# (no subject) *The Urth list — 34 messages, 13 voices, 30 Jul 2010* > 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. --- ### Lee Berman *30 Jul 2010, 19:54* Yeah, alzabo, avern, abaia, arioch..so many alien "a's" on Urth. > Jeff Wilson- No one's life is being artificially extended by the alzabo; > the memory of the Autarch shares Severian, but the Autarch himself is dead. > The alzabo eaters who are said to do it because they want more life than > they have are projecting, as I wrote before. If Sevrian's life is > bettered in some way by the memories he has ingested, that is no more > condemnable than one's life being enriched by learning. The > reprenhesible thing about it is that it may be done in violation of the > person's will, and that it involves eating part of a person. But babes > feed from their mother, and a pelican that wounds her breast to feed her > chicks is held up as a sign of loyalty and service, and Christians are > enjoined to eat and drink of the flesh and the blood of Jesus Christ. Wolfe himself, in an interview, calls the Vodalus feast a "satanic eucharist". But we are to take Severian's feast on the old Autarch's brain as being divine? I dunno. Perhaps as a non-Catholic and non- Christian I don't have the right background to form an educated opinion. But that seems like an awfully icky way to gain grace. When Severian receives his new consciousness I seem to remember him feeling a flood of relief as all the inhabitants of the old Autarch find that they have not perished in his old body but have found new existence in Severian. From this I get the sense that this process is a form of artificially prolonged life and perhaps not one to be envied. Regarding the learning which is involved in the eating of the dead, from Ultan, to Vodalus to the old Leech, I get the impression that the learning is tainted in some way. Severian doesn't seem to put much of his newly acquired wisdom to good use either, aside from learning the secret words needed to be autarch. I'm not an expert on such things but my impression is that Wolfe finds not only pagan mythology to be the competitor of early Christianity but gnosticism also, with its reliance on arcane knowledge and secrets. I get the impression that brain eating and the resultant learning and life/consciousness extending is a corrupt part of the world of Urth which will not be continued on Ushas. --- ### Lee Berman *30 Jul 2010, 19:59 · in reply to Lee Berman* ---------------------------------------- Yeah, alzabo, avern, abaia, arioch..so many alien "a's" on Urth. > Jeff Wilson- No one's life is being artificially extended by the alzabo; > the memory of the Autarch shares Severian, but the Autarch himself is dead. > The alzabo eaters who are said to do it because they want more life than > they have are projecting, as I wrote before. If Sevrian's life is > bettered in some way by the memories he has ingested, that is no more > condemnable than one's life being enriched by learning. The > reprenhesible thing about it is that it may be done in violation of the > person's will, and that it involves eating part of a person. But babes > feed from their mother, and a pelican that wounds her breast to feed her > chicks is held up as a sign of loyalty and service, and Christians are > enjoined to eat and drink of the flesh and the blood of Jesus Christ. Wolfe himself refers to the Vodalus feast as a "satanic eucharist". But we are to take Severian's feast on the old Autarch's brain as being divine? I dunno. Perhaps as a non-Catholic and non- Christian I don't have the right background to form an educated opinion. But that seems like an awfully icky way to gain grace. When Severian receives his new consciousness I seem to remember him feeling a flood of relief from all the inhabitants of the old Autarch as they find that they have not perished in the old body but have found new existence in Severian. From this I get the sense that this process is a form of artificially prolonged life and perhaps not one to be envied. Regarding the learning which is involved in the eating of the dead, from Ultan, to Vodalus to the old Leech, I get the impression that the learning is tainted in some way. Severian doesn't seem to put much of his newly acquired wisdom to good use either, aside from learning the secret words needed to be autarch. I'm not an expert on such things but my impression is that Wolfe finds not only pagan mythology to be the competitor of early Christianity but gnosticism also, with its reliance on arcane knowledge and secrets. I get the impression that brain eating and the resultant learning and life/consciousness extending is a corrupt part of the world of Urth which will not be continued on Ushas. --- ### Jeff Wilson *30 Jul 2010, 22:23 · in reply to Lee Berman* > Wolfe himself, in an interview, calls the Vodalus feast a "satanic > eucharist". But we are to take Severian's feast on the old Autarch's > brain as being divine? I dunno. Perhaps as a non-Catholic and non- > Christian I don't have the right background to form an educated > opinion. But that seems like an awfully icky way to gain grace. Of course it's satanic, Vodalus is a satanic figure and he's twisting any virtue the analept might have into part of his mockery of communion. But the Increate may validate even a false, incomplete sacrament. > When Severian receives his new consciousness I seem to remember him > feeling a flood of relief as all the inhabitants of the old Autarch > find that they have not perished in his old body but have found new > existence in Severian. From this I get the sense that this process is > a form of artificially prolonged life and perhaps not one to be envied. This could be from duty and from a hope of redemption, that they can continue to serve the cause of Urth, instead of ending in failure. And it could be some projection on Sev's part, relieved that he didn't become a puppet of the dozens of imperious minds of his predecessors. It's his glands that are still real, after all. Something in the process may keep the duplicated personalities amiable to the situation, the way the Casdoe's husband's imprint wasn't upset or particularly concerned about having been eaten or helping the alzabo kill and eat the rest of his family. > I'm not an expert on such things but my impression is that Wolfe finds not > only pagan mythology to be the competitor of early Christianity but > gnosticism > also, with its reliance on arcane knowledge and secrets. I get the > impression > that brain eating and the resultant learning and life/consciousness > extending is a corrupt part of the world of Urth which will not be > continued > on Ushas. Hopefully, it won't have to be, since it will no longer be necessary. But remember the big theme: even evil men and abhorrent deeds serve the good of the Increate. --- ### Lee Berman *31 Jul 2010, 08:01 · follows Lee Berman* > Jeff Wilson- This could be from duty and from a hope of redemption, that they can > continue to serve the cause of Urth, instead of ending in failure. And it > could be some projection on Sev's part, relieved that he didn't become a > puppet of the dozens of imperious minds of his predecessors. It's his > glands that are still real, after all. Something in the process may keep the > duplicated personalities amiable to the situation, the way the Casdoe's husband's > imprint wasn't upset or particularly concerned about having been eaten or helping > the alzabo kill and eat the rest of his family. I think this is a very apt comparison which I haven't seen made before. I can't help but think that horror was intended in the scene where Becan is so immediately happy and accepting of his new existence as chunks of chewed meat in the Alzabo digestive system and as a (presumably) temporary neural circuit that he is willingly desirous that his family join him in the belly of the beast. Yet under similar circumstances we are supposed to interpret rapture instead of horror for the beings living on in Severian? I just don't know. Perhaps it is meant to be an individual interpretation. But my impression is that for Thecla and for the others in Severian's head it isn't a divine experience. At best they all remain lonely and unfulfilled. We don't hear much from them in UotNS. --- ### Jeff Wilson *31 Jul 2010, 09:41 · in reply to Lee Berman* > On 7/31/2010 3:01 AM, Lee Berman wrote: >> Jeff Wilson- This could be from duty and from a hope of redemption, that they can >> continue to serve the cause of Urth, instead of ending in failure. And it >> could be some projection on Sev's part, relieved that he didn't become a >> puppet of the dozens of imperious minds of his predecessors. It's his >> glands that are still real, after all. Something in the process may keep the >> duplicated personalities amiable to the situation, the way the Casdoe's husband's >> imprint wasn't upset or particularly concerned about having been eaten or helping >> the alzabo kill and eat the rest of his family. > I think this is a very apt comparison which I haven't seen made before. > > I can't help but think that horror was intended in the scene where Becan is so > immediately happy and accepting of his new existence as chunks of chewed meat in the > Alzabo digestive system and as a (presumably) temporary neural circuit that he is > willingly desirous that his family join him in the belly of the beast. I agree, the horror of not-rightness is very strong when the beast firs speaks in the little girl's voice. But horror eventually gives way to reasoning that it must be that way, or the victim's unalterted attitude would hinder it to the point of suicide or starvation. This corruption of the victim's personhood is partly why I don't consider the remnant memories a survival of the original victim any more than any other record or memory of their living existence. > Yet under similar circumstances we are supposed to interpret rapture instead of > horror for the beings living on in Severian? I just don't know. Perhaps it is meant > to be an individual interpretation. But my impression is that for Thecla and for the > others in Severian's head it isn't a divine experience. At best they all remain > lonely and unfulfilled. We don't hear much from them in UotNS. I'm having cognitive dissonance with the objective use of "they" and their experiences. The imprint of each mind is associated with the individual, but it doesn't correspond one for one with them. Each hand has the whole life, after all, so they can't both be the individual. We might call them dividuals, or multiplicuals. Whatever "they" are, I don't think they are meant to have a truly objective identity and feelings apart from Severian, any more than the aquastors have from their Yesodi controllers. Maybe an eidolon, which has to be reconstructed with as perfect fidelity to the original as possible, would count as "an" objective person, if not the same objective person. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *31 Jul 2010, 17:52 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: > Whatever "they" are, I don't think they are meant to have a truly objective > identity and feelings apart from Severian, any more than the aquastors have > from their Yesodi controllers. Maybe an eidolon, which has to be > reconstructed with as perfect fidelity to the original as possible, would > count as "an" objective person, if not the same objective person. Actually I suspect that Severian is supposed to be an exception to the general principle you laid down (and I agree with). Through his Magic Resurrection Ability, Thecla at least lives again in him. I'm not so sure about the prior Autarchs. ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### David Stockhoff *31 Jul 2010, 18:36 · in reply to Lee Berman* Thecla and Severian, in Severian, experience a rapture that is specifically compared to the local version of "heaven." It is temporary, of course, but it is not presented as false. I learned that I had been more to her than I had ever guessed, and at last fell into a sleep in which my dreams were all of her. Not memories merely memories I had possessed in plenty before. I held her poor, cold hands in mine, and I no longer wore the rags of an apprentice, nor the fuligin of a journeyman. We were one, naked and happy and clean, and we knew that she was no more and that I still lived, and we struggled against neither of those things, but with woven hair read from a single book and talked and sang of other matters. 12 THE NOTULES I came from my dreams of Thecla directly to the morning. At one instant we walked mutely together in what surely must have been the paradise the New Sun is said to open to all who, in their final moments, call upon him; and though the wise teach that it is closed to those who are their own executioners, yet I cannot but think that he who forgives so much must sometimes forgive that as well. At the next, I was aware of cold and unwelcome light, and the piping of birds. > Lee Berman wrote: > >> Jeff Wilson- This could be from duty and from a hope of redemption, that they can >> continue to serve the cause of Urth, instead of ending in failure. And it >> could be some projection on Sev's part, relieved that he didn't become a >> puppet of the dozens of imperious minds of his predecessors. It's his >> glands that are still real, after all. Something in the process may keep the >> duplicated personalities amiable to the situation, the way the Casdoe's husband's >> imprint wasn't upset or particularly concerned about having been eaten or helping >> the alzabo kill and eat the rest of his family. >> > > I think this is a very apt comparison which I haven't seen made before. > > I can't help but think that horror was intended in the scene where Becan is so > immediately happy and accepting of his new existence as chunks of chewed meat in the > Alzabo digestive system and as a (presumably) temporary neural circuit that he is > willingly desirous that his family join him in the belly of the beast. > > Yet under similar circumstances we are supposed to interpret rapture instead of > horror for the beings living on in Severian? I just don't know. Perhaps it is meant > to be an individual interpretation. But my impression is that for Thecla and for the > others in Severian's head it isn't a divine experience. At best they all remain > lonely and unfulfilled. We don't hear much from them in UotNS. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Wilson *01 Aug 2010, 03:21 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > On 7/31/2010 12:52 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: >> Whatever "they" are, I don't think they are meant to have a truly objective >> identity and feelings apart from Severian, any more than the aquastors have >> from their Yesodi controllers. Maybe an eidolon, which has to be >> reconstructed with as perfect fidelity to the original as possible, would >> count as "an" objective person, if not the same objective person. > Actually I suspect that Severian is supposed to be an exception to the > general principle you laid down (and I agree with). Through his Magic > Resurrection Ability, Thecla at least lives again in him. I'm not so > sure about the prior Autarchs. His healing and resurective ability is supposed to work via short-term bending back time, isn't it? He meditates on the limits it might have over the carnage at the final battle with the Alzabo. Sev's phenomenal power of memory is a similar but distinct faculty for recalling what used to be, and while it is inferior for the purpose of raising the dead it is obviously superior for reviving their experiences. This makes it a great force for extending the good the donors may have done, allowing *it* to live on rather than being interred with their bones. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *01 Aug 2010, 04:09 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > On 7/31/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: > Thecla and Severian, in Severian, experience a rapture that is > specifically compared to the local version of "heaven." It is temporary, > of course, but it is not presented as false. That's still subject to Severian's bias. Beccan's lingering imprint was also happy at being reunited with his daughter, and was eager to have the rest of the family join them in the beast's belly. With Severian's vivid recall magnifying that induced sense of well-being and compoudning it with his natural joy at what he takes as reunion with his first love, with no immediate downside, it is not surprising he records it as rapturous. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *01 Aug 2010, 18:15 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > On 7/31/2010 12:52 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: >> Whatever "they" are, I don't think they are meant to have a truly objective >> identity and feelings apart from Severian, any more than the aquastors have >> from their Yesodi controllers. Maybe an eidolon, which has to be >> reconstructed with as perfect fidelity to the original as possible, would >> count as "an" objective person, if not the same objective person. > Actually I suspect that Severian is supposed to be an exception to the > general principle you laid down (and I agree with). Through his Magic > Resurrection Ability, Thecla at least lives again in him. I'm not so > sure about the prior Autarchs. The old Autarch does claim he will live, and re-reading reveals his mention of cells that will take up residence in Severian's body. So technically, some living tissue may survive though the mandrake in the Autarch's Citadel quarters disagrees that constitutes life. There are said to be hundreds of personalities, but a thousand years is not really long enough for that many Autarchs. The old leech says that many men of learning use the alzabo extract, and "confine ourselves to the most retentive tissues." The old Autarch says "The drug is in the vial I wear at my neck, and that blade will split the bones of my skull like pine. I have had occasion to use it, and I promise it." So the Autarchs may have occasion to use the analeptic to add other minds to theirs outside the line of succession. It would seem the ideal way to interrogate a subject whose debrief must be absolutely reliable or may involve complex and nuanced answers, but the time to recover from use of the drug would make it difficult to schedule. Still, I don't think it is something that would go on if the subjects literally lived on in the host, with significant volition and initiative. Sev records Thecla acting in his absence, but that still remains but a single will even if it is confused about which set of memories it should act on. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### David Stockhoff *01 Aug 2010, 18:36 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. > Jeff Wilson wrote: > On 7/31/2010 12:52 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: >>> Whatever "they" are, I don't think they are meant to have a truly >>> objective >>> identity and feelings apart from Severian, any more than the >>> aquastors have >>> from their Yesodi controllers. Maybe an eidolon, which has to be >>> reconstructed with as perfect fidelity to the original as possible, >>> would >>> count as "an" objective person, if not the same objective person. >> Actually I suspect that Severian is supposed to be an exception to the >> general principle you laid down (and I agree with). Through his Magic >> Resurrection Ability, Thecla at least lives again in him. I'm not so >> sure about the prior Autarchs. > The old Autarch does claim he will live, and re-reading reveals his > mention of cells that will take up residence in Severian's body. So > technically, some living tissue may survive though the mandrake in the > Autarch's Citadel quarters disagrees that constitutes life. > > There are said to be hundreds of personalities, but a thousand years > is not really long enough for that many Autarchs. The old leech says > that many men of learning use the alzabo extract, and "confine > ourselves to the most retentive tissues." The old Autarch says "The > drug is in the vial I wear at my neck, and that blade will split the > bones of my skull like pine. I have had occasion to use it, and I > promise it." > > So the Autarchs may have occasion to use the analeptic to add other > minds to theirs outside the line of succession. It would seem the > ideal way to interrogate a subject whose debrief must be absolutely > reliable or may involve complex and nuanced answers, but the time to > recover from use of the drug would make it difficult to schedule. > Still, I don't think it is something that would go on if the subjects > literally lived on in the host, with significant volition and > initiative. Sev records Thecla acting in his absence, but that still > remains but a single will even if it is confused about which set of > memories it should act on. --- ### Jeff Wilson *01 Aug 2010, 20:36 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: > Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned a month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha dynasty ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like stability, and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, and Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. This leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds the Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the 900 years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English monarchs. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *01 Aug 2010, 20:40 · in reply to David Stockhoff* In very deed. . > Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. > > Jeff Wilson wrote: >> On 7/31/2010 12:52 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>> Whatever "they" are, I don't think they are meant to have a truly >>>> objective >>>> identity and feelings apart from Severian, any more than the >>>> aquastors have >>>> from their Yesodi controllers. Maybe an eidolon, which has to be >>>> reconstructed with as perfect fidelity to the original as possible, >>>> would >>>> count as "an" objective person, if not the same objective person. >>> Actually I suspect that Severian is supposed to be an exception to the >>> general principle you laid down (and I agree with). Through his Magic >>> Resurrection Ability, Thecla at least lives again in him. I'm not so >>> sure about the prior Autarchs. >> The old Autarch does claim he will live, and re-reading reveals his >> mention of cells that will take up residence in Severian's body. So >> technically, some living tissue may survive though the mandrake in the >> Autarch's Citadel quarters disagrees that constitutes life. >> >> There are said to be hundreds of personalities, but a thousand years >> is not really long enough for that many Autarchs. The old leech says >> that many men of learning use the alzabo extract, and "confine >> ourselves to the most retentive tissues." The old Autarch says "The >> drug is in the vial I wear at my neck, and that blade will split the >> bones of my skull like pine. I have had occasion to use it, and I >> promise it." >> >> So the Autarchs may have occasion to use the analeptic to add other >> minds to theirs outside the line of succession. It would seem the >> ideal way to interrogate a subject whose debrief must be absolutely >> reliable or may involve complex and nuanced answers, but the time to >> recover from use of the drug would make it difficult to schedule. >> Still, I don't think it is something that would go on if the subjects >> literally lived on in the host, with significant volition and >> initiative. Sev records Thecla acting in his absence, but that still >> remains but a single will even if it is confused about which set of >> memories it should act on. > _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *01 Aug 2010, 21:53 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. If 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the average. It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, all but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which is exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, by contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is why. If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only about 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more plausible. But is this important? > Jeff Wilson wrote: > On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. > That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned a > month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha dynasty > ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day > apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like stability, > and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who > come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. > > Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, and > Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as > reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and > commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. This > leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds the > Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the 900 > years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English monarchs. --- ### António Pedro Marques *01 Aug 2010, 22:29 · in reply to David Stockhoff* And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. Did no one think of going there?) > David Stockhoff wrote: > 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. If > 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 > would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the average. > It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, all > but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which is > exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, by > contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. > > If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is why. > If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only about > 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more > plausible. > > But is this important? > > > Jeff Wilson wrote: >> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. >> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned a >> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha dynasty >> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day >> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like stability, >> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who >> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. >> >> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, and >> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as >> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and >> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. This >> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds the >> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the 900 >> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English monarchs. > _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *01 Aug 2010, 23:12 · in reply to António Pedro Marques* Presumably it was far from where anyone would normally go. > Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: > And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? > > (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. Did > no one think of going there?) > > David Stockhoff wrote: >> 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. If >> 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 >> would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the average. >> It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, all >> but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which is >> exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, by >> contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. >> >> If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is why. >> If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only about >> 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more >> plausible. >> >> But is this important? >> >> >> Jeff Wilson wrote: >>> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. >>> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned a >>> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha dynasty >>> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day >>> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like stability, >>> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who >>> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. >>> >>> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, and >>> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as >>> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and >>> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. This >>> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds the >>> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the 900 >>> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English >>> monarchs. >> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *01 Aug 2010, 23:47 · in reply to David Stockhoff* And a society that is physically deteriorating due to climate change, that is also in the middle of a huge war, tends not support sports such as recreational mountain climbing. Why do you always presume, Stockhoff? Don't you ever know? Do you believe that folks don't notice you saying nasty things whenever I ask a question you don't wish to answer? How stupid are you, exactly? I keep going back and forth between you and the JW's in my perennial urth list dumbest monkey test. . > Presumably it was far from where anyone would normally go. > > Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >> And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? >> >> (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. Did >> no one think of going there?) >> >> David Stockhoff wrote: >>> 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. If >>> 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 >>> would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the average. >>> It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, all >>> but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which is >>> exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, by >>> contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. >>> >>> If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is why. >>> If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only >>> about >>> 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more >>> plausible. >>> >>> But is this important? >>> >>> >>> Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. >>>> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned a >>>> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha dynasty >>>> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day >>>> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like stability, >>>> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who >>>> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. >>>> >>>> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, and >>>> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as >>>> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and >>>> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. This >>>> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds the >>>> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the 900 >>>> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English >>>> monarchs. >>> _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *01 Aug 2010, 23:57 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* Quote me. > brunians at brunians.org wrote: > And a society that is physically deteriorating due to climate change, that > is also in the middle of a huge war, tends not support sports such as > recreational mountain climbing. > > Why do you always presume, Stockhoff? > > Don't you ever know? > > Do you believe that folks don't notice you saying nasty things whenever I > ask a question you don't wish to answer? > > How stupid are you, exactly? > > I keep going back and forth between you and the JW's in my perennial urth > list dumbest monkey test. > > . > > >> Presumably it was far from where anyone would normally go. >> >> Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >> >>> And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? >>> >>> (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. Did >>> no one think of going there?) >>> >>> David Stockhoff wrote: >>> >>>> 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. If >>>> 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 >>>> would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the average. >>>> It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, all >>>> but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which is >>>> exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, by >>>> contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. >>>> >>>> If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is why. >>>> If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only >>>> about >>>> 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more >>>> plausible. >>>> >>>> But is this important? >>>> >>>> >>>> Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. >>>>>> >>>>> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned a >>>>> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha dynasty >>>>> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day >>>>> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like stability, >>>>> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who >>>>> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. >>>>> >>>>> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, and >>>>> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as >>>>> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and >>>>> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. This >>>>> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds the >>>>> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the 900 >>>>> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English >>>>> monarchs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *02 Aug 2010, 00:17 · in reply to David Stockhoff* I have no intention of doing so. . > Quote me. > > brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> And a society that is physically deteriorating due to climate change, >> that >> is also in the middle of a huge war, tends not support sports such as >> recreational mountain climbing. >> >> Why do you always presume, Stockhoff? >> >> Don't you ever know? >> >> Do you believe that folks don't notice you saying nasty things whenever >> I >> ask a question you don't wish to answer? >> >> How stupid are you, exactly? >> >> I keep going back and forth between you and the JW's in my perennial >> urth >> list dumbest monkey test. >> >> . >>> Presumably it was far from where anyone would normally go. >>> >>> Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >>>> And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? >>>> >>>> (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. Did >>>> no one think of going there?) >>>> >>>> David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>> 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. >>>>> If >>>>> 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 >>>>> would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the >>>>> average. >>>>> It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, >>>>> all >>>>> but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which is >>>>> exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, >>>>> by >>>>> contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. >>>>> >>>>> If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is >>>>> why. >>>>> If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only >>>>> about >>>>> 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more >>>>> plausible. >>>>> >>>>> But is this important? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. >>>>>> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned a >>>>>> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha >>>>>> dynasty >>>>>> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day >>>>>> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like stability, >>>>>> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who >>>>>> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. >>>>>> >>>>>> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, >>>>>> and >>>>>> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as >>>>>> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and >>>>>> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. >>>>>> This >>>>>> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds the >>>>>> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the >>>>>> 900 >>>>>> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English >>>>>> monarchs. >>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### John Watkins *02 Aug 2010, 00:36 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* You are an unpleasant aspect of this list that most of us are just putting up with. I wish you would refrain from personal insults or intentionally enigmatic digressions. We'd all be better off. > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:47 PM, wrote: > And a society that is physically deteriorating due to climate change, that > is also in the middle of a huge war, tends not support sports such as > recreational mountain climbing. > > Why do you always presume, Stockhoff? > > Don't you ever know? > > Do you believe that folks don't notice you saying nasty things whenever I > ask a question you don't wish to answer? > > How stupid are you, exactly? > > I keep going back and forth between you and the JW's in my perennial urth > list dumbest monkey test. > > . >> Presumably it was far from where anyone would normally go. >> >> Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >>> And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? >>> >>> (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. Did >>> no one think of going there?) >>> >>> David Stockhoff wrote: >>>> 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. If >>>> 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 >>>> would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the average. >>>> It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, all >>>> but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which is >>>> exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, by >>>> contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. >>>> >>>> If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is why. >>>> If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only >>>> about >>>> 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more >>>> plausible. >>>> >>>> But is this important? >>>> >>>> >>>> Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. >>>>> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned a >>>>> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha dynasty >>>>> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day >>>>> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like stability, >>>>> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who >>>>> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. >>>>> >>>>> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, and >>>>> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as >>>>> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and >>>>> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. This >>>>> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds the >>>>> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the 900 >>>>> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English >>>>> monarchs. >>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *02 Aug 2010, 00:45 · in reply to John Watkins* The feeling is quiet mutual. Most of us == who? Most of the voices in your head? How do you know that most of the list is just putting up with me? You have taken a survey? Might you publish your results here? There are several noninnumerates here, one or more of whom may comment upon your statistics: I may myself. In the meantime, if you wish to affect my involuntary removal from this list, I suggest that you apply to the owner of the list, and not to me, who - I am not sure if you get this - does not respect you and will not do what you want me to do. Do you have any questions? . . > You are an unpleasant aspect of this list that most of us are just putting > up with. I wish you would refrain from personal insults or intentionally > enigmatic digressions. We'd all be better off. > > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:47 PM, wrote: >> And a society that is physically deteriorating due to climate change, >> that >> is also in the middle of a huge war, tends not support sports such as >> recreational mountain climbing. >> >> Why do you always presume, Stockhoff? >> >> Don't you ever know? >> >> Do you believe that folks don't notice you saying nasty things whenever >> I >> ask a question you don't wish to answer? >> >> How stupid are you, exactly? >> >> I keep going back and forth between you and the JW's in my perennial >> urth >> list dumbest monkey test. >> >> . >>> Presumably it was far from where anyone would normally go. >>> >>> Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >>>> And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? >>>> >>>> (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. >> Did >> no one think of going there?) >>>> David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>> 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. >> If >> 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 >> would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the >> average. >>>>> It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, >>>>> all >>>>> but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which >>>>> is >>>>> exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, >>>>> by >>>>> contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. >>>>> >>>>> If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is >>>>> why. >>>>> If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only >>>>> about >>>>> 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more >>>>> plausible. >>>>> >>>>> But is this important? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. >>>>>> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned a >>>>>> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha >>>>>> dynasty >>>>>> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day >>>>>> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like >>>>>> stability, >>>>>> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who >>>>>> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. >>>>>> >>>>>> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, >>>>>> and >>>>>> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as >>>>>> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and >>>>>> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. >> This >> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds the >> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the >> 900 >> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English >> monarchs. >>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *02 Aug 2010, 00:57 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* I second John. That's 2. > brunians at brunians.org wrote: > The feeling is quiet mutual. > > Most of us == who? Most of the voices in your head? > > How do you know that most of the list is just putting up with me? > > You have taken a survey? > > Might you publish your results here? > > There are several noninnumerates here, one or more of whom may comment > upon your statistics: I may myself. > > In the meantime, if you wish to affect my involuntary removal from this > list, I suggest that you apply to the owner of the list, and not to me, > who - I am not sure if you get this - does not respect you and will not do > what you want me to do. > > Do you have any questions? > > . > > . > > >> You are an unpleasant aspect of this list that most of us are just putting >> up with. I wish you would refrain from personal insults or intentionally >> enigmatic digressions. We'd all be better off. >> >> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:47 PM, wrote: >> >> >>> And a society that is physically deteriorating due to climate change, >>> that >>> is also in the middle of a huge war, tends not support sports such as >>> recreational mountain climbing. >>> >>> Why do you always presume, Stockhoff? >>> >>> Don't you ever know? >>> >>> Do you believe that folks don't notice you saying nasty things whenever >>> I >>> ask a question you don't wish to answer? >>> >>> How stupid are you, exactly? >>> >>> I keep going back and forth between you and the JW's in my perennial >>> urth >>> list dumbest monkey test. >>> >>> . >>> >>> >>>> Presumably it was far from where anyone would normally go. >>>> >>>> Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >>>> >>>>> And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? >>>>> >>>>> (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. >>>>> >>> Did >>> >>>>> no one think of going there?) >>>>> >>>>> David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. >>>>>> >>> If >>> >>>>>> 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 >>>>>> would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the >>>>>> >>> average. >>> >>>>>> It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, >>>>>> >>> all >>> >>>>>> but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which >>>>>> >>> is >>> >>>>>> exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, >>>>>> >>> by >>> >>>>>> contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is >>>>>> >>> why. >>> >>>>>> If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only >>>>>> about >>>>>> 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more >>>>>> plausible. >>>>>> >>>>>> But is this important? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned a >>>>>>> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha >>>>>>> >>> dynasty >>> >>>>>>> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day >>>>>>> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like >>>>>>> >>> stability, >>> >>>>>>> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who >>>>>>> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, >>>>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>>>> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as >>>>>>> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and >>>>>>> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. >>>>>>> >>> This >>> >>>>>>> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds the >>>>>>> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the >>>>>>> >>> 900 >>> >>>>>>> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English >>>>>>> monarchs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Robert Thornton *02 Aug 2010, 01:00 · in reply to David Stockhoff* Josh, When I asked you politely to focus on Wolfe instead of other issues, note that no one condemned you or supported you. The jury is still out I think. As for my own opinion--count me in, Mr. Stockhoff. Rob > On Aug 1, 2010, at 8:57 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: > I second John. That's 2. > > brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> The feeling is quiet mutual. >> >> Most of us == who? Most of the voices in your head? >> >> How do you know that most of the list is just putting up with me? >> >> You have taken a survey? >> >> Might you publish your results here? >> >> There are several noninnumerates here, one or more of whom may comment >> upon your statistics: I may myself. >> >> In the meantime, if you wish to affect my involuntary removal from this >> list, I suggest that you apply to the owner of the list, and not to me, >> who - I am not sure if you get this - does not respect you and will not do >> what you want me to do. >> >> Do you have any questions? >> >> . >> >> . >> >> >>> You are an unpleasant aspect of this list that most of us are just putting >>> up with. I wish you would refrain from personal insults or intentionally >>> enigmatic digressions. We'd all be better off. >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:47 PM, wrote: >>> >>> >>>> And a society that is physically deteriorating due to climate change, >>>> that >>>> is also in the middle of a huge war, tends not support sports such as >>>> recreational mountain climbing. >>>> >>>> Why do you always presume, Stockhoff? >>>> >>>> Don't you ever know? >>>> >>>> Do you believe that folks don't notice you saying nasty things whenever >>>> I >>>> ask a question you don't wish to answer? >>>> >>>> How stupid are you, exactly? >>>> >>>> I keep going back and forth between you and the JW's in my perennial >>>> urth >>>> list dumbest monkey test. >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>>> Presumably it was far from where anyone would normally go. >>>>> >>>>> Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? >>>>>> >>>>>> (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. >>>>>> >>>> Did >>>> >>>>>> no one think of going there?) >>>>>> >>>>>> David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. >>>>>>> >>>> If >>>> >>>>>>> 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 >>>>>>> would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the >>>>>>> >>>> average. >>>> >>>>>>> It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, >>>>>>> >>>> all >>>> >>>>>>> but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which >>>>>>> >>>> is >>>> >>>>>>> exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, >>>>>>> >>>> by >>>> >>>>>>> contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is >>>>>>> >>>> why. >>>> >>>>>>> If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more >>>>>>> plausible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But is this important? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned a >>>>>>>> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha >>>>>>>> >>>> dynasty >>>> >>>>>>>> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day >>>>>>>> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like >>>>>>>> >>>> stability, >>>> >>>>>>>> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who >>>>>>>> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, >>>>>>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>>>>>> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as >>>>>>>> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and >>>>>>>> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. >>>>>>>> >>>> This >>>> >>>>>>>> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds the >>>>>>>> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the >>>>>>>> >>>> 900 >>>> >>>>>>>> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English >>>>>>>> monarchs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Eoff *02 Aug 2010, 01:08 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* I'm just putting up with you. I presumed you suffer from Aspergers to be honest. > On Aug 1, 2010, at 8:45 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > The feeling is quiet mutual. > > Most of us == who? Most of the voices in your head? > > How do you know that most of the list is just putting up with me? > > You have taken a survey? > > Might you publish your results here? > > There are several noninnumerates here, one or more of whom may comment > upon your statistics: I may myself. > > In the meantime, if you wish to affect my involuntary removal from this > list, I suggest that you apply to the owner of the list, and not to me, > who - I am not sure if you get this - does not respect you and will not do > what you want me to do. > > Do you have any questions? > > . > > . >> You are an unpleasant aspect of this list that most of us are just putting >> up with. I wish you would refrain from personal insults or intentionally >> enigmatic digressions. We'd all be better off. >> >> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:47 PM, wrote: >>> And a society that is physically deteriorating due to climate change, >>> that >>> is also in the middle of a huge war, tends not support sports such as >>> recreational mountain climbing. >>> >>> Why do you always presume, Stockhoff? >>> >>> Don't you ever know? >>> >>> Do you believe that folks don't notice you saying nasty things whenever >>> I >>> ask a question you don't wish to answer? >>> >>> How stupid are you, exactly? >>> >>> I keep going back and forth between you and the JW's in my perennial >>> urth >>> list dumbest monkey test. >>> >>> . >>>> Presumably it was far from where anyone would normally go. >>>> >>>> Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >>>>> And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? >>>>> >>>>> (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. >>> Did >>> no one think of going there?) >>>>> David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>> 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. >>> If >>> 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 >>> would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the >>> average. >>>>>> It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, >>>>>> all >>>>>> but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which >>>>>> is >>>>>> exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, >>>>>> by >>>>>> contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is >>>>>> why. >>>>>> If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only >>>>>> about >>>>>> 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more >>>>>> plausible. >>>>>> >>>>>> But is this important? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>>>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. >>>>>>> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned a >>>>>>> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha >>>>>>> dynasty >>>>>>> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day >>>>>>> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like >>>>>>> stability, >>>>>>> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who >>>>>>> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as >>>>>>> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and >>>>>>> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. >>> This >>> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds the >>> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the >>> 900 >>> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English >>> monarchs. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Jerry Friedman *02 Aug 2010, 01:09 · in reply to Jeff Eoff* I'm not going to participate in this unless Josh requests opinions explicitly, and I hope others will consider that plan. Jerry Friedman ----- Original Message ---- From: Jeff Eoff To: The Urth Mailing List Cc: The Urth Mailing List Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 7:08:44 PM Subject: Re: (urth) Resurrections I'm just putting up with you. I presumed you suffer from Aspergers to be honest. > On Aug 1, 2010, at 8:45 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > The feeling is quiet mutual. > > Most of us == who? Most of the voices in your head? > > How do you know that most of the list is just putting up with me? > > You have taken a survey? > > Might you publish your results here? > > There are several noninnumerates here, one or more of whom may comment > upon your statistics: I may myself. > > In the meantime, if you wish to affect my involuntary removal from this > list, I suggest that you apply to the owner of the list, and not to me, > who - I am not sure if you get this - does not respect you and will not do > what you want me to do. > > Do you have any questions? > > . > > . >> You are an unpleasant aspect of this list that most of us are just putting >> up with. I wish you would refrain from personal insults or intentionally >> enigmatic digressions. We'd all be better off. >> >> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:47 PM, wrote: >>> And a society that is physically deteriorating due to climate change, >>> that >>> is also in the middle of a huge war, tends not support sports such as >>> recreational mountain climbing. >>> >>> Why do you always presume, Stockhoff? >>> >>> Don't you ever know? >>> >>> Do you believe that folks don't notice you saying nasty things whenever >>> I >>> ask a question you don't wish to answer? >>> >>> How stupid are you, exactly? >>> >>> I keep going back and forth between you and the JW's in my perennial >>> urth >>> list dumbest monkey test. >>> >>> . >>>> Presumably it was far from where anyone would normally go. >>>> >>>> Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >>>>> And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? >>>>> >>>>> (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. >>> Did >>> no one think of going there?) >>>>> David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>> 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. >>> If >>> 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 >>> would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the >>> average. >>>>>> It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, >>>>>> all >>>>>> but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which >>>>>> is >>>>>> exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, >>>>>> by >>>>>> contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is >>>>>> why. >>>>>> If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only >>>>>> about >>>>>> 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more >>>>>> plausible. >>>>>> >>>>>> But is this important? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>>>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. >>>>>>> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned a >>>>>>> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha >>>>>>> dynasty >>>>>>> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day >>>>>>> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like >>>>>>> stability, >>>>>>> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who >>>>>>> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as >>>>>>> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and >>>>>>> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. >>> This >>> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds the >>> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the >>> 900 >>> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English >>> monarchs. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Urth Mailing List >>>>>> To post, write urth at urth.net >>>>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Urth Mailing List >>>>> To post, write urth at urth.net >>>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. >>>>> Virus Database (VPS): 100801-0, 08/01/2010 >>>>> Tested on: 8/1/2010 6:30:23 PM >>>>> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 ALWIL Software. >>>>> http://www.avast.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Urth Mailing List >>>> To post, write urth at urth.net >>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Urth Mailing List >>> To post, write urth at urth.net >>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net >> _______________________________________________ >> Urth Mailing List >> To post, write urth at urth.net >> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net --- ### James Wynn *02 Aug 2010, 01:14 · in reply to David Stockhoff* The best way to respond to this sort of random hostility on a listserv is OFFLINE. I assure you that the poster will very quickly lose interest in the conversation, and --if you keep cool and maintain a rational, helpful tone-- you will feel better when it is over. u+16b9 > brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> And a society that is physically deteriorating due to climate change, >> that >> is also in the middle of a huge war, tends not support sports such as >> recreational mountain climbing. >> >> Why do you always presume, Stockhoff? >> >> Don't you ever know? >> >> Do you believe that folks don't notice you saying nasty things >> whenever I >> ask a question you don't wish to answer? >> >> How stupid are you, exactly? >> >> I keep going back and forth between you and the JW's in my perennial >> urth >> list dumbest monkey test. >> >> . --- ### brunians at brunians.org *02 Aug 2010, 01:14 · in reply to David Stockhoff* There's only one opinion that counts. But who knows? Maybe you can get a democratic movement going. I imagine if the masses become clamorous Dr Bhatnagar might respond. How many people are on the Gene Wolfe list? Meanwhile, why don't you answer some of the questions you don't want to answer, you weasel you. . > I second John. That's 2. > > brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> The feeling is quiet mutual. >> >> Most of us == who? Most of the voices in your head? >> >> How do you know that most of the list is just putting up with me? >> >> You have taken a survey? >> >> Might you publish your results here? >> >> There are several noninnumerates here, one or more of whom may comment >> upon your statistics: I may myself. >> >> In the meantime, if you wish to affect my involuntary removal from this >> list, I suggest that you apply to the owner of the list, and not to me, >> who - I am not sure if you get this - does not respect you and will not >> do >> what you want me to do. >> >> Do you have any questions? >> >> . >> >> . >>> You are an unpleasant aspect of this list that most of us are just >>> putting >>> up with. I wish you would refrain from personal insults or >>> intentionally >>> enigmatic digressions. We'd all be better off. >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:47 PM, wrote: >>>> And a society that is physically deteriorating due to climate change, >>>> that >>>> is also in the middle of a huge war, tends not support sports such as >>>> recreational mountain climbing. >>>> >>>> Why do you always presume, Stockhoff? >>>> >>>> Don't you ever know? >>>> >>>> Do you believe that folks don't notice you saying nasty things >>>> whenever >>>> I >>>> ask a question you don't wish to answer? >>>> >>>> How stupid are you, exactly? >>>> >>>> I keep going back and forth between you and the JW's in my perennial >>>> urth >>>> list dumbest monkey test. >>>> >>>> . >>>>> Presumably it was far from where anyone would normally go. >>>>> >>>>> Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >>>>>> And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? >>>>>> >>>>>> (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. >>>> Did >>>>>> no one think of going there?) >>>>>> >>>>>> David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>>> 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. >>>> If >>>>>>> 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining >>>>>>> 180 >>>>>>> would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the >>>> average. >>>>>>> It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, >>>> all >>>>>>> but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which >>>> is >>>>>>> exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, >>>> by >>>>>>> contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is >>>> why. >>>>>>> If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly >>>>>>> more >>>>>>> plausible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But is this important? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>>>>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. >>>>>>>> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha >>>> dynasty >>>>>>>> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day >>>>>>>> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like >>>> stability, >>>>>>>> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who >>>>>>>> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, >>>> and >>>>>>>> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as >>>>>>>> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and >>>>>>>> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. >>>> This >>>>>>>> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the >>>> 900 >>>>>>>> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English >>>>>>>> monarchs. >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### aaron *02 Aug 2010, 08:58 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* You certainly have my vote. I am just sick of scrolling through the nonsense. > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 9:14 PM, wrote: > There's only one opinion that counts. > > But who knows? > > Maybe you can get a democratic movement going. > > I imagine if the masses become clamorous Dr Bhatnagar might respond. > > How many people are on the Gene Wolfe list? > > Meanwhile, why don't you answer some of the questions you don't want to > answer, you weasel you. > > . >> I second John. That's 2. >> >> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>> The feeling is quiet mutual. >>> >>> Most of us == who? Most of the voices in your head? >>> >>> How do you know that most of the list is just putting up with me? >>> >>> You have taken a survey? >>> >>> Might you publish your results here? >>> >>> There are several noninnumerates here, one or more of whom may comment >>> upon your statistics: I may myself. >>> >>> In the meantime, if you wish to affect my involuntary removal from this >>> list, I suggest that you apply to the owner of the list, and not to me, >>> who - I am not sure if you get this - does not respect you and will not >>> do >>> what you want me to do. >>> >>> Do you have any questions? >>> >>> . >>> >>> . >>>> You are an unpleasant aspect of this list that most of us are just >>>> putting >>>> up with. I wish you would refrain from personal insults or >>>> intentionally >>>> enigmatic digressions. We'd all be better off. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:47 PM, wrote: >>>>> And a society that is physically deteriorating due to climate change, >>>>> that >>>>> is also in the middle of a huge war, tends not support sports such as >>>>> recreational mountain climbing. >>>>> >>>>> Why do you always presume, Stockhoff? >>>>> >>>>> Don't you ever know? >>>>> >>>>> Do you believe that folks don't notice you saying nasty things >>>>> whenever >>>>> I >>>>> ask a question you don't wish to answer? >>>>> >>>>> How stupid are you, exactly? >>>>> >>>>> I keep going back and forth between you and the JW's in my perennial >>>>> urth >>>>> list dumbest monkey test. >>>>> >>>>> . >>>>>> Presumably it was far from where anyone would normally go. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >>>>>>> And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. >>>>> Did >>>>>>> no one think of going there?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>>>> 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. >>>>> If >>>>>>>> 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining >>>>>>>> 180 >>>>>>>> would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the >>>>> average. >>>>>>>> It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, >>>>> all >>>>>>>> but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which >>>>> is >>>>>>>> exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, >>>>> by >>>>>>>> contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is >>>>> why. >>>>>>>> If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> plausible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But is this important? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. >>>>>>>>> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha >>>>> dynasty >>>>>>>>> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day >>>>>>>>> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like >>>>> stability, >>>>>>>>> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who >>>>>>>>> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, >>>>> and >>>>>>>>> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as >>>>>>>>> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and >>>>>>>>> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. >>>>> This >>>>>>>>> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the >>>>> 900 >>>>>>>>> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English >>>>>>>>> monarchs. >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Wilson *02 Aug 2010, 09:53 · in reply to António Pedro Marques* > On 8/1/2010 5:29 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: > And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? > > (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. Did > no one think of going there?) Giant. Robot. Warriors. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### Jeff Wilson *02 Aug 2010, 10:10 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > On 8/1/2010 4:53 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: > 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. If > 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 > would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the average. > It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, all > but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which is > exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, by > contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. Which imperial dynasties did you have in mind? Holy Roman? Austro-Hungarian? Egyptian? > If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is why. There's a few more, but my Lexicon may have drifted into the Void. There's Ymar, Sulpicius, the guy that closed the roads, "Appian", Severian, > If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only about > 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more > plausible. Still not a good match for the mathematical likelihood, or the the more stable monarchies' historical examples, and I think that the considerable reliance upon secret words and non-subbornable machines makes the Autarchy more resistant to hostile seizure than similar, (apparently) constitutionless rulerships. > But is this important? There is so little said about the thousand-year succession of autarchs despite it being such a central story feature that any detail about them is important and could be the key to any of the attendant mysteries, like how Sulpicius can be expected to return. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### Ryan Dunn *02 Aug 2010, 15:00 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* I don't mind the added color to the discussion. However, I also don't know the interpersonal constructs between the various members, but I feel like I'm beginning to. Is Josh's theory that all the JW's are the same his alone? Whether true or not, it's sort of a genius, and ironic idea given the subject matter of this list. I also don't mind Rated-R replies, as long as they have some substance to them. Meaning, on-topic is preferred, but off-topic can be insightful if there's something I can quote later on. ...ryan P.S. If the Urth emails collect in my mailbox, I will often times read the emails that have brunians at brunians.org first, for the record. I don't know where that puts me in the demographic, but there it is. > On Aug 1, 2010, at 9:14 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > There's only one opinion that counts. > > But who knows? > > Maybe you can get a democratic movement going. > > I imagine if the masses become clamorous Dr Bhatnagar might respond. > > How many people are on the Gene Wolfe list? > > Meanwhile, why don't you answer some of the questions you don't want to > answer, you weasel you. > > . >> I second John. That's 2. >> >> brunians at brunians.org wrote: >>> The feeling is quiet mutual. >>> >>> Most of us == who? Most of the voices in your head? >>> >>> How do you know that most of the list is just putting up with me? >>> >>> You have taken a survey? >>> >>> Might you publish your results here? >>> >>> There are several noninnumerates here, one or more of whom may comment >>> upon your statistics: I may myself. >>> >>> In the meantime, if you wish to affect my involuntary removal from this >>> list, I suggest that you apply to the owner of the list, and not to me, >>> who - I am not sure if you get this - does not respect you and will not >>> do >>> what you want me to do. >>> >>> Do you have any questions? >>> >>> . >>> >>> . >>>> You are an unpleasant aspect of this list that most of us are just >>>> putting >>>> up with. I wish you would refrain from personal insults or >>>> intentionally >>>> enigmatic digressions. We'd all be better off. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:47 PM, wrote: >>>>> And a society that is physically deteriorating due to climate change, >>>>> that >>>>> is also in the middle of a huge war, tends not support sports such as >>>>> recreational mountain climbing. >>>>> >>>>> Why do you always presume, Stockhoff? >>>>> >>>>> Don't you ever know? >>>>> >>>>> Do you believe that folks don't notice you saying nasty things >>>>> whenever >>>>> I >>>>> ask a question you don't wish to answer? >>>>> >>>>> How stupid are you, exactly? >>>>> >>>>> I keep going back and forth between you and the JW's in my perennial >>>>> urth >>>>> list dumbest monkey test. >>>>> >>>>> . >>>>>> Presumably it was far from where anyone would normally go. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >>>>>>> And isn't Typhon supposed to be *2* thousand years before Severian? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Never mind that Typhon was up there in his mountain all the time. >>>>> Did >>>>>>> no one think of going there?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>>>> 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. >>>>> If >>>>>>>> 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining >>>>>>>> 180 >>>>>>>> would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the >>>>> average. >>>>>>>> It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, >>>>> all >>>>>>>> but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which >>>>> is >>>>>>>> exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, >>>>> by >>>>>>>> contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is >>>>> why. >>>>>>>> If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> plausible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But is this important? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jeff Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week. >>>>>>>>> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha >>>>> dynasty >>>>>>>>> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day >>>>>>>>> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like >>>>> stability, >>>>>>>>> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who >>>>>>>>> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, >>>>> and >>>>>>>>> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as >>>>>>>>> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and >>>>>>>>> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. >>>>> This >>>>>>>>> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the >>>>> 900 >>>>>>>>> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English >>>>>>>>> monarchs. >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Ryan Dunn *02 Aug 2010, 15:07 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > On Aug 1, 2010, at 5:53 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: > 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. If 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the average. It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, all but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which is exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, by contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. > > If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is why. If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only about 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more plausible. > > But is this important? This might be important if we're trying to figure out what percentage of an Autarch's brain is used vs. not used, and how that compares with a non-alzabo-corpse-devouring human(oid). However, the idea of a kingdom living on through successors by way of corpse eating is pretty cool, and maybe it was the seed of the idea for Wolfe when he constructed it in his world. ...ryan --- ### Jeff Wilson *02 Aug 2010, 16:28 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > On 8/1/2010 4:53 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: > 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. If > 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 > would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the average. > It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, all > but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which is > exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, by > contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. > > If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is why. > If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only about > 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more > plausible. > > But is this important? For such a prominent feature of the book, there's so little said about the succession of Autarchs that any detail we can glean is important to solving any number of attendant mysteries, like how Sulpicius can be expected to return. (third time attempting to submit this) ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### DAVID STOCKHOFF *02 Aug 2010, 20:11 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* Sure, I mean---is an exact range important? I don't see the text ("hundreds" of autarchs) as out of line. It suggests long, very bad periods in the Commonwealth's history, when it was sustained only by technology and its relative isolation. (The Byzantines, by contrast, had many enemies, or at least many directions from which an enemy could approach.) But an attendant point might be that the line of succession was unbroken nevertheless. --- On Mon, 8/2/10, Jeff Wilson wrote: From: Jeff Wilson Subject: Re: (urth) Resurrections To: "The Urth Mailing List" Date: Monday, August 2, 2010, 12:28 PM > On 8/1/2010 4:53 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: > 200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. If > 20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 > would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the average. > It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, all > but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which is > exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, by > contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest. > > If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is why. > If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only about > 4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more > plausible. > > But is this important? For such a prominent feature of the book, there's so little said about the succession of Autarchs that any detail we can glean is important to solving any number of attendant mysteries, like how Sulpicius can be expected to return. (third time attempting to submit this) -- Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ---