesing\nand useful comments on the list in the past.\n\nBut your current contribution is not among them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm genuinely sorry people's feelings are hurt, but I'm not sorry about\nany of my views." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To bring things directly into the scope of Godwin's Law:\n\n\"I'm sorry all those Jews got killed, but I'm not sorry about my anti-Semitism.\"\n\nYou've been coming across in the recent discussion as someone with\na serious grudge against the Roman church. Well, you're allowed to have\none -- but remember that Wolfe attracts Catholic readers, and understand\nthat anti-Catholic rhetoric is going to be hurtful to those people.\n\nAnd take _responsibility_ for the consequences of your words.\n\n\\> A) My opinion about the historical consequences of the Filioque may" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "be irrelevant, fair enough, but that was not the meat of my point. The\nconcept of the Filioque (itself, not it's perceived consequences) is\nrelevant to the discussion of Wolfe's writing. I brought up the Filioque\nbecause every time I've come to this list with my ideas about Severian\nand Christ, people here, Catholics and others, have sort of trashed my\nideas based on a sort of \"official understanding\" of Christ. (as a\ncurrent post said \"(let's just call him the OTC, or One True Christ, and\nassume we are talking about the Catholic one). \" Well, that's a fine\nassumption for some, to assume that you've got the bead on\nunderstanding Christ, and I guess everything that doesn't fit that is\nobviously poppycock." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That wasn't me.\n\nBut:\n\nIf you want to talk about how *Wolfe* understands Christ, I believe\nyou have to at least start from a Catholic Christology (as well as\nsoteriology, moral theology, etc.).\n\nThat's where he seems to start." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I brought up the Filioque for two main reasons.\nFirst, to demonstrate that even the Catholic view has been historically\nquestioned, even to the point of being called Heresy, and that the\nCatholic view has MODIFIED itself over time, changing it's very creed." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Catholic church does not deny this. In fact, it's a part of the\nMagisterium (teaching authority) of the RCC, called \"the development\nof doctrine.\" The RCC, arrogant as it may be, is *not* arrogant enough\nto believe that it knows everything.\n\nTwo examples:\n\n1. Yep, the Church condemned Galileo. Later, it admitted that it was\nwrong, and in fact sponsors some of the most important observatories\nin the world today (as well as officially accepting evolution as\nconsistent with its theology -- indeed, *condemning* the view that\nthe Earth *must* have been made in 7 24-hour days as \"trying to\nconstrain God's freedom in how to create\" or something like that).\n\n2. All that business about the Inquisition? Well, the Church still\nbelieves that heresy and error have no rights. *But*, and this is\nan important nuance to the above, *those who hold to* heresy\nand error *do* have rights. Thus, the Inquisition was a mistake\nin moral theology. Again, this is how the Church views its own\nhistory.\n\nSo, yes, the Roman church has modified its views and its\ntheology over time. This is called _humility_." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Secondly, which no one has touched, that the nature of\nthe Filioque CHANGES the shape of the our understanding of\nChrist. It changes the Trinity from a triangle into a flat,\nhierarchical line." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All I can say is, that's not the Christology I was taught.\n\nTo say that the Holy Spirit \"proceeds from the Father and the\nSon\" rather than \"with the Son\" may invert the triangle, so\nthat it points down instead of up, but it doesn't flatten it.\n\nI'm not a trained theologian, but how I understand it is that\nthe Father begets the Son, and the Spirit, as the active\nand living Love between them, \"proceeds from\" them.\n\nOr something like that.\n\nFrankly, I think it's arrogant of *both* Eastern and Western\nchurches to think they understand the mystery of the\nTrinity well enough to call the other's understanding wrong." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now, I question how much Wolfe's writing should be viewed through the\nlens of strict Catholicism. He's got the Pope, or Bishop of Viron as a\nvampire leading people to their doom. Hello? He feeds on children. Hello?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "First, Quetzal is *not* a Pope figure; his authority is only over the city\nof Viron, which (despite being the focus of our story) is not, apparently,\na particularly special city on the Whorl.\n\nSecond, there's a long-standing tradition *in* the Catholic church that\nthe last Pope will be an anti-Pope who will lead the Church into evil.\nQuetzal seems to fit that idea." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "He's got a Torturer as a Christ figure" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"I bring not peace but a sword...\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "who eventually ends up becoming the myth that shaped him, and\nto embody and give voice to that myth, he cites a derivative play\nas his source material. It's almost a farce. He's got a Eucharist\nthat involves exhuming and eating corpses. Real Kosher stuff." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Severian is *not* a Christ. I believe most of us have agreed on that.\n(Hi, David.)" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-05T18:35:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370902050950j7b833c63t8372125eec90a15d@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes [mailto:danldo at gmail.com]\nSent: Thursday, February 5, 2009 09:50 AM" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You can't critique ANYTHING without SOMEONE getting offended." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There's a wide space between \"critiquing\" and (a) calling people heretics\nand (b) dragging painful stuff like the sexual abuse scandals into the\ndiscussion at a point where they aren't relevant." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": ":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\n\nI didn't call anyone here heretics. I said many Orthodox I've met consider Catholics heretics. I'm not Christian. I've made clear that my own ideas are much more heretical than the Catholic take on things.\n\nI'm very sorry, dear Catholic list members, if I have offended YOU personally while trying to discuss a decision your church made over 800 years ago.\n\n\"Dragging painful stuff\"... I guess one word about \"Priest/Rapists\" was one word too much.\n\n\n::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "B first) \"Hair-pulling to get a reaction\" what, so you're saying I'm a troll,\njust spouting BS to get a reaction?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, I at least am _not_ calling you a troll. You've made some interesing\nand useful comments on the list in the past.\n\nBut your current contribution is not among them." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\n\nThanks. \n:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'm genuinely sorry people's feelings are hurt, but I'm not sorry about\nany of my views." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To bring things directly into the scope of Godwin's Law:\n\n\"I'm sorry all those Jews got killed, but I'm not sorry about my anti-Semitism.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\n\nUm. Give me a break. I haven't HATED on anyone or anything here. I've made a minor critique as a discussion point. To equate that with Anti-Semitism is disgusting and way overblown.\n::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You've been coming across in the recent discussion as someone with\na serious grudge against the Roman church. Well, you're allowed to have\none -- but remember that Wolfe attracts Catholic readers, and understand\nthat anti-Catholic rhetoric is going to be hurtful to those people." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\n\nI do have issues with the Catholic Church, and thanks for realizing I'm allowed to have them. It should be noted that at almost any comment I've made about the RCC in the past, I've tried to give a nod of respect to the Catholics. I don't conflate worshippers with the church fathers, or whatever they should be properly called.\n\n:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And take _responsibility_ for the consequences of your words." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": ":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\n\nI do, which is why I'm trying to clarify my points and have apologized for inadvertently offending anyone. I don't mean to drag the subject on, but people got all up in my face about it, so I'm trying to explain myself.\n::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If you want to talk about how *Wolfe* understands Christ, I believe\nyou have to at least start from a Catholic Christology (as well as\nsoteriology, moral theology, etc.).\n\nThat's where he seems to start." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\nGood if that works for you. I don't think it's necessary to start there. How can anyone START with an understanding they don't have?\n:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I brought up the Filioque for two main reasons.\nFirst, to demonstrate that even the Catholic view has been historically\nquestioned, even to the point of being called Heresy, and that the\nCatholic view has MODIFIED itself over time, changing it's very creed." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The Catholic church does not deny this. In fact, it's a part of the\nMagisterium (teaching authority) of the RCC, called \"the development\nof doctrine.\" The RCC, arrogant as it may be, is *not* arrogant enough\nto believe that it knows everything.\n\nTwo examples:\n\n1. Yep, the Church condemned Galileo. Later, it admitted that it was\nwrong, and in fact sponsors some of the most important observatories\nin the world today (as well as officially accepting evolution as\nconsistent with its theology -- indeed, *condemning* the view that\nthe Earth *must* have been made in 7 24-hour days as \"trying to\nconstrain God's freedom in how to create\" or something like that).\n\n2. All that business about the Inquisition? Well, the Church still\nbelieves that heresy and error have no rights. *But*, and this is\nan important nuance to the above, *those who hold to* heresy\nand error *do* have rights. Thus, the Inquisition was a mistake\nin moral theology. Again, this is how the Church views its own\nhistory.\n\nSo, yes, the Roman church has modified its views and its\ntheology over time. This is called _humility_." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\nOr call it \"saving face\"\nI'm certainly glad the Church views the Inquisition as a moral mistake. \nWonder what they think about the Crusades.\n:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Secondly, which no one has touched, that the nature of\nthe Filioque CHANGES the shape of the our understanding of\nChrist. It changes the Trinity from a triangle into a flat,\nhierarchical line." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All I can say is, that's not the Christology I was taught." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": ":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\nI wasn't taught any Christology. This idea is my own, but I think there is something to it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To say that the Holy Spirit \"proceeds from the Father and the\nSon\" rather than \"with the Son\" may invert the triangle, so\nthat it points down instead of up, but it doesn't flatten it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\nI see your point about inversion rather than flattening. Well noted.\n\n::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm not a trained theologian, but how I understand it is that\nthe Father begets the Son, and the Spirit, as the active\nand living Love between them, \"proceeds from\" them.\n\nOr something like that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\nSomething like that. I'm no theologian either.\n\n:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Frankly, I think it's arrogant of *both* Eastern and Western\nchurches to think they understand the mystery of the\nTrinity well enough to call the other's understanding wrong." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\n\nJust make sure you're not lumping me in with that. Pointing out that Party X thinks such and such of Party Y, is not the same as saying \"I'm with Party X\"\nI think ANYONE who says they've got God figured out to the exclusion of other figurings is just completely full of BS.\n\n::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Now, I question how much Wolfe's writing should be viewed through the\nlens of strict Catholicism. He's got the Pope, or Bishop of Viron as a\nvampire leading people to their doom. Hello? He feeds on children. Hello?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "First, Quetzal is *not* a Pope figure; his authority is only over the city\nof Viron, which (despite being the focus of our story) is not, apparently,\na particularly special city on the Whorl." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": ":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\n\nSorry, he maps to Pope or Bishop of the Church that is in Viron. Maybe it's only a small church, but he's the head of it. The Pope of Rome would still be Pope even if only Rome was in the church, right?\n\n:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Second, there's a long-standing tradition *in* the Catholic church that\nthe last Pope will be an anti-Pope who will lead the Church into evil.\nQuetzal seems to fit that idea." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": ":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\nYeah, that's interesting.\n\n::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "He's got a Torturer as a Christ figure" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"I bring not peace but a sword...\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "who eventually ends up becoming the myth that shaped him, and\nto embody and give voice to that myth, he cites a derivative play\nas his source material. It's almost a farce. He's got a Eucharist\nthat involves exhuming and eating corpses. Real Kosher stuff." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Severian is *not* a Christ. I believe most of us have agreed on that.\n(Hi, David.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": ":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\nI'm less inclined to read Severian as Christ after discussion here, if only because it's so problematic for \"True Believers\", but I've not really agreed on the reasons why. I mean, how is Frodo more Christlike than Severian? 3 wounds? or something. That hardly stacks up against Severian's correspondences. Most of the complaints center on Morals and Divinity, which to be sure, aren't really characteristics of Severian.\n\nThanks for your thoughtful response, Dan'l.\n\n~SonOfWitz" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20090205195934.GL5021@broggs.org>", "from": { "name": "Jeffrey Brent McBeth", "address": "mcbeth at broggs.org" }, "date": "2009-02-05T19:59:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370902050950j7b833c63t8372125eec90a15d@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 09:50:50AM -0800, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\nTo say that the Holy Spirit \"proceeds from the Father and the\nSon\" rather than \"with the Son\" may invert the triangle, so\nthat it points down instead of up, but it doesn't flatten it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Rotates may be a better term than inverts, due to each corner having\nits identity :)\n\nJeff" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over \n the man who cannot read them.\"\n -- Mark Twain\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370902051206k40d0e693lc1921b5ec312f298@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-05T20:06:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<20090205195934.GL5021@broggs.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Jeffrey Brent McBeth wrote:\nRotates may be a better term than inverts, due to each corner having\nits identity :)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "True -- and \"invert\" seems gravitically-bound, which would not be\napplicable to a Being outside of spacetime. Also, the three \"vertices\"\nare coequal, so it doesn't matter which way is \"up.\"\n\nBut we digress." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<498B5835.50805@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-02-05T21:20:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370902051206k40d0e693lc1921b5ec312f298@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Matthew-\n\nI know this is OT, but I hadn't heard that. I do recall hearing something about an Austrian seminary that was just as you described. If you could provide some kind of source I'd appreciate it. If not, no biggie. I don't want to derail further.\n\nI don't think Witz was trolling, btw. But I do question his divine origin. \n\nIncidentally, the Catholic Church has been called a whore before---and I think it survived. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:24:16 -0600\nFrom: Matthew King \nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfean theologies\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID:\n\t\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1\n\nOn Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Matthew King wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\n\nI should add that I'm not responding to the other Matthew, but to\nthose who attack the Roman Catholic church. I'll go even farther than\nhe did and say that the discipline of celibacy is not at fault here,\nbut rather the positive and pronounced efforts of some American Roman\nCatholic priests to recruit men afflicted with sexual attraction to\nother men. It is also hardly secret that many seminaries harass and\ndiscourage men who do not play along.\n\n\n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "<498C012B.70209@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2009-02-06T09:21:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<1661202702.20090204204405@poczta.fm>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Stanislaus B. wrote:\nGod is categorically different from all other things which exists\n(including gods/divinities/godlings/angels/saints). God is the\nfundamental ground of all existence, outside the world, space and\ntime. Whatever exists, exists because of God. Moreover, no words\nwhich can be used to describe any other things can be rightly used\nabout God. In fact, saying that God exists, is good, wise, powerful\netc is in a sense untrue - all those words do not describe God\ncorrectly.\n\nFor that reason saying that Severian is Christ makes no sense. Even\nsaying that Severian resembles Christ is meaningless if you do not\nunderstand that categorical difference." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't see how this indescribability can extend to Christ; isn't the \nwhole point of Christianity that Christ is the personally accessible \npart of the Deity?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<93d4039f0902060359q70991da2v30d83c6dcbb5334f@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-06T11:59:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<498C012B.70209@io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No doubt Stanislaus meant that Christ's divine nature is in this sense\nunknowable. As Jeff observes, part of the point of Christianity is\nthat Christ is not simply divine, but possesses two natures. Christ's\nhuman nature, in and of itself, is as describable as any other human\nnature." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 2/6/09, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nStanislaus B. wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "God is categorically different from all other things which exists\n(including gods/divinities/godlings/angels/saints). God is the\nfundamental ground of all existence, outside the world, space and\ntime. Whatever exists, exists because of God. Moreover, no words\nwhich can be used to describe any other things can be rightly used\nabout God. In fact, saying that God exists, is good, wise, powerful\netc is in a sense untrue - all those words do not describe God\ncorrectly.\n\nFor that reason saying that Severian is Christ makes no sense. Even\nsaying that Severian resembles Christ is meaningless if you do not\nunderstand that categorical difference." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't see how this indescribability can extend to Christ; isn't the\nwhole point of Christianity that Christ is the personally accessible\npart of the Deity?\n\n--\nJeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<83ce1d850902060656o34198d61l6e3feb62060f7b44@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Ryan Bonneville", "address": "ryan.bonneville at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-06T14:56:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<93d4039f0902060359q70991da2v30d83c6dcbb5334f@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No doubt Stanislaus meant that Christ's divine nature is in this sense\nunknowable. As Jeff observes, part of the point of Christianity is\nthat Christ is not simply divine, but possesses two natures. Christ's\nhuman nature, in and of itself, is as describable as any other human\nnature." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's also a pretty sloppy way to do literary analysis. Christ's divinity is\nattributed to Him and explicated by means of a textual analysis. There is\nno reason at all that we could not perform a comparison with Severian." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In fact, saying that God exists, is good, wise, powerful\netc is in a sense untrue - all those words do not describe God\ncorrectly." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is nutty. I'm not really interested in getting into a theology debate\n- we've had enough of that lately - but if we take this to be true, then\ntalking about God simply makes no sense at all. We're doing literary\nanalysis here; ruling out of bounds a discussion based on the ineffability\nof one of the points of comparison probably means we need to change the\npoint of comparison.\n\n\nWe are comparing Severian to two beings/a being whose nature we grasp\nprimarily through a text. There is nothing the least bit problematic about\nthat." } ] }, { "message_id": "<93d4039f0902060705s1bb8fec1j547091f5df16dd1e@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-06T15:05:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<83ce1d850902060656o34198d61l6e3feb62060f7b44@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Ryan Bonneville\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In fact, saying that God exists, is good, wise, powerful\netc is in a sense untrue - all those words do not describe God\ncorrectly." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is nutty. I'm not really interested in getting into a theology debate\n- we've had enough of that lately - but if we take this to be true, then\ntalking about God simply makes no sense at all. We're doing literary\nanalysis here; ruling out of bounds a discussion based on the ineffability\nof one of the points of comparison probably means we need to change the\npoint of comparison." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I broadly agree. The words \"in a sense\" are doing a lot of lifting in that\nparagraph. People who talk about God usually simply nod to the fact that\nthe words they use will not be precisely correct and then do the best they\ncan." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<498C5694.3070806@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2009-02-06T15:26:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<93d4039f0902060359q70991da2v30d83c6dcbb5334f@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "John Watkins wrote:\nNo doubt Stanislaus meant that Christ's divine nature is in this sense\nunknowable. As Jeff observes, part of the point of Christianity is\nthat Christ is not simply divine, but possesses two natures. Christ's\nhuman nature, in and of itself, is as describable as any other human\nnature." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not just having a human nature, but bridging the gap between mankind and \nGod; the Outsider's extension into the mortal realm. \"God and sinners \nreconciled.\"\n\nI'm not sure what the point of the story about the angel and the eagle, \netc. really is intended to be. Angel is the English word that takes the \nplace of the Greek angelos, \"messenger\", and someone bearing a message \nwhose provenance is \"I just guessed\", is no messenger at all." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<93d4039f0902060739i39b90d9eu965595dd3eef583e@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-06T15:39:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<498C5694.3070806@io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\n\nI'm not sure what the point of the story about the angel and the eagle,\netc. really is intended to be. Angel is the English word that takes the\nplace of the Greek angelos, \"messenger\", and someone bearing a message whose\nprovenance is \"I just guessed\", is no messenger at all." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I take it that that is the point. The so-called \"angels\" of the story are\nnot angels. They are aliens. Contrast them with the \"messengers\" in \"The\nQueen\" or Michael in The Wizard Knight." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--\n Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-06T16:43:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<93d4039f0902060739i39b90d9eu965595dd3eef583e@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Ryan Bonneville [mailto:ryan.bonneville at gmail.com]\nSent: Friday, February 6, 2009 06:56 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Indescribable Christ?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No doubt Stanislaus meant that Christ's divine nature is in this sense\nunknowable. As Jeff observes, part of the point of Christianity is\nthat Christ is not simply divine, but possesses two natures. Christ's\nhuman nature, in and of itself, is as describable as any other human\nnature." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's also a pretty sloppy way to do literary analysis. Christ's divinity is\nattributed to Him and explicated by means of a textual analysis. There is\nno reason at all that we could not perform a comparison with Severian." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In fact, saying that God exists, is good, wise, powerful\netc is in a sense untrue - all those words do not describe God\ncorrectly." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is nutty. I'm not really interested in getting into a theology debate\n- we've had enough of that lately - but if we take this to be true, then\ntalking about God simply makes no sense at all. We're doing literary\nanalysis here; ruling out of bounds a discussion based on the ineffability\nof one of the points of comparison probably means we need to change the\npoint of comparison.\n\n\nWe are comparing Severian to two beings/a being whose nature we grasp\nprimarily through a text. There is nothing the least bit problematic about\nthat." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I completely agree. I've understood it as GOD, the Godhead, is indescribable, but that inaccessibility is the main reason for Jesus to be. To give us a path. This is where the Logos comes in as that which reconciles God and Man. What's Jesus say about finding the Father only through me, or such. The Logos is the bridge. And we've been comparing texts and exegesis about to characters that may or may not be incarnations of the Logos.\n\nBut while we can talk and argue about texts and exegesis all day long, as we have, I do agree with the gist of Stanslaus's post. Which is that God is truly indescribable. Anyone not framing their attempts at description with there failure at hitting the mark strikes me as a fraud. I particularly like the practice of using double negatives for God. \"God is not impotent\" rather than \"God is all powerful\" there are better examples to be had, but as a mental framing discipline, it seems like good practice. \n\n~witz" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1804490406.20090206213257@poczta.fm>", "from": { "name": "Stanislaus B.", "address": "sbocian at poczta.fm" }, "date": "2009-02-06T20:32:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<93d4039f0902060739i39b90d9eu965595dd3eef583e@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: " } ] }, { "message_id": "<003e01c988b3$a4e89800$35d24a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2009-02-06T23:35:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "\"Son of Witz\" wrote:\nI completely agree. I've understood it as GOD, the Godhead, is\nindescribable, but that inaccessibility is the main reason for Jesus to be." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To give us a path. This is where the Logos comes in as that which\nreconciles God and Man. What's Jesus say about finding the Father only\nthrough me, or such. The Logos is the bridge. And we've been comparing texts\nand exegesis about to characters that may or may not be incarnations of the\nLogos.<<<\n--------------------------\n\nThis subject is tiresome and has been done to death over the years, and\nleads nowhere. People are talking past each other, as ever. I should stay\nout of it. But I will make an appeal to the text.\n\nAt issue here is whether or not Severian is in any meaningful sense a\nmanifestation of the Christ, rather than someone who merely has Christ-like,\nor Christic (as I believe someone here once termed it) qualities. The\ndifference is unimportant to some, but to Christians (which I am not) it is\nparamount.\n\nIn the Christian mythos, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was, and\never will be, a *unique* event. As such, it can never be replicated--to do\nso would cheapen the magnitude of the supreme sacrifice. This distinguishes\nJesus from the many cyclical dying-and-resurrecting gods we are familiar\nwith.\n\nWhile it is true that there are correspondences between the lives of Jesus\nand Severian, it is equally true that Severian manifests the qualities of\na -- well, duh! -- generic sun god, but that doesn't make him Mithra, or any\nof the others.\n\nAs for Severian the Conciliator being the same as Jesus, the \"bridge\" that\nreconciles Man and God, he is *not*. He is a conciliator between Man and the\nHierogrammates, as the text makes clear.\n\nShortly after his being returned to Urth in Typhon's era, the villagers\ncomplained to Severian about the cold weather (occasioned by the sun's\nrecent decline) that had ruined their crops in recent years, saying \"The sky\npeople are angry with us.\" He explained:\n_________________\n\"The sky people-the Hierodules and Hierarchs-do not hate us. It is only that\nthey are remote from us, and they fear us because of things we did before,\nlong ago when our race was young. I have gone to them.\" I watched the\nvillagers' expressionless faces, wondering whether any of them would believe\nme. \"I have effected a conciliation-brought them nearer us and us nearer\nthem, I think. They've sent me back.\" (URTH, chap. XXIX, p.-204)\n__________________\n\nIt can be argued -- and it has been -- whether or not the Hierogrammates\nwere acting on orders from On High, or even that they only *believed* they\nwere doing God's will, willingly or unwillingly, but the textual fact of the\nmatter is that Severian, the Conciliator, was a bridge between Man and the\nHierogrammates, not Man and God.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370902061549nb6a3fb5pd4e98605bcd1a5ea@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-06T23:49:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<003e01c988b3$a4e89800$35d24a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I hate to post just to say \"well said\" -- but, Roy, that was well said." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<373173.22564.qm@web180002.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "John Smith", "address": "jsmith2627 at att.net" }, "date": "2009-02-07T00:07:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<003e01c988b3$a4e89800$35d24a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "--- On Fri, 2/6/09, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nFrom: Roy C. Lackey \nSubject: Re: (urth) Indescribable Christ?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Friday, February 6, 2009, 6:35 PM\n\n\nThis subject is tiresome and has been done to death over the years, and\nleads nowhere. People are talking past each other, as ever. I should stay\nout of it. But I will make an appeal to the text.\n\nAt issue here is whether or not Severian is in any meaningful sense a\nmanifestation of the Christ, rather than someone who merely has Christ-like,\nor Christic (as I believe someone here once termed it) qualities. The\ndifference is unimportant to some, but to Christians (which I am not) it is\nparamount.\n\n\n\nAmen. I disagee only with \"to Christians it is paramount.\" Most Christians are concerned with the message of Christ, not hair-splitting theological arguments.\n\nBest wishes,\nJack" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "palaeologos at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-07T00:29:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<373173.22564.qm@web180002.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:07 PM, John Smith wrote:\n\n\n--- On *Fri, 2/6/09, Roy C. Lackey * wrote:\n\nFrom: Roy C. Lackey \nSubject: Re: (urth) Indescribable Christ?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Friday, February 6, 2009, 6:35 PM\n\n\nThis subject is tiresome and has been done to death over the years, and\nleads nowhere. People are talking past each other, as ever. I should stay\nout of it. But I will make an appeal to the text.\n\nAt issue here is whether or not Severian is in any meaningful sense a\nmanifestation of the Christ, rather than someone who merely has Christ-like,\nor Christic (as I believe someone here once termed it) qualities. The\ndifference is unimportant to some, but\n to Christians (which I am not) it is\nparamount.\n\n\n\nAmen. I disagee only with \"to Christians it is paramount.\" Most Christians are concerned with the message of Christ, not hair-splitting theological arguments.\n\nBest wishes,\nJack" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Jack, you speak of theology as though you think it and the \"message\" of\nChristianity (whatever that is supposed to mean; for the Apostles it was the\nempty tomb) are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, your statement appears to\nhave as its primary object your assertion of superiority over those who\nengage in \"hair-splitting theological arguments\".\n\nChristology as a focus of controversy has cooled a great deal since the 5th\ncentury, but most Christian bodies consider it an essential part of the\nfaith; the catechisms of the largest Christian churches all address it.\nClearly, quite a few people consider it important.\n\nSimple arithmetic suffices for most of my mathematical needs. I find\ncomplex geometry obscure, but that's not justification for me to conclude\nthat it's useless. Math, like religion, is bigger than my experience and my\nspecial feelings." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Matt +\n\nDemocracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and\ndisorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.\nPlato (c. 428-348 B.C.), The Republic, bk. VIII, 558-C" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-07T00:46:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy, I wasn't trying to argue Severian as Christ again.\nyou mention the nature of the Conciliator according to the text. here's one you may have forgotten:\nfrom Chap XXI of Sword:\n\"\"Then his task was to forge a peace between humanity and the Increate, and he was called the Conciliator. He left behind a famous relic, a gem called the Claw.\"\"\n\nThat explanation comes long before any of the UotNS Hierogrammate explanations, so it sort of sticks in my brain.\n\nand, Matthew Weber wrote:\n\nJack, you speak of theology as though you think it and the \"message\" of Christianity (whatever that is supposed to mean; for the Apostles it was the empty tomb) are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, your statement appears to have as its primary object your assertion of superiority over those who engage in \"hair-splitting theological arguments\". \n\nChristology as a focus of controversy has cooled a great deal since the 5th century, but most Christian bodies consider it an essential part of the faith; the catechisms of the largest Christian churches all address it. Clearly, quite a few people consider it important.\n\nSimple arithmetic suffices for most of my mathematical needs. I find complex geometry obscure, but that's not justification for me to conclude that it's useless. Math, like religion, is bigger than my experience and my special feelings." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Matt +\n\nTo which I must reply, \"Well said\".\n\n~have a nice weekend y'all.\n~Witz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Roy C. Lackey [mailto:rclackey at stic.net]\nSent: Friday, February 6, 2009 03:35 PM\nTo: 'The Urth Mailing List'\nSubject: Re: (urth) Indescribable Christ?\n\n\"Son of Witz\" wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I completely agree. I've understood it as GOD, the Godhead, is\nindescribable, but that inaccessibility is the main reason for Jesus to be." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To give us a path. This is where the Logos comes in as that which\nreconciles God and Man. What's Jesus say about finding the Father only\nthrough me, or such. The Logos is the bridge. And we've been comparing texts\nand exegesis about to characters that may or may not be incarnations of the\nLogos.<<<\n--------------------------\n\nThis subject is tiresome and has been done to death over the years, and\nleads nowhere. People are talking past each other, as ever. I should stay\nout of it. But I will make an appeal to the text.\n\nAt issue here is whether or not Severian is in any meaningful sense a\nmanifestation of the Christ, rather than someone who merely has Christ-like,\nor Christic (as I believe someone here once termed it) qualities. The\ndifference is unimportant to some, but to Christians (which I am not) it is\nparamount.\n\nIn the Christian mythos, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was, and\never will be, a *unique* event. As such, it can never be replicated--to do\nso would cheapen the magnitude of the supreme sacrifice. This distinguishes\nJesus from the many cyclical dying-and-resurrecting gods we are familiar\nwith.\n\nWhile it is true that there are correspondences between the lives of Jesus\nand Severian, it is equally true that Severian manifests the qualities of\na -- well, duh! -- generic sun god, but that doesn't make him Mithra, or any\nof the others.\n\nAs for Severian the Conciliator being the same as Jesus, the \"bridge\" that\nreconciles Man and God, he is *not*. He is a conciliator between Man and the\nHierogrammates, as the text makes clear.\n\nShortly after his being returned to Urth in Typhon's era, the villagers\ncomplained to Severian about the cold weather (occasioned by the sun's\nrecent decline) that had ruined their crops in recent years, saying \"The sky\npeople are angry with us.\" He explained:\n_________________\n\"The sky people-the Hierodules and Hierarchs-do not hate us. It is only that\nthey are remote from us, and they fear us because of things we did before,\nlong ago when our race was young. I have gone to them.\" I watched the\nvillagers' expressionless faces, wondering whether any of them would believe\nme. \"I have effected a conciliation-brought them nearer us and us nearer\nthem, I think. They've sent me back.\" (URTH, chap. XXIX, p.-204)\n__________________\n\nIt can be argued -- and it has been -- whether or not the Hierogrammates\nwere acting on orders from On High, or even that they only *believed* they\nwere doing God's will, willingly or unwillingly, but the textual fact of the\nmatter is that Severian, the Conciliator, was a bridge between Man and the\nHierogrammates, not Man and God.\n\n-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Bob Miller", "address": "bob_bageera at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-07T12:33:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Matt, I admire the elegance of your phraseology. Thank you.\nBob" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Christology as a focus of controversy has cooled a great deal since the 5th century, but most Christian bodies consider it an essential part of the faith; the catechisms of the largest Christian churches all address it. Clearly, quite a few people consider it important.\n\nSimple arithmetic suffices for most of my mathematical needs. I find complex geometry obscure, but that's not justification for me to conclude that it's useless. Math, like religion, is bigger than my experience and my special feelings.\n\n-- \nMatt +\n\nTo which I must reply, \"Well said\".\n\n~have a nice weekend y'all.\n~Witz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Roy C. Lackey [mailto:rclackey at stic.net]\nSent: Friday, February 6, 2009 03:35 PM\nTo: 'The Urth Mailing List'\nSubject: Re: (urth) Indescribable Christ?\n\n\"Son of Witz\" wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "I completely agree. I've understood it as GOD, the Godhead, is\nindescribable, but that inaccessibility is the main reason for Jesus to be." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "To give us a path. This is where the Logos comes in as that which\nreconciles God and Man. What's Jesus say about finding the Father only\nthrough me, or such. The Logos is the bridge. And we've been comparing texts\nand exegesis about to characters that may or may not be incarnations of the\nLogos.<<<\n--------------------------\n\nThis subject is tiresome and has been done to death over the years, and\nleads nowhere. People are talking past each other, as ever. I should stay\nout of it. But I will make an appeal to the text.\n\nAt issue here is whether or not Severian is in any meaningful sense a\nmanifestation of the Christ, rather than someone who merely has Christ-like,\nor Christic (as I believe someone here once termed it) qualities. The\ndifference is unimportant to some, but to Christians (which I am not) it is\nparamount.\n\nIn the Christian mythos, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was, and\never will be, a *unique* event. As such, it can never be replicated--to do\nso would cheapen the magnitude of the supreme sacrifice. This distinguishes\nJesus from the many cyclical dying-and-resurrecting gods we are familiar\nwith.\n\nWhile it is true that there are correspondences between the lives of Jesus\nand Severian, it is equally true that Severian manifests the qualities of\na -- well, duh! -- generic sun god, but that doesn't make him Mithra, or any\nof the others.\n\nAs for Severian the Conciliator being the same as Jesus, the \"bridge\" that\nreconciles Man and God, he is *not*. He is a conciliator between Man and the\nHierogrammates, as the text makes clear.\n\nShortly after his being returned to Urth in Typhon's era, the villagers\ncomplained to Severian about the cold weather (occasioned by the sun's\nrecent decline) that had ruined their crops in recent years, saying \"The sky\npeople are angry with us.\" He explained:\n_________________\n\"The sky people-the Hierodules and Hierarchs-do not hate us. It is only that\nthey are remote from us, and they fear us because of things we did before,\nlong ago when our race was young. I have gone to them.\" I watched the\nvillagers' expressionless faces, wondering whether any of them would believe\nme. \"I have effected a conciliation-brought them nearer us and us nearer\nthem, I think. They've sent me back.\" (URTH, chap. XXIX, p.-204)\n__________________\n\nIt can be argued -- and it has been -- whether or not the Hierogrammates\nwere acting on orders from On High, or even that they only *believed* they\nwere doing God's will, willingly or unwillingly, but the textual fact of the\nmatter is that Severian, the Conciliator, was a bridge between Man and the\nHierogrammates, not Man and God.\n\n-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Bob Miller", "address": "bob_bageera at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-07T13:17:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "<498B5835.50805@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Matthew-\n\nI know this is OT, but I hadn't heard that. I do recall hearing something about an Austrian seminary that was just as you described. If you could provide some kind of source I'd appreciate it. If not, no biggie. I don't want to derail further." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Incidentally, the Catholic Church has been called a whore before---and I think it survived. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I should add that I'm not responding to the other Matthew, but to\nthose who attack the Roman Catholic church. I'll go even farther than\nhe did and say that the discipline of celibacy is not at fault here,\nbut rather the positive and pronounced efforts of some American Roman\nCatholic priests to recruit men afflicted with sexual attraction to\nother men. It is also hardly secret that many seminaries harass and\ndiscourage men who do not play along.\n\n\n------------------------------" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not having studied the sociology of the seminary I was unaware, and probably shouldn't have been, of some of this. I am and have been aware that a central theme of most of Dr. Greeley's novels is the regenerative?/comeback/transcendant power of the church to overcome the yukkiness of its selection system. Kind of neat. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<498DABB7.7080003@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-02-07T15:41:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Indescribable Christ?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks, Roy!\n\nComments:\n\n---Placing the *unique* Christ, or a comparison with him, in a context of exactly those cyclic sun-god myths whence he sprang but against which he is distinguished by his very uniqueness, creates a tension that I don't think can be easily dismissed. Wolfe is a mythmaker. He creates this tension in almost everything he writes, when he incorporates mythologies and philosophies (Plato seems to be in Severian's brown book, I notice). All these other myths seem to operate on a mechanical level (Yesod is the apotheosis of this), and often everything *is* repeated in some way. Note that even the mechanical repetition of entire universes is implied, though not proven. Your quote demonstrates that Severian, even at his highest, lives and operates on this fantastic but mundane level. At least in his understanding.\n\n---Likewise, the sky people seem to have no correspondence in the Christian mythos. They are more like pagan sky gods.\n\n---I forget the name of the story, but others will recall it. Wolfe wrote a story of a miraculous and overtly christlike birth on another world, to another species. This introduces precisely the repetition that the Christian mythos rejects, because the story leaves you with the strong impression that this creature's life will more or less repeat in detail that of the Christ, but differently, of course. \n\nAs a story, this is a \"figure,\" but within the universe of the story, it is a plain repetition of That Which Shall Not Be Repeated. So it violates the Trinity (which is now possibly an Infinity) and no doubt all sorts of other things. It seems to say that the Christ myth is just another myth---or does it say that such myths are fragments of the \"true myth\"? Discuss, ad infinitum. There's no final answer.\n\nTo clarify---because I think I continue to be misunderstood on this point---I make no argument one way or the other. I point out the tension and argue that it is elemental to Wolfe's writing. That's why he keeps writing about it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:35:43 -0600\nFrom: \"Roy C. Lackey\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) Indescribable Christ?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nMessage-ID: <003e01c988b3$a4e89800$35d24a0c at rclackey>\nContent-Type: text/plain;\tcharset=\"iso-8859-1\"\n\n\"Son of Witz\" wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "I completely agree. I've understood it as GOD, the Godhead, is" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "indescribable, but that inaccessibility is the main reason for Jesus to be.\nTo give us a path. This is where the Logos comes in as that which\nreconciles God and Man. What's Jesus say about finding the Father only\nthrough me, or such. The Logos is the bridge. And we've been comparing texts\nand exegesis about to characters that may or may not be incarnations of the\nLogos.<<<\n--------------------------\n\nThis subject is tiresome and has been done to death over the years, and\nleads nowhere. People are talking past each other, as ever. I should stay\nout of it. But I will make an appeal to the text.\n\nAt issue here is whether or not Severian is in any meaningful sense a\nmanifestation of the Christ, rather than someone who merely has Christ-like,\nor Christic (as I believe someone here once termed it) qualities. The\ndifference is unimportant to some, but to Christians (which I am not) it is\nparamount.\n\nIn the Christian mythos, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was, and\never will be, a *unique* event. As such, it can never be replicated--to do\nso would cheapen the magnitude of the supreme sacrifice. This distinguishes\nJesus from the many cyclical dying-and-resurrecting gods we are familiar\nwith.\n\nWhile it is true that there are correspondences between the lives of Jesus\nand Severian, it is equally true that Severian manifests the qualities of\na -- well, duh! -- generic sun god, but that doesn't make him Mithra, or any\nof the others.\n\nAs for Severian the Conciliator being the same as Jesus, the \"bridge\" that\nreconciles Man and God, he is *not*. He is a conciliator between Man and the\nHierogrammates, as the text makes clear.\n\nShortly after his being returned to Urth in Typhon's era, the villagers\ncomplained to Severian about the cold weather (occasioned by the sun's\nrecent decline) that had ruined their crops in recent years, saying \"The sky\npeople are angry with us.\" He explained:\n_________________\n\"The sky people-the Hierodules and Hierarchs-do not hate us. It is only that\nthey are remote from us, and they fear us because of things we did before,\nlong ago when our race was young. I have gone to them.\" I watched the\nvillagers' expressionless faces, wondering whether any of them would believe\nme. \"I have effected a conciliation-brought them nearer us and us nearer\nthem, I think. They've sent me back.\" (URTH, chap. XXIX, p.-204)\n__________________\n\nIt can be argued -- and it has been -- whether or not the Hierogrammates\nwere acting on orders from On High, or even that they only *believed* they\nwere doing God's will, willingly or unwillingly, but the textual fact of the\nmatter is that Severian, the Conciliator, was a bridge between Man and the\nHierogrammates, not Man and God.\n\n-Roy\n\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "<644F62F0-D384-4F07-92FD-CB49E43FA199@butcherbaker.org>", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-07T21:32:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfean theologies", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Feb 7, 2009, at 5:17 AM, Bob Miller wrote:\nI should add that I'm not responding to the other Matthew, but to\nthose who attack the Roman Catholic church. I'll go even farther \nthan\nhe did and say that the discipline of celibacy is not at fault here,\nbut rather the positive and pronounced efforts of some American \nRoman\nCatholic priests to recruit men afflicted with sexual attraction to\nother men. It is also hardly secret that many seminaries harass and\ndiscourage men who do not play along." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is not something I was aware of.\n\nthanks.\nyou know, it's good sometimes to blurt out your perceptions and \nmisconceptions in public, because people are often forced to educate \nyou.\nI suppose celibacy isn't really to blame. though I do think repressing \nour sexual energies usually does more harm than good." } ] }, { "message_id": "<0D0E0E49-D116-4E0F-809C-08B03D5B98E5@butcherbaker.org>", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-07T21:39:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<498DABB7.7080003@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Quasi-Christ works right?\ncan we agree on that?\nyou guys have convinced me that, ontologically speaking, Severian \nain't Christ.\nbut: \"A god's supposed to pull on a man just like a tunic — that's \nwhat they say.\"\nso i'll settle for QuasiChrist.\n\n~witz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Feb 7, 2009, at 7:41 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nThanks, Roy!\n\nComments:\n\n---Placing the *unique* Christ, or a comparison with him, in a \ncontext of exactly those cyclic sun-god myths whence he sprang but \nagainst which he is distinguished by his very uniqueness, creates a \ntension that I don't think can be easily dismissed. Wolfe is a \nmythmaker. He creates this tension in almost everything he writes, \nwhen he incorporates mythologies and philosophies (Plato seems to be \nin Severian's brown book, I notice). All these other myths seem to \noperate on a mechanical level (Yesod is the apotheosis of this), and \noften everything *is* repeated in some way. Note that even the \nmechanical repetition of entire universes is implied, though not \nproven. Your quote demonstrates that Severian, even at his highest, \nlives and operates on this fantastic but mundane level. At least in \nhis understanding.\n\n---Likewise, the sky people seem to have no correspondence in the \nChristian mythos. They are more like pagan sky gods.\n\n---I forget the name of the story, but others will recall it. Wolfe \nwrote a story of a miraculous and overtly christlike birth on \nanother world, to another species. This introduces precisely the \nrepetition that the Christian mythos rejects, because the story \nleaves you with the strong impression that this creature's life will \nmore or less repeat in detail that of the Christ, but differently, \nof course.\nAs a story, this is a \"figure,\" but within the universe of the \nstory, it is a plain repetition of That Which Shall Not Be Repeated. \nSo it violates the Trinity (which is now possibly an Infinity) and \nno doubt all sorts of other things. It seems to say that the Christ \nmyth is just another myth---or does it say that such myths are \nfragments of the \"true myth\"? Discuss, ad infinitum. There's no \nfinal answer.\n\nTo clarify---because I think I continue to be misunderstood on this \npoint---I make no argument one way or the other. I point out the \ntension and argue that it is elemental to Wolfe's writing. That's \nwhy he keeps writing about it.\n\n------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:35:43 -0600\nFrom: \"Roy C. Lackey\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) Indescribable Christ?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nMessage-ID: <003e01c988b3$a4e89800$35d24a0c at rclackey>\nContent-Type: text/plain;\tcharset=\"iso-8859-1\"\n\n\"Son of Witz\" wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "I completely agree. I've understood it as GOD, the Godhead, is" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "indescribable, but that inaccessibility is the main reason for Jesus \nto be.\nTo give us a path. This is where the Logos comes in as that which\nreconciles God and Man. What's Jesus say about finding the Father only\nthrough me, or such. The Logos is the bridge. And we've been \ncomparing texts\nand exegesis about to characters that may or may not be incarnations \nof the\nLogos.<<<\n--------------------------\n\nThis subject is tiresome and has been done to death over the years, \nand\nleads nowhere. People are talking past each other, as ever. I should \nstay\nout of it. But I will make an appeal to the text.\n\nAt issue here is whether or not Severian is in any meaningful sense a\nmanifestation of the Christ, rather than someone who merely has \nChrist-like,\nor Christic (as I believe someone here once termed it) qualities. The\ndifference is unimportant to some, but to Christians (which I am \nnot) it is\nparamount.\n\nIn the Christian mythos, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus \nwas, and\never will be, a *unique* event. As such, it can never be replicated-- \nto do\nso would cheapen the magnitude of the supreme sacrifice. This \ndistinguishes\nJesus from the many cyclical dying-and-resurrecting gods we are \nfamiliar\nwith.\n\nWhile it is true that there are correspondences between the lives of \nJesus\nand Severian, it is equally true that Severian manifests the \nqualities of\na -- well, duh! -- generic sun god, but that doesn't make him \nMithra, or any\nof the others.\n\nAs for Severian the Conciliator being the same as Jesus, the \n\"bridge\" that\nreconciles Man and God, he is *not*. He is a conciliator between Man \nand the\nHierogrammates, as the text makes clear.\n\nShortly after his being returned to Urth in Typhon's era, the \nvillagers\ncomplained to Severian about the cold weather (occasioned by the sun's\nrecent decline) that had ruined their crops in recent years, saying \n\"The sky\npeople are angry with us.\" He explained:\n_________________\n\"The sky people-the Hierodules and Hierarchs-do not hate us. It is \nonly that\nthey are remote from us, and they fear us because of things we did \nbefore,\nlong ago when our race was young. I have gone to them.\" I watched the\nvillagers' expressionless faces, wondering whether any of them would \nbelieve\nme. \"I have effected a conciliation-brought them nearer us and us \nnearer\nthem, I think. They've sent me back.\" (URTH, chap. XXIX, p.-204)\n__________________\n\nIt can be argued -- and it has been -- whether or not the \nHierogrammates\nwere acting on orders from On High, or even that they only \n*believed* they\nwere doing God's will, willingly or unwillingly, but the textual \nfact of the\nmatter is that Severian, the Conciliator, was a bridge between Man \nand the\nHierogrammates, not Man and God.\n\n-Roy\n\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------\n\n\n\n---\navast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.\nVirus Database (VPS): 090207-0, 02/07/2009\nTested on: 2/7/2009 10:41:44 AM\navast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.\nhttp://www.avast.com\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000b01c98a78$8e5c6be0$29cf4a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2009-02-09T05:37:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<0D0E0E49-D116-4E0F-809C-08B03D5B98E5@butcherbaker.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Son of Witz wrote:\nQuasi-Christ works right?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "can we agree on that?\nyou guys have convinced me that, ontologically speaking, Severian\nain't Christ.\nbut: \"A god's supposed to pull on a man just like a tunic — that's\nwhat they say.\"\nso i'll settle for QuasiChrist.<<\n--------------------------\n\nIn the case of Christ, mere possession and control (like the \"gods\" in LS)\nof a man who is a person in his own right won't do. It is contrary to the\nwhole point of the Biblical tradition of Jesus suffering on a cross. It\nmustn't be done on the sly and it can't be done vicariously. The suffering\nof the god must be real and must be heralded, otherwise it is all for\nnaught.\n\nI'm getting sucked in, and I know better. Let me try a slightly\ndifferent tack.\n\nI quoted:\n________________\n\"The sky people-the Hierodules and Hierarchs-do not hate us. It is only that\nthey are remote from us, and they fear us because of things we did before,\nlong ago when our race was young. I have gone to them.\" I watched the\nvillagers' expressionless faces, wondering whether any of them would believe\nme. \"I have effected a conciliation-brought them nearer us and us nearer\nthem, I think. They've sent me back.\" (URTH, chap. XXIX, p.-204)\n__________________" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"Son of Witz\" wrote:\nRoy, I wasn't trying to argue Severian as Christ again.\nyou mention the nature of the Conciliator according to the text. here's\none you may have forgotten:\nfrom Chap XXI of Sword:\n\"\"Then his task was to forge a peace between humanity and the Increate,\nand he was called the Conciliator. He left behind a famous relic, a gem\ncalled the Claw.\"\"\n\nThat explanation comes long before any of the UotNS Hierogrammate\nexplanations, so it sort of sticks in my brain.<<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----------------------------\n\nThe two quotes yield different conclusions -- unless one accepts (as I have\nargued before and don't want to repeat) that the Hierogrammates were acting\non express direction from the the Increate, not just guessing, and the\nIncreate is the same as the Christian God. In the earlier quote, Severian\ncould only repeat what he had been told by others of the lore accreted to\nthe person of the New Sun over the centuries. (Such as eventually killing\nAbaia, for which there is no evidence.) In the later quote, he was speaking\n*as* the Conciliator, fresh from Yesod and at or near the height of his\npower.\n\nPerhaps, when pressured to write a fifth book and flesh-out his original\nskeletal conception, Wolfe was forced to change his mind. I can only\nspeculate.\n\nEven while he was the Conciliator, he gave every appearance of near-total\nignorance of the Increate. (Yes, Jesus at Gethsemane wondered about that\n\"cup\", but it ain't the same.) And after the arrival of the new sun that was\nthe New Sun, Severian went wandering in time, became a primitive solar\ndeity, and eventually ended up on the beach in Ushas as a petty god writing\nhis memoir, not back in Heaven where he never was or would be. But he *had*\nbeen in Yesod, home of the Hierogrammates, which no one could mistake for\nHeaven.\n\nIf Severian the Conciliator believed he, as Epitome of Urth, had effected a\nconciliation, he ought to know with whom. An incarnation of Christ ought to\nknow and would know, else the sacrifice would be dramatically less\nmeaningful.\n\nAnd, as I have said before, Severian didn't even make the sacrifice -- the\npeople of Urth did the suffering. In the Christian tradition Jesus, as part\nof the Godhead, took the sins of humanity on his person and suffered for\nthem. Severian didn't.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-09T18:14:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<000b01c98a78$8e5c6be0$29cf4a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Roy C. Lackey [mailto:rclackey at stic.net]\nSent: Sunday, February 8, 2009 09:37 PM" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If Severian the Conciliator believed he, as Epitome of Urth, had effected a\nconciliation, he ought to know with whom. An incarnation of Christ ought to\nknow and would know, else the sacrifice would be dramatically less\nmeaningful.\n\nAnd, as I have said before, Severian didn't even make the sacrifice -- the\npeople of Urth did the suffering. In the Christian tradition Jesus, as part\nof the Godhead, took the sins of humanity on his person and suffered for\nthem. Severian didn't.\n\n-Roy" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, I agree in that Severian does not embody the crucifixion theme. He does not make that kind of sacrifice, nor does he know who he ultimately serves, unless he takes Tzadkiel at face value. However, he does fulfill an extreme role, that of wiping the slate clean, and thus allowing a rebirth. This is more in line with a second coming than a crucifixion.\n\nI say Quasi-Christ, because, as the definition goes: \"apparently, but not really\" or \"ostensibly, on the surface\".\n\nThe frame of mind I had, and I'm sure many had, when pegging Severian as Christ, is not to the level of rigorous exactitude that people have been countering it with. That's fine. But most of the sci fi I've enjoyed has these grand religious themes employed into a little allegorical diorama, with little cardboard characters that represent the elements of an historic or religious character. I think it works to say these little cardboard Heirodudes and cardboard Severian characters do a good job of representing Archangels and Christ. Sure, it's imaginative, and the more skeptical mind will not read it as allegory or metaphor. So, sure, Severian does not intended to map completely to Christ, but he sure comes close enough to argue that he's \"ostensibly\" the Christ of BotNS, if not actually. Surely comes closer to being Christ than Frodo does, as people have argued.\n\nI don't think Wolfe was truly exploring the moral component of his Christian beliefs as much as he was dealing with the idea of Death and Resurrection, Deities and Beings that transcend that dichotomy, and, especially, the idea of a person becoming the myth that created them. Wolfe's done this twice in the Sun Series. A character doesn't become merely \"like\" the shaping myth, they become the shaping myth. Severian literally becomes the Conciliator. Horn literally becomes Silk. I think he's really exploring this notion of fully embodying your inspirational archetype, not just \"taking up the cross\" but actually hanging on it. He does explore morality, with Severian choosing mercy in almost all instances, and generally overcoming his worldly programming as a torturer. The Conciliator may not be Christ, but in the context of the story, he fulfills a similar role, historically, of inspiring people with a hope of an eventual redemption. That the Myth that Severian inherited had legendarily \"forged a peace between man and the Increate\" doesn't exactly square up with what Severian ultimately learns, doesn't change the fact that that is the MYTH that informed his actions and hopes.\n\nSeverian does have a tough sacrifice to make, and he does it as duty, without relishing it. What he does with Urth is mirrored in the Feast of Saint Katherine. The story centers on that moment he has the fake sword raised to behead the Catherine actress. That is key for Severian, his memory of the times always starts there, as he says. Now taking Borksi's idea that this actress is actually Severian's Mother Catherine, it becomes a very striking symbol. He's told to \"Strike,and Fear Not\" as he has to symbolically behead his Mother. (Mother Earth). It's no small role that he has to fulfill. I'd call it a tough sacrifice indeed. It's not Jesus's sacrifice, sure. \n\nAnyway, I think, with those points in mind, Quasi Christ should be acceptable even to those who don't see him truly as a Christ, which I no longer do either. Close, but no cigar. Definitely close enough for interesting analysis.\n\n~SonOfWitz" } ] }, { "message_id": "<273409710902091111u11fb6593vfb36585d6b87cfae@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Jordon Flato", "address": "jordonflato at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-09T19:11:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Man, I was just coming on to lay out some ideas only to see that you've\nbeaten me to the punch on some of them, Witz.\n\nOne of the big points that always roils around in my head with this issue of\n\"Christ\", \"Quasi-Christ,\" etc., is the notion that the Catholic or indeed\nChristian notion of a singular and non repeatable instance of Christ seems\nto be an entirely and unabashedly geocentric vision. The world of New Sun\nin an interstellar, and indeed interdimensional one. Are we to believe that\nChrist, in this world, if he *was* a part of the history and metaphysics of\nBriah, would appear in a single instance on a single planet eons in the\npast, and never have influence as redeemer on any other world? How would a\nCatholic worldview have to adjust itself to incorporate the reality of a\nuniverse teeming with life and intelligence? Hasn't Wolfe tried to tackle\nthis question in New Sun? Why do we not discuss it in the context of this\nwork?\n\nWhen we argue about \"Is Severian a Christ or Christ-instance\" it is still\nsoley from the point of view of Urth as the sole center of Christ's\ninfluence, or the increates influence (I'm generalizing grossly with the 'we\nargue' part, as there have no doubt been disucssion to add this dimension in\nthe past).\n\nSo, if Severian is not an instance of The Christ (which I am more and more\ninclined to believe he is not), can there ever have beenany unique instance\nof \"the christ\" in Sev's universe, knowning that life is teeming across the\nuniverse? Do we have to invent a unique instance of Christ on every planet\nwith intellegent life in order to square this with Catholic theology? Or do\nwe write off the rest of these civilizations as simply damned?\n\nWe know \"God\" exists in the universe of New Sun, because of The Outsider\n(well, that is how I take it anyway). As does Jesus, who we can recognize\nthrough some of Silks visions. How does this square with a much wider, much\nbigger universe.\n\nHow can Christ have been a single instantation, never to be repeated, in a\nuniverse like this? And if he WAS, don't we have to completely re-write our\nunderstanding of a merciful God?\n\nThis isn't as well thought out as I'd like. I'll probably revist it\nlater...." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, I agree in that Severian does not embody the crucifixion theme. He\ndoes not make that kind of sacrifice, nor does he know who he ultimately\nserves, unless he takes Tzadkiel at face value. However, he does fulfill an\nextreme role, that of wiping the slate clean, and thus allowing a rebirth.\n This is more in line with a second coming than a crucifixion.\n\nI say Quasi-Christ, because, as the definition goes: \"apparently, but not\nreally\" or \"ostensibly, on the surface\".\n\nThe frame of mind I had, and I'm sure many had, when pegging Severian as\nChrist, is not to the level of rigorous exactitude that people have been\ncountering it with. That's fine. But most of the sci fi I've enjoyed has\nthese grand religious themes employed into a little allegorical diorama,\nwith little cardboard characters that represent the elements of an historic\nor religious character. I think it works to say these little cardboard\nHeirodudes and cardboard Severian characters do a good job of representing\nArchangels and Christ. Sure, it's imaginative, and the more skeptical mind\nwill not read it as allegory or metaphor. So, sure, Severian does not\nintended to map completely to Christ, but he sure comes close enough to\nargue that he's \"ostensibly\" the Christ of BotNS, if not actually. Surely\ncomes closer to being Christ than Frodo does, as people have argued.\n\nI don't think Wolfe was truly exploring the moral component of his\nChristian beliefs as much as he was dealing with the idea of Death and\nResurrection, Deities and Beings that transcend that dichotomy, and,\nespecially, the idea of a person becoming the myth that created them.\n Wolfe's done this twice in the Sun Series. A character doesn't become\nmerely \"like\" the shaping myth, they become the shaping myth. Severian\nliterally becomes the Conciliator. Horn literally becomes Silk. I think\nhe's really exploring this notion of fully embodying your inspirational\narchetype, not just \"taking up the cross\" but actually hanging on it. He\ndoes explore morality, with Severian choosing mercy in almost all instances,\nand generally overcoming his worldly programming as a torturer. The\nConciliator may not be Christ, but in the context of the story, he fulfills\na similar role, historically, of inspiring people with a hope of an eventual\nredemption. That the Myth that Severian inherited\n had legendarily \"forged a peace between man and the Increate\" doesn't\nexactly square up with what Severian ultimately learns, doesn't change the\nfact that that is the MYTH that informed his actions and hopes.\n\nSeverian does have a tough sacrifice to make, and he does it as duty,\nwithout relishing it. What he does with Urth is mirrored in the Feast of\nSaint Katherine. The story centers on that moment he has the fake sword\nraised to behead the Catherine actress. That is key for Severian, his memory\nof the times always starts there, as he says. Now taking Borksi's idea that\nthis actress is actually Severian's Mother Catherine, it becomes a very\nstriking symbol. He's told to \"Strike,and Fear Not\" as he has to\nsymbolically behead his Mother. (Mother Earth). It's no small role that he\nhas to fulfill. I'd call it a tough sacrifice indeed. It's not Jesus's\nsacrifice, sure.\n\nAnyway, I think, with those points in mind, Quasi Christ should be\nacceptable even to those who don't see him truly as a Christ, which I no\nlonger do either. Close, but no cigar. Definitely close enough for\ninteresting analysis.\n\n~SonOfWitz\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "palaeologos at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-09T19:19:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<273409710902091111u11fb6593vfb36585d6b87cfae@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All that depends on whether the Fall occurred on other planets as well; or\nperhaps whether the Fall on Earth puts all of Creation in the same boat,\nsoteriologically speaking.\n\nC.S. Lewis addressed this issue in the first two books of his Space Trilogy,\nand comes to a different conclusion from what Wolfe's appears to be. Lewis\nsuggests that a Fall is possible on every planet individually, while Wolfe\n(as I read him, anyway) seems to be saying that the Fall was creation-wide,\nand that the one appearance of Christ on Earth suffices for the whole\ncosmos.\n\nAnd why not a single instantiation of Christ for the whole universe? If the\ndeath of an infinite being suffices for the redemption of all creation,\nwhat's the sense of repeating it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jordon Flato wrote:\nMan, I was just coming on to lay out some ideas only to see that you've\nbeaten me to the punch on some of them, Witz.\n\nOne of the big points that always roils around in my head with this issue\nof \"Christ\", \"Quasi-Christ,\" etc., is the notion that the Catholic or indeed\nChristian notion of a singular and non repeatable instance of Christ seems\nto be an entirely and unabashedly geocentric vision. The world of New Sun\nin an interstellar, and indeed interdimensional one. Are we to believe that\nChrist, in this world, if he *was* a part of the history and metaphysics of\nBriah, would appear in a single instance on a single planet eons in the\npast, and never have influence as redeemer on any other world? How would a\nCatholic worldview have to adjust itself to incorporate the reality of a\nuniverse teeming with life and intelligence? Hasn't Wolfe tried to tackle\nthis question in New Sun? Why do we not discuss it in the context of this\nwork?\n\nWhen we argue about \"Is Severian a Christ or Christ-instance\" it is still\nsoley from the point of view of Urth as the sole center of Christ's\ninfluence, or the increates influence (I'm generalizing grossly with the 'we\nargue' part, as there have no doubt been disucssion to add this dimension in\nthe past).\n\nSo, if Severian is not an instance of The Christ (which I am more and more\ninclined to believe he is not), can there ever have beenany unique instance\nof \"the christ\" in Sev's universe, knowning that life is teeming across the\nuniverse? Do we have to invent a unique instance of Christ on every planet\nwith intellegent life in order to square this with Catholic theology? Or do\nwe write off the rest of these civilizations as simply damned?\n\nWe know \"God\" exists in the universe of New Sun, because of The Outsider\n(well, that is how I take it anyway). As does Jesus, who we can recognize\nthrough some of Silks visions. How does this square with a much wider, much\nbigger universe.\n\nHow can Christ have been a single instantation, never to be repeated, in a\nuniverse like this? And if he WAS, don't we have to completely re-write our\nunderstanding of a merciful God?\n\nThis isn't as well thought out as I'd like. I'll probably revist it\nlater...." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Matt +\n\nIn the early days of his power, he is full of smiles, and he salutes\neveryone whom he meets.\nPlato (c. 428-348 B.C.), The Republic, bk. VIII, 566-D" } ] }, { "message_id": "<273409710902091127g49aa8088yb395c782979d74cf@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Jordon Flato", "address": "jordonflato at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-09T19:27:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Your point about the fall is an interesting one. I'll have to think about\nthat, as it's a great point.\n\n\nThis though, I don't get at all: \"And why not a single instantiation of\nChrist for the whole universe? If the death of an infinite being suffices\nfor the redemption of all creation, what's the sense of repeating it?\"\n\nIsn't part of the Christian faith that one has to come to God through\nChrist? It's not a simple as \"Christ died, everyone is redeemed, case\nclosed.\" If that were the case, what would the need be for a Catholic\nChurch. One has to come to know Christ, and attempt to live in, through,\nhim. To follow his example, To become \"christ\" like. How does one do that\nif you've never had the opportunity to hear of him?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Matthew Weber wrote:\nAll that depends on whether the Fall occurred on other planets as well; or\nperhaps whether the Fall on Earth puts all of Creation in the same boat,\nsoteriologically speaking.\n\nC.S. Lewis addressed this issue in the first two books of his Space\nTrilogy, and comes to a different conclusion from what Wolfe's appears to\nbe. Lewis suggests that a Fall is possible on every planet individually,\nwhile Wolfe (as I read him, anyway) seems to be saying that the Fall was\ncreation-wide, and that the one appearance of Christ on Earth suffices for\nthe whole cosmos.\n\nAnd why not a single instantiation of Christ for the whole universe? If\nthe death of an infinite being suffices for the redemption of all creation,\nwhat's the sense of repeating it?\n\n\nOn Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jordon Flato wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Man, I was just coming on to lay out some ideas only to see that you've\nbeaten me to the punch on some of them, Witz.\n\nOne of the big points that always roils around in my head with this issue\nof \"Christ\", \"Quasi-Christ,\" etc., is the notion that the Catholic or indeed\nChristian notion of a singular and non repeatable instance of Christ seems\nto be an entirely and unabashedly geocentric vision. The world of New Sun\nin an interstellar, and indeed interdimensional one. Are we to believe that\nChrist, in this world, if he *was* a part of the history and metaphysics of\nBriah, would appear in a single instance on a single planet eons in the\npast, and never have influence as redeemer on any other world? How would a\nCatholic worldview have to adjust itself to incorporate the reality of a\nuniverse teeming with life and intelligence? Hasn't Wolfe tried to tackle\nthis question in New Sun? Why do we not discuss it in the context of this\nwork?\n\nWhen we argue about \"Is Severian a Christ or Christ-instance\" it is still\nsoley from the point of view of Urth as the sole center of Christ's\ninfluence, or the increates influence (I'm generalizing grossly with the 'we\nargue' part, as there have no doubt been disucssion to add this dimension in\nthe past).\n\nSo, if Severian is not an instance of The Christ (which I am more and more\ninclined to believe he is not), can there ever have beenany unique instance\nof \"the christ\" in Sev's universe, knowning that life is teeming across the\nuniverse? Do we have to invent a unique instance of Christ on every planet\nwith intellegent life in order to square this with Catholic theology? Or do\nwe write off the rest of these civilizations as simply damned?\n\nWe know \"God\" exists in the universe of New Sun, because of The Outsider\n(well, that is how I take it anyway). As does Jesus, who we can recognize\nthrough some of Silks visions. How does this square with a much wider, much\nbigger universe.\n\nHow can Christ have been a single instantation, never to be repeated, in a\nuniverse like this? And if he WAS, don't we have to completely re-write our\nunderstanding of a merciful God?\n\nThis isn't as well thought out as I'd like. I'll probably revist it\nlater...." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--\nMatt +\n\nIn the early days of his power, he is full of smiles, and he salutes\neveryone whom he meets.\nPlato (c. 428-348 B.C.), The Republic, bk. VIII, 566-D\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-09T20:03:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<273409710902091127g49aa8088yb395c782979d74cf@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Matthew Weber [mailto:palaeologos at gmail.com]\nSent: Monday, February 9, 2009 11:19 AM" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And why not a single instantiation of Christ for the whole universe? If the\ndeath of an infinite being suffices for the redemption of all creation,\nwhat's the sense of repeating it?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Matthew,\nI'm sure this will illustrate my ignorance in these waters, but...\nIsn't the notion of this Redemption that Christ achieved exegesis?\nOr is it textual in the NT? \nAnd isn't the notion of him being \"Son of God\" exegesis? I mean, he doesn't say as much right? Doesn't he say \"Son of Man\" ? \n\n\nI'll admit having not grappled with that text very well, every time I get into the Bible, some massive thing throws me off. (Like why is Jesus in the line of David if that bloodline comes via Joseph, according to the begats? If Joseph isn't his father, how is he in the line of David? Lot's of questions like that come up every time I enter into the bible, and no one I ask has ever had a good answer. Hence I through it to you here, in the hopes that my tangent isn't totally unwelcome.) \n\nI ask these questions in the spirit of understanding, not to be argumentative or to debunk.\n\n~sonofwitz" } ] }, { "message_id": "<93d4039f0902091213o7401a4das801034df01a3ccdc@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-09T20:13:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Son of Witz wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Matthew Weber [mailto:palaeologos at gmail.com]\nSent: Monday, February 9, 2009 11:19 AM" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And why not a single instantiation of Christ for the whole universe? If\nthe\ndeath of an infinite being suffices for the redemption of all creation,\nwhat's the sense of repeating it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Matthew,\nI'm sure this will illustrate my ignorance in these waters, but...\nIsn't the notion of this Redemption that Christ achieved exegesis?\nOr is it textual in the NT?\nAnd isn't the notion of him being \"Son of God\" exegesis? I mean, he\ndoesn't say as much right? Doesn't he say \"Son of Man\" ?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Do you mean the New Testament or the Gospels? In the Gospel of John Jesus\nobliquely lays claim to divinity twice. In the other Gospels he is\nreticent. It is fairly clear the the historical Jesus, if there was such a\nperson, did not go around trumpeting himself as a divine being.\n\nIn the remainder of the New Testament, however, both the redemptive effect\nof the crucifixion and Jesus's divine nature are regularly discussed." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'll admit having not grappled with that text very well, every time I get\ninto the Bible, some massive thing throws me off. (Like why is Jesus in the\nline of David if that bloodline comes via Joseph, according to the begats?\n If Joseph isn't his father, how is he in the line of David? Lot's of\nquestions like that come up every time I enter into the bible, and no one I\nask has ever had a good answer. Hence I through it to you here, in the hopes\nthat my tangent isn't totally unwelcome.)\n\nI ask these questions in the spirit of understanding, not to be\nargumentative or to debunk.\n\n~sonofwitz\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-09T20:28:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<93d4039f0902091213o7401a4das801034df01a3ccdc@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: John Watkins [mailto:john.watkins04 at gmail.com]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Matthew,\nI'm sure this will illustrate my ignorance in these waters, but...\nIsn't the notion of this Redemption that Christ achieved exegesis?\nOr is it textual in the NT?\nAnd isn't the notion of him being \"Son of God\" exegesis? I mean, he\ndoesn't say as much right? Doesn't he say \"Son of Man\" ?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Do you mean the New Testament or the Gospels? In the Gospel of John Jesus\nobliquely lays claim to divinity twice. In the other Gospels he is\nreticent. It is fairly clear the the historical Jesus, if there was such a\nperson, did not go around trumpeting himself as a divine being.\n\nIn the remainder of the New Testament, however, both the redemptive effect\nof the crucifixion and Jesus's divine nature are regularly discussed." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm actually not sure of the difference.\nthanks for your explanation." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'll admit having not grappled with that text very well" } ] }, { "message_id": "<49909FEC.6040107@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-02-09T21:28:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Comments below ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMessage: 1\nDate: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 23:37:48 -0600\nFrom: \"Roy C. Lackey\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) Quasi Christ?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nMessage-ID: <000b01c98a78$8e5c6be0$29cf4a0c at rclackey>\nContent-Type: text/plain;\tcharset=\"Windows-1252\"\n\nSon of Witz wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Quasi-Christ works right?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "can we agree on that?\nyou guys have convinced me that, ontologically speaking, Severian\nain't Christ.\nbut: \"A god's supposed to pull on a man just like a tunic — that's\nwhat they say.\"\nso i'll settle for QuasiChrist.<<\n--------------------------\n\nIn the case of Christ, mere possession and control (like the \"gods\" in LS)\nof a man who is a person in his own right won't do. It is contrary to the\nwhole point of the Biblical tradition of Jesus suffering on a cross. It\nmustn't be done on the sly and it can't be done vicariously. The suffering\nof the god must be real and must be heralded, otherwise it is all for\nnaught.\n--------------------------\n\n---In addition, since the biblical tradition allows room for demonic possession, there must be some difference between them. Wolfe is not usually concerned with demons per se, but rather what might be called false gods: Gods, but false.\n\n--------------------------\n\nI'm getting sucked in, and I know better. Let me try a slightly\ndifferent tack.\n\nI quoted:\n________________\n\"The sky people-the Hierodules and Hierarchs-do not hate us. It is only that\nthey are remote from us, and they fear us because of things we did before,\nlong ago when our race was young. I have gone to them.\" I watched the\nvillagers' expressionless faces, wondering whether any of them would believe\nme. \"I have effected a conciliation-brought them nearer us and us nearer\nthem, I think. They've sent me back.\" (URTH, chap. XXIX, p.-204)\n__________________\n\n\"Son of Witz\" wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Roy, I wasn't trying to argue Severian as Christ again.\nyou mention the nature of the Conciliator according to the text. here's" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \none you may have forgotten:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "from Chap XXI of Sword:\n\"\"Then his task was to forge a peace between humanity and the Increate," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \nand he was called the Conciliator. He left behind a famous relic, a gem\ncalled the Claw.\"\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "That explanation comes long before any of the UotNS Hierogrammate" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \nexplanations, so it sort of sticks in my brain.<<\n----------------------------\n\nThe two quotes yield different conclusions -- unless one accepts (as I have\nargued before and don't want to repeat) that the Hierogrammates were acting\non express direction from the the Increate, not just guessing, and the\nIncreate is the same as the Christian God. In the earlier quote, Severian\ncould only repeat what he had been told by others of the lore accreted to\nthe person of the New Sun over the centuries. (Such as eventually killing\nAbaia, for which there is no evidence.) In the later quote, he was speaking\n*as* the Conciliator, fresh from Yesod and at or near the height of his\npower.\n\nPerhaps, when pressured to write a fifth book and flesh-out his original\nskeletal conception, Wolfe was forced to change his mind. I can only\nspeculate.\n--------------------------\n\n---Either theory makes sense. We don't want to give Severian too much knowledge, but if he were the SoG, etc., he ought to know. He might not, but that would require more explanation, not less. Holy amnesia, perhaps.\n\n--------------------------\n\nEven while he was the Conciliator, he gave every appearance of near-total\nignorance of the Increate. (Yes, Jesus at Gethsemane wondered about that\n\"cup\", but it ain't the same.) And after the arrival of the new sun that was\nthe New Sun, Severian went wandering in time, became a primitive solar\ndeity, and eventually ended up on the beach in Ushas as a petty god writing\nhis memoir, not back in Heaven where he never was or would be. But he *had*\nbeen in Yesod, home of the Hierogrammates, which no one could mistake for\nHeaven.\n--------------------------\n\n---Although it does read like a Hollywood/The Jetsons version of Heaven, with billions of humanoids swishing self-importantly through the air. I can't read that part without wondering how many would fit on the head of a pin.\n\n--------------------------\n\nIf Severian the Conciliator believed he, as Epitome of Urth, had effected a\nconciliation, he ought to know with whom. An incarnation of Christ ought to\nknow and would know, else the sacrifice would be dramatically less\nmeaningful.\n\nAnd, as I have said before, Severian didn't even make the sacrifice -- the\npeople of Urth did the suffering. In the Christian tradition Jesus, as part\nof the Godhead, took the sins of humanity on his person and suffered for\nthem. Severian didn't.\n\n-Roy\n\n\n\n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4990A347.6020302@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-02-09T21:42:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<49909FEC.6040107@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "First, I'd say that the novel simply must rule out all other sentient species. In fact, there don't seem to be any other sentient species in the TBotNS universe---only Powers like the Cumean, Inire, Tzadkiel, etc. (The Inhumi are different, and look at how closely Wolfe examines their moral potential, and how he ties it to humans'.) \n\nWe can't speculate on their histories because we don't meet more than one of them---their societies and histories are closed to us. But for all we know, every one of their \"species\" did indeed have some sort of \"unique-intervention\" moment. The Increate could have an infinity of sons he sent off to die horribly, *but we don't need to know about it.* TBotNS is not really an \"interstellar\" or galactic SF novel.\n\nSecond, I agree that it would be a basic unfairness to all the other interstellar races to have the only OTC in the universes land on Earth in 0 AD, and I'm sure this has occurred to Wolfe. *But that's not what TBotNS is about.* Perhaps the LS/SS novels pay a bit more attention to that problem, but still in a necessarily anthropocentric manner.\n\nI don't think the Pope has ruled yet on whether space aliens have souls." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 3\nDate: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:11:45 -0800\nFrom: Jordon Flato \nSubject: Re: (urth) Quasi Christ?\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID:\n\t<273409710902091111u11fb6593vfb36585d6b87cfae at mail.gmail.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"iso-8859-1\"\n\nMan, I was just coming on to lay out some ideas only to see that you've\nbeaten me to the punch on some of them, Witz.\n\nOne of the big points that always roils around in my head with this issue of\n\"Christ\", \"Quasi-Christ,\" etc., is the notion that the Catholic or indeed\nChristian notion of a singular and non repeatable instance of Christ seems\nto be an entirely and unabashedly geocentric vision. The world of New Sun\nin an interstellar, and indeed interdimensional one. Are we to believe that\nChrist, in this world, if he *was* a part of the history and metaphysics of\nBriah, would appear in a single instance on a single planet eons in the\npast, and never have influence as redeemer on any other world? How would a\nCatholic worldview have to adjust itself to incorporate the reality of a\nuniverse teeming with life and intelligence? Hasn't Wolfe tried to tackle\nthis question in New Sun? Why do we not discuss it in the context of this\nwork?\n\nWhen we argue about \"Is Severian a Christ or Christ-instance\" it is still\nsoley from the point of view of Urth as the sole center of Christ's\ninfluence, or the increates influence (I'm generalizing grossly with the 'we\nargue' part, as there have no doubt been disucssion to add this dimension in\nthe past).\n\nSo, if Severian is not an instance of The Christ (which I am more and more\ninclined to believe he is not), can there ever have beenany unique instance\nof \"the christ\" in Sev's universe, knowning that life is teeming across the\nuniverse? Do we have to invent a unique instance of Christ on every planet\nwith intellegent life in order to square this with Catholic theology? Or do\nwe write off the rest of these civilizations as simply damned?\n\nWe know \"God\" exists in the universe of New Sun, because of The Outsider\n(well, that is how I take it anyway). As does Jesus, who we can recognize\nthrough some of Silks visions. How does this square with a much wider, much\nbigger universe.\n\nHow can Christ have been a single instantation, never to be repeated, in a\nuniverse like this? And if he WAS, don't we have to completely re-write our\nunderstanding of a merciful God?\n\nThis isn't as well thought out as I'd like. I'll probably revist it\nlater...." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4990A40B.2040809@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-02-09T21:45:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<4990A347.6020302@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exactly. Not all that different from you-know-who ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 3\nDate: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 15:13:08 -0500\nFrom: John Watkins \nSubject: Re: (urth) Quasi Christ?\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID:\n\t<93d4039f0902091213o7401a4das801034df01a3ccdc at mail.gmail.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"iso-8859-1\"\n\n\n\n\nDo you mean the New Testament or the Gospels? In the Gospel of John Jesus\nobliquely lays claim to divinity twice. In the other Gospels he is\nreticent. It is fairly clear the the historical Jesus, if there was such a\nperson, did not go around trumpeting himself as a divine being.\n\nIn the remainder of the New Testament, however, both the redemptive effect\nof the crucifixion and Jesus's divine nature are regularly discussed." } ] }, { "message_id": "<273409710902091402j76b72eb8r10900f006df8ceba@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Jordon Flato", "address": "jordonflato at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-09T22:02:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<4990A347.6020302@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'll have to go back to the books to find the quotes I'm looking for, but\nalthough they don't appear in the text as such, there are, from what I\nremember, references to other sentient races. Races that were subjugated by\nTyphon, and in reference to all of the other Islands on the Yesod, and other\nreferences to other civilizations mentioned in some of those Apheta/Sev\nconversations. Again, I don't have the books in front of me, so I could be\ncompeltely misremmembering.\n\nHowever, what of the being on Sirius who the Cumaen 'contacts' to remember\nApu Punchau? That is at least one explicit reference.\n\n I don't see how you can say that the novel must simply rule out all other\nsentient species. Is there evidence for this? And to say \"powers\" like\nCumaen, Inire...that seems like a cop out. What are Powers then. Divine?\nYou don't seem to take that position. So, what are they? Oh, and you\nmention the Inhumu. Well, what about the Neighbors? They seem more salient\nhere. They are not human, and they first fed on the Neighbors. Are you\nsaying the neighbors are human? I sure missed that part. I guess there are\narguments for that (if you buy the whole Blue/Gree is Ushas/Lune thing,\nwhich I don't think I do).\n\nWhat are Abai and Erebus? Aren't they most likely alien beings who landed\non Urth and are attempting to take it over? I suppose that isn't\nnecessarily the case, but it seems likely from some evidience.\n\nI can't expect you to deal thoroughly with such a really strange question,\nbut I think you haven't really thought through your answer. I can't blame\nyou for that though.\n\nAnd if every 'species\" did have some sort of \"unique-intervention\" moment,\nthen that would seem to me to be against the Catholic doctrine.\n\nBut I'm really splitting hairs here, and seem to have lost track of the\npoint I was trying to make!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:42 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nFirst, I'd say that the novel simply must rule out all other sentient\nspecies. In fact, there don't seem to be any other sentient species in the\nTBotNS universe---only Powers like the Cumean, Inire, Tzadkiel, etc. (The\nInhumi are different, and look at how closely Wolfe examines their moral\npotential, and how he ties it to humans'.)\nWe can't speculate on their histories because we don't meet more than one\nof them---their societies and histories are closed to us. But for all we\nknow, every one of their \"species\" did indeed have some sort of\n\"unique-intervention\" moment. The Increate could have an infinity of sons he\nsent off to die horribly, *but we don't need to know about it.* TBotNS is\nnot really an \"interstellar\" or galactic SF novel.\n\nSecond, I agree that it would be a basic unfairness to all the other\ninterstellar races to have the only OTC in the universes land on Earth in 0\nAD, and I'm sure this has occurred to Wolfe. *But that's not what TBotNS is\nabout.* Perhaps the LS/SS novels pay a bit more attention to that problem,\nbut still in a necessarily anthropocentric manner.\n\nI don't think the Pope has ruled yet on whether space aliens have souls." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4990B334.8010408@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-02-09T22:50:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<273409710902091402j76b72eb8r10900f006df8ceba@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well there's simply not a lot to go on, is there? Consider the central importance of Urth/Ushas to the whole Hierogrammatic Plan, and you can see that a one-size-fits-all Christ is a simpler theory than infinite ones, but as I explicitly commented, those aren't ruled out either. We just don't know.\n\nAs I said, we know absolutely nothing about the Cumaean and the being on Sirius. We know almost nothing about Abaia and Erebus. Is there more than one Tzadkiel? His son is another pseudo-Christ, but that's all we are told. Do you know of any sentient beings in TBotNS that are not singular? We know of 2 Hierodules for sure, maybe 3 but I don't think Apheta counts (not sure what she is).\n\nThe Neighbors are another matter, but we know almost as little about them.\n\nWithout knowing the histories of their societies, we don't know whether they have converted to Wolfean Catholicism or any other flavor, or indeed to anything we could call a religion. We don't know how aliens regard the Increate in general. \n\nKeep in mind that I am specifically referring to alien *religion* and alien Messiahs. Someone else noted that CS Lewis considered multiple Christs to be kosher, so to speak, and Wolfe has touched on that approach elsewhere. But in TBotNS, not a word." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 3\nDate: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 14:02:38 -0800\nFrom: Jordon Flato \nSubject: Re: (urth) Quasi Christ?\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID:\n\t<273409710902091402j76b72eb8r10900f006df8ceba at mail.gmail.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"iso-8859-1\"\n\nI'll have to go back to the books to find the quotes I'm looking for, but\nalthough they don't appear in the text as such, there are, from what I\nremember, references to other sentient races. Races that were subjugated by\nTyphon, and in reference to all of the other Islands on the Yesod, and other\nreferences to other civilizations mentioned in some of those Apheta/Sev\nconversations. Again, I don't have the books in front of me, so I could be\ncompeltely misremmembering.\n\nHowever, what of the being on Sirius who the Cumaen 'contacts' to remember\nApu Punchau? That is at least one explicit reference.\n\n I don't see how you can say that the novel must simply rule out all other\nsentient species. Is there evidence for this? And to say \"powers\" like\nCumaen, Inire...that seems like a cop out. What are Powers then. Divine?\nYou don't seem to take that position. So, what are they? Oh, and you\nmention the Inhumu. Well, what about the Neighbors? They seem more salient\nhere. They are not human, and they first fed on the Neighbors. Are you\nsaying the neighbors are human? I sure missed that part. I guess there are\narguments for that (if you buy the whole Blue/Gree is Ushas/Lune thing,\nwhich I don't think I do).\n\nWhat are Abai and Erebus? Aren't they most likely alien beings who landed\non Urth and are attempting to take it over? I suppose that isn't\nnecessarily the case, but it seems likely from some evidience.\n\nI can't expect you to deal thoroughly with such a really strange question,\nbut I think you haven't really thought through your answer. I can't blame\nyou for that though.\n\nAnd if every 'species\" did have some sort of \"unique-intervention\" moment,\nthen that would seem to me to be against the Catholic doctrine.\n\nBut I'm really splitting hairs here, and seem to have lost track of the\npoint I was trying to make!\n\n\n\nOn Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:42 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "First, I'd say that the novel simply must rule out all other sentient\nspecies. In fact, there don't seem to be any other sentient species in the\nTBotNS universe---only Powers like the Cumean, Inire, Tzadkiel, etc. (The\nInhumi are different, and look at how closely Wolfe examines their moral\npotential, and how he ties it to humans'.)\nWe can't speculate on their histories because we don't meet more than one\nof them---their societies and histories are closed to us. But for all we\nknow, every one of their \"species\" did indeed have some sort of\n\"unique-intervention\" moment. The Increate could have an infinity of sons he\nsent off to die horribly, *but we don't need to know about it.* TBotNS is\nnot really an \"interstellar\" or galactic SF novel.\n\nSecond, I agree that it would be a basic unfairness to all the other\ninterstellar races to have the only OTC in the universes land on Earth in 0\nAD, and I'm sure this has occurred to Wolfe. *But that's not what TBotNS is\nabout.* Perhaps the LS/SS novels pay a bit more attention to that problem,\nbut still in a necessarily anthropocentric manner.\n\nI don't think the Pope has ruled yet on whether space aliens have souls." } ] }, { "message_id": "<00a701c98b57$cd2465a0$03d24a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2009-02-10T08:15:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<4990B334.8010408@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nFirst, I'd say that the novel simply must rule out all other sentient\nspecies. In fact, there don't seem to be any other sentient species in the\nTBotNS universe---only Powers like the Cumean, Inire, Tzadkiel, etc. (The\nInhumi are different, and look at how closely Wolfe examines their moral\npotential, and how he ties it to humans'.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We can't speculate on their histories because we don't meet more than one\nof them---their societies and histories are closed to us. But for all we\nknow, every one of their \"species\" did indeed have some sort of\n\"unique-intervention\" moment. The Increate could have an infinity of sons he\nsent off to die horribly, *but we don't need to know about it.* TBotNS is\nnot really an \"interstellar\" or galactic SF novel.\n\nSecond, I agree that it would be a basic unfairness to all the other\ninterstellar races to have the only OTC in the universes land on Earth in 0\nAD, and I'm sure this has occurred to Wolfe. *But that's not what TBotNS is\nabout.* Perhaps the LS/SS novels pay a bit more attention to that problem,\nbut still in a necessarily anthropocentric manner.<<<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "_______________________\n\nThe Urth Cycle is definitely anthropocentric. I don't want to touch off a\ndebate about alien sentient beings and whether or not they have souls that\nneed saving, or Original Sin, or the question of dogs going to Heaven and\nsuch. But there are other intelligent beings of a sort in Briah.\n\nThis from CITADEL, chapter XXXIV:\n------------------------------\n\"As the flower that comes is like the flower from which it came, so the\nuniverse that comes repeats the one whose ruin was its origin; and this is\nas true of its finer features as of its grosser ones: The worlds that arise\nare not unlike the worlds that perished, and are peopled by similar races,\nthough just as the flower evolves from summer to summer, all things advance\nby some minute step.\n\n\"In a certain divine year (a time truly inconceivable to us, though that\ncycle of the universes was but one in an endless succession), a race was\nborn that was so like to ours that Master Malrubius did not scruple to call\nit human. It expanded among the galaxies of its universe even as we are said\nto have done in the remote past, when Urth was, for a time, the center, or\nat least the home and symbol, of an empire.\n\n\"These men encountered many beings on other worlds who had intelligence to\nsome degree, or at least the potential for intelligence, and from them-that\nthey might have comrades in the loneliness between the galaxies and allies\namong their swarming worlds-they formed beings like themselves.\"\n----------------------------------\n\nAnd the beings thus formed were the Hierogrammates, of course. Still, this\npassage seems to me to draw a distinction between humans and all other\nnatural beings, regardless of intelligence. Humans seem to be the only\nnatural beings in the universe who matter in the story, which is in keeping\nwith the Christian idea that Christ was both Man and God. All humans seem to\nhave originated on Urth. The lower beings from whom the humans formed the\nHierogrammates seem to be on the level of animals on Earth. So I don't think\nthey need a Savior -- in this story.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4991C1FF.80807@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-02-10T18:05:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<00a701c98b57$cd2465a0$03d24a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Bingo. Thanks! \n\nI was trying to find that quote during the multiple-universe discussion. This certainly makes it sound like universes might be grown and harvested like crops of wheat, succeeding one another in time even without much connection between them. And Ushas is a second cutting/late harvest. Hmmm, where's my book of biblical allusions ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 3\nDate: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:15:48 -0600\nFrom: \"Roy C. Lackey\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) Quasi Christ?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nMessage-ID: <00a701c98b57$cd2465a0$03d24a0c at rclackey>\nContent-Type: text/plain;\tcharset=\"iso-8859-1\"\n\nThe Urth Cycle is definitely anthropocentric. I don't want to touch off a\ndebate about alien sentient beings and whether or not they have souls that\nneed saving, or Original Sin, or the question of dogs going to Heaven and\nsuch. But there are other intelligent beings of a sort in Briah.\n\nThis from CITADEL, chapter XXXIV:\n------------------------------\n\"As the flower that comes is like the flower from which it came, so the\nuniverse that comes repeats the one whose ruin was its origin; and this is\nas true of its finer features as of its grosser ones: The worlds that arise\nare not unlike the worlds that perished, and are peopled by similar races,\nthough just as the flower evolves from summer to summer, all things advance\nby some minute step.\n\n\"In a certain divine year (a time truly inconceivable to us, though that\ncycle of the universes was but one in an endless succession), a race was\nborn that was so like to ours that Master Malrubius did not scruple to call\nit human. It expanded among the galaxies of its universe even as we are said\nto have done in the remote past, when Urth was, for a time, the center, or\nat least the home and symbol, of an empire.\n\n\"These men encountered many beings on other worlds who had intelligence to\nsome degree, or at least the potential for intelligence, and from them-that\nthey might have comrades in the loneliness between the galaxies and allies\namong their swarming worlds-they formed beings like themselves.\"\n----------------------------------\n\nAnd the beings thus formed were the Hierogrammates, of course. Still, this\npassage seems to me to draw a distinction between humans and all other\nnatural beings, regardless of intelligence. Humans seem to be the only\nnatural beings in the universe who matter in the story, which is in keeping\nwith the Christian idea that Christ was both Man and God. All humans seem to\nhave originated on Urth. The lower beings from whom the humans formed the\nHierogrammates seem to be on the level of animals on Earth. So I don't think\nthey need a Savior -- in this story.\n\n-Roy\n\n\n\n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "<42301.4716.qm@web38508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Joe Riley", "address": "whamdoodler at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2009-02-10T18:34:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<273409710902091402j76b72eb8r10900f006df8ceba@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not a Catholic, so this could be wrong, but someone mentioned it on the list once before, and I remember being floored by it then.\n\nDidn't the Second Vatican Council (1965) rule that even \"those who have not yet received the Gospel\" can go to heaven if they've discerned the nature of God through their own religion? Here's what Wikipedia says:\n\n\"Perhaps the most famous and most influential product of the council is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium.\nIn its first chapter, titled \"The Mystery of the Church,\" is\nthe famous statement that \"the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed\nwe profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour,\nafter His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the\nother apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected\nfor all ages as 'the pillar and mainstay of the truth.' This Church,\nconstituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in\nthe Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by\nthe bishops in communion with him\" (Lumen Gentium, 8). The document\nimmediately adds: \"Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of\ntruth are found outside its visible confines.\"\n\nIn the second chapter, titled \"On the People of God\", the\nCouncil teaches that God wills to save people not just as individuals\nbut as a people. For this reason God chose the Israelite people to be\nhis own people and established a covenant with it, as a preparation and\nfigure of the covenant ratified in Christ that constitutes the new\nPeople of God, which would be one, not according to the flesh, but in\nthe Spirit and which is called the Church of Christ (Lumen Gentium,\n9). All human beings are called to belong to the Church. Not all are\nfully incorporated into the Church, but \"the Church knows that she is\njoined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of\nChrist, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its\nentirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor\nof Peter\" (Lumen Gentium, 15) and even with \"those who have not yet received the Gospel,\" among whom Jews and Muslims are explicitly mentioned (Lumen Gentium, 16).\n\nDoesn't this make multiple Christs unnecessary, so long as the sentient aliens came to an understanding of God through their own gods? Being a dogmatic Catholic, I'm sure Wolfe would have been aware of this. \n\n-Joe \n--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Jordon Flato wrote:\nFrom: Jordon Flato \nSubject: Re: (urth) Quasi Christ?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Monday, February 9, 2009, 4:02 PM\n\nI'll have to go back to the books to find the quotes I'm looking for, but although they don't appear in the text as such, there are, from what I remember, references to other sentient races. Races that were subjugated by Typhon, and in reference to all of the other Islands on the Yesod, and other references to other civilizations mentioned in some of those Apheta/Sev conversations. Again, I don't have the books in front of me, so I could be compeltely misremmembering.\n\n\nHowever, what of the being on Sirius who the Cumaen 'contacts' to remember Apu Punchau? That is at least one explicit reference. \n\n“I don't see how you can say that the novel must simply rule out all other sentient species. — Is there evidence for this?” And to say \"powers\" like Cumaen, Inire...that seems like a cop out. What are Powers then. Divine? You don't seem to take that position. So, what are they? Oh, and you mention the Inhumu. Well, what about the Neighbors? They seem more salient here. They are not human, and they first fed on the Neighbors. Are you saying the neighbors are human? I sure missed that part. I guess there are arguments for that (if you buy the whole Blue/Gree is Ushas/Lune thing, which I don't think I do).\n\n\nWhat are Abai and Erebus? Aren't they most likely alien beings who landed on Urth and are attempting to take it over? I suppose that isn't necessarily the case, but it seems likely from some evidience.\n\n\nI can't expect you to deal thoroughly with such a really strange question, but I think you haven't really thought through your answer. I can't blame you for that though.\n\nAnd if every 'species\" did have some sort of \"unique-intervention\" moment, then that would seem to me to be against the Catholic doctrine.\n\n\nBut I'm really splitting hairs here, and seem to have lost track of the point I was trying to make!\n\n\n\nOn Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:42 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:\n\nFirst, I'd say that the novel simply must rule out all other sentient species. In fact, there don't seem to be any other sentient species in the TBotNS universe---only Powers like the Cumean, Inire, Tzadkiel, etc. (The Inhumi are different, and look at how closely Wolfe examines their moral potential, and how he ties it to humans'.) \n\n\nWe can't speculate on their histories because we don't meet more than one of them---their societies and histories are closed to us. But for all we know, every one of their \"species\" did indeed have some sort of \"unique-intervention\" moment. The Increate could have an infinity of sons he sent off to die horribly, *but we don't need to know about it.* TBotNS is not really an \"interstellar\" or galactic SF novel.\n\n\n\n\nSecond, I agree that it would be a basic unfairness to all the other interstellar races to have the only OTC in the universes land on Earth in 0 AD, and I'm sure this has occurred to Wolfe. *But that's not what TBotNS is about.* Perhaps the LS/SS novels pay a bit more attention to that problem, but still in a necessarily anthropocentric manner.\n\n\n\n\nI don't think the Pope has ruled yet on whether space aliens have souls." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "palaeologos at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-02-10T18:41:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<42301.4716.qm@web38508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Joe Riley wrote:\nI'm not a Catholic, so this could be wrong, but someone mentioned it on the\nlist once before, and I remember being floored by it then.\n\nDidn't the Second Vatican Council (1965) rule that even \"those who have not\nyet received the Gospel\" can go to heaven if they've discerned the nature of\nGod through their own religion? Here's what Wikipedia says:\n\n\"Perhaps the most famous and most influential product of the council is the\nDogmatic Constitution on the Church, *Lumen Gentium\n*.\n\nIn its first chapter, titled *\"The Mystery of the Church,\"* is the famous\nstatement that \"the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to\nbe one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His\nResurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles\nto extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as 'the\npillar and mainstay of the truth.' This Church, constituted and organized as\na society in the present world, subsists inthe Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the\nbishops in communion with him\" (Lumen Gentium, 8). The document immediately\nadds: \"Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found\noutside its visible confines.\"\n\n\nIn the second chapter, titled *\"On the People of God\"*, the Council\nteaches that God wills to save people not just as individuals but as a\npeople. For this reason God chose the Israelite people to be his own people\nand established a covenant with it, as a preparation and figure of the\ncovenant ratified in Christ that constitutes the new People of God, which\nwould be one, not according to the flesh, but in the Spirit and which is\ncalled the Church of Christ (*Lumen Gentium*, 9). All human beings are\ncalled to belong to the Church. Not all are fully incorporated into the\nChurch, but \"the Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the\nbaptized who are honored by the name of Christ, but who do not however\nprofess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or\ncommunion under the successor of Peter\" (*Lumen Gentium*, 15) and even\nwith \"those who have not yet received the Gospel,\" among whom Jews and\nMuslims are explicitly mentioned (*Lumen Gentium*, 16).\n\nDoesn't this make multiple Christs unnecessary, so long as the sentient\naliens came to an understanding of God through their own gods? Being a\ndogmatic Catholic, I'm sure Wolfe would have been aware of this.\n\n-Joe" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's a strikingly humble stance, compared to earlier positions, but\nyes. *Lumen\nGentium* is probably what I was thinking of in my earlier response.\n\nGoing back (again) to C.S. Lewis, there's a passage in *The Last Battle *that\naddresses this. Aslan (Narnia's Christ) receives a Calormene (the\nCalormenes are Narnia's Muslims, more or less) into his kingdom, and says\nthat though Tash is a false god, the Calormene has served him in the same\nspirit of charity and justice as Narnians are to serve Aslan; and so the\ngood that the Calormene did in Tash's name has been counted as good done in\nAslan's name (just as wickedness done in Aslan's name will be counted as\nwickedness done in the service of Tash). All this, btw, is in the context\nof a book-long controversy over where Aslan and Tash are the same god--some\nof the characters even start referring to this hybrid as \"Tashlan\"." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Matt +\n\nWhen the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and\nthere is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war\nor other, in order that the people may require a leader.\nPlato (c. 428-348 B.C.), The Republic, bk. VIII, 566-E" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-10T18:54:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Doesn't this make multiple Christs unnecessary, so long as the sentient aliens came to an understanding of God through their own gods? Being a dogmatic Catholic, I'm sure Wolfe would have been aware of this. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Multiple Christs.\nI don't come to this from the current discussion of many worlds, many beings to be saved, but from the idea that there are subsequent, serial creations of a universe. If Briah keeps going through similar evolutions to similar ends, it's viable to think that there would be similar theophanies, and similar incarnations of eternal principals and deities. It's very unclear if Urth is in Earth's cycle, or before or after. I think these incarnations would be similar, but not exactly the same, and the roles they play, and \"salvation\" or Apocatastasis that they enact would not necessarily be the same, but would have at least strong similarities. And so, the Conciliator/New Sun could very well be a different incarnation of the same deity. I understand the notion of Christ being \"unique in history\" but we're talking about a setting where history RESETS, where there is a succession of beginnings and endings.\n\nanyway, I don't think it's out of line to suggest the possibility. It's an extrapolation of our ideas into a setting that sort of explodes there potentials into ways that may not have been previously explored, so there is no reason to view it rigidly through one particular lens of belief.\n\n~witz" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-10T18:57:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's a strikingly humble stance, compared to earlier positions, but\nyes. *Lumen\nGentium* is probably what I was thinking of in my earlier response.\n\nGoing back (again) to C.S. Lewis, there's a passage in *The Last Battle *that\naddresses this. Aslan (Narnia's Christ) receives a Calormene (the\nCalormenes are Narnia's Muslims, more or less) into his kingdom, and says\nthat though Tash is a false god, the Calormene has served him in the same\nspirit of charity and justice as Narnians are to serve Aslan; and so the\ngood that the Calormene did in Tash's name has been counted as good done in\nAslan's name (just as wickedness done in Aslan's name will be counted as\nwickedness done in the service of Tash). All this, btw, is in the context\nof a book-long controversy over where Aslan and Tash are the same god--some\nof the characters even start referring to this hybrid as \"Tashlan\".\n\n\n\n-- \nMatt +" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm gonna have to read that. I was thinking, as I read, \"hello, Allah is Yahweh\" even though many don't realize it. then you mentiond the controversy of Tashian. Sounds like great stuff. I think I only read one of those books as a kid who would not have been sensitive to the symbolic elements." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4991F596.9030506@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-02-10T21:45:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, that clears that up nicely! \n\nWe don't need evidence of multiple resurrections, and we don't have any. They would only make the whole Christ scheme feel more mechanical anyway, when it is the Hieros' schemes that Wolfe wants to have a mechanical feel.\n\nThe Mystery quote is also relevant to the other discussion. I always assumed that the Torturers had a mystery simply because ALL guilds had mysteries---most of them fairly mundane, basically secret handshake-type stuff. But here it is explicitly related to the earthly authority of the Church.\n\nThis also supports the idea of the Commonwealth as representing humanity as a whole even though it controls only a fraction of its territory. And Severian becomes more like the Pope than Christ, especially considering Roy's quote about the Conciliator's conciliation as a mundane and semipolitical one, as opposed to one with the Increate." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 6\nDate: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:34:04 -0800 (PST)\nFrom: Joe Riley \nSubject: Re: (urth) Quasi Christ?\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID: <42301.4716.qm at web38508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"iso-8859-1\"\n\nI'm not a Catholic, so this could be wrong, but someone mentioned it on the list once before, and I remember being floored by it then.\n\nDidn't the Second Vatican Council (1965) rule that even \"those who have not yet received the Gospel\" can go to heaven if they've discerned the nature of God through their own religion? Here's what Wikipedia says:\n\n\"Perhaps the most famous and most influential product of the council is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium.\nIn its first chapter, titled \"The Mystery of the Church,\" is\nthe famous statement that \"the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed\nwe profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour,\nafter His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the\nother apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected\nfor all ages as 'the pillar and mainstay of the truth.' This Church,\nconstituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in\nthe Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by\nthe bishops in communion with him\" (Lumen Gentium, 8). The document\nimmediately adds: \"Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of\ntruth are found outside its visible confines.\"\n\nIn the second chapter, titled \"On the People of God\", the\nCouncil teaches that God wills to save people not just as individuals\nbut as a people. For this reason God chose the Israelite people to be\nhis own people and established a covenant with it, as a preparation and\nfigure of the covenant ratified in Christ that constitutes the new\nPeople of God, which would be one, not according to the flesh, but in\nthe Spirit and which is called the Church of Christ (Lumen Gentium,\n9). All human beings are called to belong to the Church. Not all are\nfully incorporated into the Church, but \"the Church knows that she is\njoined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of\nChrist, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its\nentirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor\nof Peter\" (Lumen Gentium, 15) and even with \"those who have not yet received the Gospel,\" among whom Jews and Muslims are explicitly mentioned (Lumen Gentium, 16).\n\nDoesn't this make multiple Christs unnecessary, so long as the sentient aliens came to an understanding of God through their own gods? Being a dogmatic Catholic, I'm sure Wolfe would have been aware of this. \n\n-Joe " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2009-02-10T21:47:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<00a701c98b57$cd2465a0$03d24a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nDavid Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "First, I'd say that the novel simply must rule out all other sentient\nspecies. In fact, there don't seem to be any other sentient species in the\nTBotNS universe" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have to be pedantic ;). \"Sentient\" (contrary to most use in SF) means\n\"feeling\" (and therefore capable of suffering), so all mammals are\nsentient. What we should say is \"sapient\" if we refer to intelligence.\n\nCheers, David Duffy." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-10T22:39:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: David Stockhoff [mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net]\nSent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 01:45 PM" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And Severian becomes more like the Pope than Christ, especially considering Roy's quote about the Conciliator's conciliation as a mundane and semipolitical one, as opposed to one with the Increate.\n\n\nthis insistence that the \"Conciliator's conciliation\" is mundane and political is strange to me. Can't we see it as metaphor, and not as mundane plot. In the microcosm of this metaphor, he's effected a salvation of humanity in the eyes of those who serve God. That the text could be read to imply that the Hierogrammates had no real connection to God, doesn't mean that it is so. Even Angels serve God without understanding him completely. Can't we accept these characters as serviceable metaphors for Archangels and Angels, and see the scifi trappings for what they are, dressings on a metaphor?\n\nHopefully that's clear. maybe I can boil it down more.\nThe microcosm of a metaphor need not encompass the whole macrocosm it's illustrating. The map is NOT the territory. it's a limited, scaled down representation of the territory.\n\n~SonOfWitz" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2009-02-10T22:47:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "here's a telling bit I like, that led me to have form ideas about Sev/Christ:\n\nClaw I, first paragraph:\n\"Morwenna's face floated in the single beam of light, lovely and framed in hair\ndark as my cloak; blood from her neck pattered to the stones. Her lips moved\nwithout speech. Instead I saw framed within them (as though I were the Increate,\npeeping through his rent in Eternity to behold the World of Time) the farm,\nStachys her husband tossing in agony upon his bed, little Chad at the pond,\nbathing his fevered face.\"\n\nsince I can't bold it:\n(as though I were the Increate, peeping through his rent in Eternity to behold the World of Time)\n\nI read Severian as \"his rent in Eternity\" here.\n\n~sonofwitz" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4992C820.8040607@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-02-11T12:44:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Point taken. \n\nAlthough, funnily enough, if we are wondering whether alien races/species can have crucificial theophanies---whether across a universe or across a succession of universes---then in fact it may be more relevant to ask whether a Heechee or a Puppeteer or a Neighbor can suffer on an analogue of the cross than whether it can think. Presumably both abilities are ideal, but the first is critical, no pun intended.\n\nIf we follow the Lumen Gentium, however, sapience may be more useful for an alien race that will never have its own theophany. (And this makes me think of the Hieros, who strike me far more as thinkers than feelers, as well as the various individuals I've called Powers.)\n\nBut this is for whoever is Pope at First Contact in 2150 AD to worry about." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 5\nDate: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:47:08 +1000 (EST)\nFrom: David Duffy \nSubject: Re: (urth) Quasi Christ?\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID: \nContent-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed\n\nOn Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Roy C. Lackey wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "First, I'd say that the novel simply must rule out all other sentient" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "species. In fact, there don't seem to be any other sentient species in the\nTBotNS universe" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nI have to be pedantic ;) . \"Sentient\" (contrary to most use in SF) means\n\"feeling\" (and therefore capable of suffering), so all mammals are\nsentient. What we should say is \"sapient\" if we refer to intelligence.\n\nCheers, David Duffy.\n\n\n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4992F163.803@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-02-11T15:40:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Quasi Christ?", "in_reply_to": "<4992C820.8040607@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Fine with me. I only meant to contrast it with \"divine.\"\n\nBut I still see it as half political. Feudal, almost. As it would be if the sky gods came to us and said, OK, if you talk about how great we are and support us against the earth gods, we'll make sure it rains at the appropriate times and protect your human governments. Deal?\n\nNothing could be less divine than that. Whether the Hieros serve the Increate or not, they must deal with humans in ways that are roughly comprehensible to at least some humans." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMessage: 1\nDate: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:39:36 +0000\nFrom: \"Son of Witz\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) Quasi Christ?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nMessage-ID: \nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"us-ascii\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: David Stockhoff [mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net]\nSent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 01:45 PM" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \nAnd Severian becomes more like the Pope than Christ, especially considering Roy's quote about the Conciliator's conciliation as a mundane and semipolitical one, as opposed to one with the Increate.\n\n\nthis insistence that the \"Conciliator's conciliation\" is mundane and political is strange to me. Can't we see it as metaphor, and not as mundane plot. In the microcosm of this metaphor, he's effected a salvation of humanity in the eyes of those who serve God. That the text could be read to imply that the Hierogrammates had no real connection to God, doesn't mean that it is so. Even Angels serve God without understanding him completely. Can't we accept these characters as serviceable metaphors for Archangels and Angels, and see the scifi trappings for what they are, dressings on a metaphor?\n\nHopefully that's clear. maybe I can boil it down more.\nThe microcosm of a metaphor need not encompass the whole macrocosm it's illustrating. The map is NOT the territory. it's a limited, scaled down representation of the territory.\n\n~SonOfWitz\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------" } ] } ] }