{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5815", "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": 5815, "subject": "Faterh Inire Theory", "messages": 15, "voices": 4, "first": "2010-12-11T21:28:25+00:00", "last": "2010-12-13T19:41:59+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-11T21:28:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A personal question for Gerry, if I may:\n \nDo you believe in God? \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<400FF1270C0F4EC3B27E1171FBA17B73@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2010-12-11T21:50:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" \nA personal question for Gerry, if I may:\n\nDo you believe in God?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A difficult question, because I'm not sure. I have sometimes wondered \nwhether the concept of God - that is to say the concept of God as active \nagency, not the concept of God as concept - is compatible with what we know \nof the physical nature of the universe. My current thinking is that it may \nbe, but I am far from certain of the truth.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-11T22:48:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": "<400FF1270C0F4EC3B27E1171FBA17B73@jill>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Do you believe in God?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn- A difficult question, because I'm not sure. I have sometimes wondered \nwhether the concept of God - that is to say the concept of God as active \nagency, not the concept of God as concept - is compatible with what we know \nof the physical nature of the universe. My current thinking is that it may \nbe, but I am far from certain of the truth." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nThank you for that honest and incisive answer :- ). I think tying God to being compatible\nwith the physical nature of the universe does suggest you are an unredeemable\nmaterialist. Which is cool! Heck it seems to be working very well for Stephen Hawking who,\nI think, recently denied the existence of God or found Him unnecessary or something. Science \nis an incredible tool for understanding almost all of what we see in the universe around us. \nI guess I am pretty much a materialist myself.\n \nBut, if I may be honest, materialism seems to be a worldview to which you are deeply \nwedded. You aren't showing signs of being able to step outside it when trying to understand \nthe things that materialism can't explain, like God and religious thinking and religious \nthinkers as Gene Wolfe, at some levels, is. Can you recognize materialism as a handicap in this \nsmall, restricted venue? How does one talk to a blind man who finds the existence of colors to be \n\"highly unlikely\". \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2010-12-12T17:04:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" \nDo you believe in God?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn- A difficult question, because I'm not sure. I have sometimes \nwondered\nwhether the concept of God - that is to say the concept of God as active\nagency, not the concept of God as concept - is compatible with what we \nknow\nof the physical nature of the universe. My current thinking is that it \nmay\nbe, but I am far from certain of the truth." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thank you for that honest and incisive answer :- ). I think tying God to \nbeing compatible\nwith the physical nature of the universe does suggest you are an \nunredeemable\nmaterialist. Which is cool! Heck it seems to be working very well for \nStephen Hawking who,\nI think, recently denied the existence of God or found Him unnecessary or \nsomething. Science\nis an incredible tool for understanding almost all of what we see in the \nuniverse around us.\nI guess I am pretty much a materialist myself." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Two logically incompatible things cannot both be true. That is a rational \nposition, rather than a materialist one.\n\nIf God exists, and the physical universe exists, it must be that they are \nlogically compatible. If they are not logically compatible, at least one of \nthem does not exist - or, at minimum, we are operating off an incorrect \nmodel/description of one or both, and we might find that better models are \ncompatible after all." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But, if I may be honest, materialism seems to be a worldview to which you \nare deeply\nwedded. You aren't showing signs of being able to step outside it when \ntrying to understand\nthe things that materialism can't explain, like God and religious thinking \nand religious\nthinkers as Gene Wolfe, at some levels, is. Can you recognize materialism \nas a handicap in this\nsmall, restricted venue? How does one talk to a blind man who finds the \nexistence of colors to be\n\"highly unlikely\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think materialism is the issue here, but rationality! I have never \nrejected any of your concepts as intrinsically unacceptable by its very \nnature - I have merely noted some occasions when they seem contradictory of \nother elements in the text, or when the support for them seems thin. I am \nsomewhat inclined to dismiss interpretations of the text to which both \nconditions simultaneously apply.\n\nNow it is of course perfectly possible for a *text* to be contradictory \nand/or irrational. Fundamentally, this occurs because we can only \nunderstand texts by way of interpretations - a text considered purely as a \nphysical object cannot be self-contradictory. If I write \"The sentence on \nthe other side of this paper is false\" on one side of a piece of paper, and \n\"The sentence on the other side of this paper is true\" on the other, no \nunusual physical consequences occur - the molecules of ink bind to the paper \nin the normal way; the paper does not wriggle and twist in my grasp as I \nattempt to write. So where does the apparent contradiction arise? It \narises from our supposition that the sentences can both be taken as carrying \nsome useful information; this hope is dashed when we consider both together.\n\nNow it may be that this piece of paper with its contradictory text may be \nvery marvellous and enlightening to somebody who has led a sheltered life \nwhen it comes to logical paradoxes. But do you not agree that in some \nrespects, it is rather deficient? If the paradox is not the point of it, \nthen we must admit that the two sentences tell us less than we hoped they \nmight, rather than more.\n\nBy the same token, a novel may contain contradictions; it may be that if we \nlooked closely enough, all novels do. But such contradictions must surely \nbe considered defects, in general. It is my opinion - you may disagree - \nthat Gene Wolfe would also consider them defects, and would not purposely \nembody major themes in such a fashion. I therefore conclude that \ninterpretations that contradict things we are told clearly are likely to be \nspurious.\n\nYou seem to be developing a thesis to the effect that Wolfe deliberately \nmakes his novels self-contradictory, as some sort of metaphysical gesture. \nI cannot disprove it, but I very much doubt it. I would find it easier to \nbelieve if the speculations you use to justify it, and use it to justify, \nappeared to have better grounding in the text.\n\nI hold that interpretations based on different 'levels' as you put it, \nshould be compatible to a considerable degree, and if they are incompatible, \nI believe they require a high evidentiary standard.\n\nThe blind man can be convinced of your ability to detect colours if you can \ndetect things he can not, and demonstrate their existence. You may not be \nable to convey to him the beauty of a subset, but if you can detect colours \nit is certainly the case that experiments can be done that will prove it to \nall and sundry - for example distinguishing ripe from unripe fruit in a \nglass box. Of course if the universe were completely random, it might not \nbe possible to make such demonstrations - but the universe is not, and I \nhave faith that Gene Wolfe's books are not either.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-12T21:49:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn- If God exists, and the physical universe exists, it must be that they are \nlogically compatible. If they are not logically compatible, at least one of them does not exist" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nGerry you have painted youself into an atheist corner here. God is defined, in deepest essence, as\nsupernatural. Not of this physical universe. You might as well admit the point blank obvious by your\nrationale:\n \nGod doesn't exist. The alternative is that you don't exist and [cogito ergo sum] you know you do.\n \nSo many SF stories have painted the pagan gods as real physical entities. This is a way of acknowledging\ntheir false god status. I think it was Star Trek movie VI in which the Judeo-Christian God, Jahweh, was \ndiscovered to be a planet-sized psychic entity which fed on human faith and belief. Again, proving the \nfalsity of this god." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't think materialism is the issue here, but rationality! " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nIt doesn't matter. You could call it science or math or logic. They are all basically same thing: tools\nthe human brain uses to understand the world it perceives. Are these the only tools available?\n \nGerry I asked before if you believe in God. Now I will ask if you believe in evolution (as the process\nwhich created human beings, I mean). \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D05467D.4080403@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-12-12T22:02:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You lost me. Gerry didn't say he and God were logically incompatible.\n\nTo me, one is provable/disprovable and the other is neither. That makes \nthem \"logically compatible,\" because one does not determine the \nexistence/nonexistence of the other. That is,\n\nno Gerry does not mean no God\n\nreal Gerry does not mean real God\n\nno Gerry does not mean God\n\nreal Gerry does not mean no God\n\nAnd the reverse as well. Where is the \"corner\"?\n\nI will grant that we can say, \"each one does not exist in the same sense \nas the other exists\" and if they do, incompatibility may arise. Your \nexamples are excellent.\n\nGod appearing to Gerry would, as you suggest, prove that He exists as \nGerry does and cast some doubt on His existence otherwise---but not \nreally, because maybe God was just popping in for Gerry's benefit and \nleft most of Himself at home in Nondisprovableverse. Similarly, if God \nuses a Mac, then Disprovability has contaminated Nondisprovableverse and \nwe have a problem. A hierarchy of 'Verses would help.\n\nBut I don't anticipate either type of event, myself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/12/2010 4:49 PM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn- If God exists, and the physical universe exists, it must be that they are\nlogically compatible. If they are not logically compatible, at least one of them does not exist" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry you have painted youself into an atheist corner here. God is defined, in deepest essence, as\nsupernatural. Not of this physical universe. You might as well admit the point blank obvious by your\nrationale:\n\nGod doesn't exist. The alternative is that you don't exist and [cogito ergo sum] you know you do.\n\nSo many SF stories have painted the pagan gods as real physical entities. This is a way of acknowledging\ntheir false god status. I think it was Star Trek movie VI in which the Judeo-Christian God, Jahweh, was\ndiscovered to be a planet-sized psychic entity which fed on human faith and belief. Again, proving the\nfalsity of this god." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I don't think materialism is the issue here, but rationality!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It doesn't matter. You could call it science or math or logic. They are all basically same thing: tools\nthe human brain uses to understand the world it perceives. Are these the only tools available?\n\nGerry I asked before if you believe in God. Now I will ask if you believe in evolution (as the process\nwhich created human beings, I mean). \t\t \t \t\t\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<7A2C2A60DD1C4842AA03DEB45FFBA650@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2010-12-13T01:32:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn- If God exists, and the physical universe exists, it must be \nthat they are\nlogically compatible. If they are not logically compatible, at least one \nof them does not exist" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry you have painted youself into an atheist corner here. God is \ndefined, in deepest essence, as\nsupernatural. Not of this physical universe. You might as well admit the \npoint blank obvious by your\nrationale:" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You dare to define God? I am not so brash!\n\nBut seriously, it doesn't matter whether he is of the physical universe or \nnot, so long as he is logically compatible with it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "God doesn't exist. The alternative is that you don't exist and [cogito \nergo sum] you know you do." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You are asserting that God is incompatible with the physical universe. As I \nsaid. that question concerns me, but I have not come to a conclusion with \nregard to it. For that matter, I do not think that 'Cogito ergo sum' \nrepresents all that there is to be said about its purported subject.\n\nThis all seems beside the point anyway." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So many SF stories have painted the pagan gods as real physical entities. \nThis is a way of acknowledging\ntheir false god status. I think it was Star Trek movie VI in which the \nJudeo-Christian God, Jahweh, was\ndiscovered to be a planet-sized psychic entity which fed on human faith \nand belief. Again, proving the\nfalsity of this god." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There are mailing lists devoted to Star Trek. This one, however, is \nconcerned with the works of Gene Wolfe I find the latter considerably more \ninteresting.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<045232A503944C43AD9C37CE6114BB66@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2010-12-13T01:35:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" \nGerry I asked before if you believe in God. Now I will ask if you believe \nin evolution (as the process\nwhich created human beings, I mean)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That question is easier. Of course I do.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-13T04:01:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": "<045232A503944C43AD9C37CE6114BB66@jill>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn- There are mailing lists devoted to Star Trek. This one, however, is concerned \nwith the works of Gene Wolfe I find the latter considerably more interesting." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Now that's a snotty comment, heh! But an honest opinion I'm sure. Please consider that I am \nnot writing with you only as an audience. I don't know if you have any background in public\nspeaking or performance as I do but if ever called to the task I recommend occasional \nhumorous departures from your main subject as a way to avoid being a total bore to your audience.\n \nActually, this whole thread about Gerry's worldview is probably off-topic enough to warrant a\nreprimand from Ranjit. (sorry R. I'll try to wrap it up quickly!).\n \n \nDo you believe in evolution?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That question is easier. Of course I do." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI ask because you seem to have a somewhat (or perhaps totally) religious attachment to rationality\nand logic as tools for understanding the universe. I see no signs that you question their supremacy\nor brook any competition from other forms of interpretation and understanding. So, within an evolutionary\nframework, I am wondering how you think such ultimate universal tools came to reside in the brains of\ncreatures closer to our ape cousins than mice are to rats.\n \nDo you have a sense of 2001: A.S.O. stuff going on where something like black rectangles from space \nuplifted us from animals lookng for bananas to divine masters of perception?\n \nOr is it based on the evolutionary principle of diversity and range. Some (surely most) human beings use\ntheir limited rational and logical abilities simply to chase resources and sex and comfort. While some\nhuman beings are endowed with an extra-large dose of these abilities (like having a longer tail) and only \nthese few superior humans can use their gifts to plumb the deepest mysteries of the universe (which includes \nGene Wolfe books.\n \nOr is there another explanation you have? I am really interested Gerry. You are a case in study as your flow \nof thinking is so different than my current flow. Actually I would be interested in your age also. (I am 49). \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-13T05:19:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam Thornton- One suspects that this has been the fate of many monarchical buildings converted to \nbureaucratic workplaces as the Type Of Government clanked along its chain, in our time. I think \nit is likely that Jonas, as the representative of Near Future [Ea|U]rth is more familiar with Cubeville \nthan is Severian.The room's just a waiting room in bland government offices, complete with cookies and \ncoffee urn. It's just that the wait times have become generational; indeed, eternal." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nHeh. This resonates with me also. In writing BotNS I think Gene Wolfe was still working either as an \nengineer or as an engineering journal editor. This scene could partially be his version of \"Dilbert\" \nor \"Office Space\". I'm pretty sure WOlfe includes in-jokes in his work that only his close family and\nfriends could really understand. Perhaps co-workers also.\n \n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<928794843-1292217869-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1918727253-@bda123.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>", "from": { "name": "hammstu at sbcglobal.net", "address": "hammstu at sbcglobal.net" }, "date": "2010-12-13T05:24:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Currently re-reading \"Forlesen\" and I agree that this may be a commentary on corporate/day job monotony. \nSent from my BlackBerry? smartphone with SprintSpeed\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Lee Berman \nSender: urth-bounces at lists.urth.netDate: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 00:19:42 " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To: \nReply-To: The Urth Mailing List \nSubject: (urth) Faterh Inire Theory\nAdam Thornton- One suspects that this has been the fate of many monarchical buildings converted to \nbureaucratic workplaces as the Type Of Government clanked along its chain, in our time. I think \nit is likely that Jonas, as the representative of Near Future [Ea|U]rth is more familiar with Cubeville \nthan is Severian.The room's just a waiting room in bland government offices, complete with cookies and \ncoffee urn. It's just that the wait times have become generational; indeed, eternal." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nHeh. This resonates with me also. In writing BotNS I think Gene Wolfe was still working either as an \nengineer or as an engineering journal editor. This scene could partially be his version of \"Dilbert\" \nor \"Office Space\". I'm pretty sure WOlfe includes in-jokes in his work that only his close family and\nfriends could really understand. Perhaps co-workers also.\n \n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<1A220AD459F147C0BD23F02E8BE0DB61@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2010-12-13T16:50:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn- There are mailing lists devoted to Star Trek. This one, \nhowever, is concerned\nwith the works of Gene Wolfe I find the latter considerably more \ninteresting." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now that's a snotty comment, heh! But an honest opinion I'm sure. Please \nconsider that I am\nnot writing with you only as an audience. I don't know if you have any \nbackground in public\nspeaking or performance as I do but if ever called to the task I recommend \noccasional\nhumorous departures from your main subject as a way to avoid being a total \nbore to your audience." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "For a fact I do try to include an occasional touch of humour. Perhaps my \nwitticisms are missing the target.\n\nDo you also find your audiences respond well to patronisation?\n\nAs for Star Trek, it certainly has its merits, but its medium, format and \naudience militate against the subtle themes and expressions we look for in \nWolfe's books. That is all I am saying. That it can do some things better \nthan Wolfe's books is also certainly true; I just do not think they are \nmostly the same things we discuss here." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually, this whole thread about Gerry's worldview is probably off-topic \nenough to warrant a\nreprimand from Ranjit. (sorry R. I'll try to wrap it up quickly!).\n\nDo you believe in evolution?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "That question is easier. Of course I do." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I ask because you seem to have a somewhat (or perhaps totally) religious \nattachment to rationality\nand logic as tools for understanding the universe. I see no signs that you \nquestion their supremacy\nor brook any competition from other forms of interpretation and \nunderstanding. So, within an evolutionary\nframework, I am wondering how you think such ultimate universal tools \ncame to reside in the brains of\ncreatures closer to our ape cousins than mice are to rats." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Are we closer to apes than mice are to rats? Mice and rats would certainly \nthink so. I guess it would depend on your criteria. (Genetic distance is \none possible criterion, but there are others.)\n\nAs for tools other than rationality and logic, I do not in the least \ndiscount them. I assert that the best understanding comes when we use all \nour tools, not just some. From my perspective, you seem averse to using the \ntools of rationality and logic, lest they show you something you do not \nlike." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Do you have a sense of 2001: A.S.O. stuff going on where something like \nblack rectangles from space\nuplifted us from animals lookng for bananas to divine masters of \nperception?\n\nOr is it based on the evolutionary principle of diversity and range. Some \n(surely most) human beings use\ntheir limited rational and logical abilities simply to chase resources and \nsex and comfort. While some\nhuman beings are endowed with an extra-large dose of these abilities (like \nhaving a longer tail) and only\nthese few superior humans can use their gifts to plumb the deepest \nmysteries of the universe (which includes\nGene Wolfe books." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not think the distinction between the abilities of individuals is as \nstrong as you indicate above (most people can learn to read and enjoy it, \nIMO) - nor do I think that the ability to appreciate Gene Wolfe is a special \nmark of superiority, although it is probably less common than the ability to \nappreciate Star Trek. And I think we all attempt to plumb the mysteries of \nthe universe, in our different ways.\n\nI don't see the \"diversity and range\" principle as especially relevant \nhere. For whatever reasons, we appear to have evolved not just rationality \nand logic, but an an ability to create and appreciate art, be it Wolfe, Star \nTrek, or other forms, low or high. This is an ability shared by every \nhuman, and used by every human, although perhaps not to the same degree in \nall. What vestiges of such abilities are detectible in the behaviour of \napes is something I am not qualified to judge. Certainly there is some \ncommon mental ground between ourselves and apes (or other creatures)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Or is there another explanation you have? I am really interested Gerry. \nYou are a case in study as your flow\nof thinking is so different than my current flow. Actually I would be \ninterested in your age also. (I am 49)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am 51, so it would appear that a generational difference may be discounted \nas a possibility. However, I do not believe my thinking is quite so unusual \nor anomalous as you imagine. You are focused on me because I have \nchallenged your theories, but I suspect many others would have questions \nalong the some lines as those I have put forward.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<33FFF872E9844B0C8E0EAD11A4EBD4B6@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2010-12-13T17:01:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Adam Thornton- One suspects that this has been the fate of many \nmonarchical buildings converted to\nbureaucratic workplaces as the Type Of Government clanked along its chain, \nin our time. I think\nit is likely that Jonas, as the representative of Near Future [Ea|U]rth is \nmore familiar with Cubeville\nthan is Severian.The room's just a waiting room in bland government \noffices, complete with cookies and\ncoffee urn. It's just that the wait times have become generational; \nindeed, eternal." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Heh. This resonates with me also. In writing BotNS I think Gene Wolfe was \nstill working either as an\nengineer or as an engineering journal editor. This scene could partially \nbe his version of \"Dilbert\"\nor \"Office Space\". I'm pretty sure WOlfe includes in-jokes in his work \nthat only his close family and\nfriends could really understand. Perhaps co-workers also." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have always thought that the horridly artificial plastic oranges in \n_Peace_ were a reflection of the ghastly mass-produced 'Pringles'. Wolfe \nreportedly developed the machine that cooks them. Perhaps they are the true \ncrime for which Weer must atone.\n\nBut then again, I hate Pringles, so this may be too personalised a reading.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-13T17:57:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": "<33FFF872E9844B0C8E0EAD11A4EBD4B6@jill>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn- Do you also find your audiences respond well to patronisation?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI always mirror my audiences in tone. Speaking in their language is the best,\nsometimes only way, to achieve communication." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As for Star Trek, it certainly has its merits, but its medium, format and \naudience militate against the subtle themes and expressions we look for in \nWolfe's books. That is all I am saying" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And all I am saying is that there is a good chance Gene Wolfe gathered with\nhis family each week in the late 60's for episodes of Star Trek as so many American \nfamilies did, including my own. You seem to suggest the show was beneath him and you. \nAnd the same for me and my family. We have the recent evidence of Ryan saying \nGene Wolfe's only exposure to a classic legend was a Disney movie. As I was saying, \nin regard to patronisation, I mirror my audience." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Are we closer to apes than mice are to rats? Mice and rats would certainly \nthink so. I guess it would depend on your criteria. (Genetic distance is \none possible criterion, but there are others.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nAre there? Within the acknowledged evolutionary framework we were discussing,\nwhat other criterion is there? Are fish and whales close? they look alike, have\nsome similar adaptations..but I don't see how that is relevant to our discussion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As for tools other than rationality and logic, I do not in the least \ndiscount them. I assert that the best understanding comes when we use all \nour tools, not just some. From my perspective, you seem averse to using the \ntools of rationality and logic, lest they show you something you do not \nlike." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You seem to discount intuition and gestalt understanding in here. I can't speak to\nyour attitude else where. You are descending to rhetorical snottiness rather than \nyour true observations. If I was really averse to using the tools of rationality and \nlogic then my cheese would be riposted by the hyperbolic perigee of pinballs and gum." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I am 51, so it would appear that a generational difference may be discounted \nas a possibility." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nAgreed. I asked because there was a time period in my life when I thought and spoke as you \ndo now. I think we will have to just agree that we think differently and leave it at that. \nI will defer any last words to you. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<677B6C8A47594AE199C33DAE58F28857@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2010-12-13T19:41:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Faterh Inire Theory", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" \nGerry Quinn- Do you also find your audiences respond well to \npatronisation?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I always mirror my audiences in tone. Speaking in their language is the \nbest,\nsometimes only way, to achieve communication." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not believe I have patronised you. If I had avoided criticising your \ninterpretations of BotNS and just ignored them, that would have been \npatronisation." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As for Star Trek, it certainly has its merits, but its medium, format and\naudience militate against the subtle themes and expressions we look for in\nWolfe's books. That is all I am saying" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And all I am saying is that there is a good chance Gene Wolfe gathered \nwith\nhis family each week in the late 60's for episodes of Star Trek as so many \nAmerican\nfamilies did, including my own. You seem to suggest the show was beneath \nhim and you.\nAnd the same for me and my family. We have the recent evidence of Ryan \nsaying\nGene Wolfe's only exposure to a classic legend was a Disney movie. As I \nwas saying,\nin regard to patronisation, I mirror my audience." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I haven't suggested that Star Trek or Pinnochio are beneath anyone. I've \nwatched plenty of them. I do think it somewhat unlikely that the 1991 Star \nTrek movie you mentioned is an influence on BotNS. But yes, some Star Trek \nepisodes from the '60s did indeed feature aliens who looked like, copied or \nemulated Greek gods, for reasons which may have owed as much to wardrobe \ncosts as to philosophical inspiration. Maybe that's where Wolfe got some of \nhis ideas, who knows?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Are we closer to apes than mice are to rats? Mice and rats would \ncertainly\nthink so. I guess it would depend on your criteria. (Genetic distance is\none possible criterion, but there are others.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Are there? Within the acknowledged evolutionary framework we were \ndiscussing,\nwhat other criterion is there? Are fish and whales close? they look alike, \nhave\nsome similar adaptations..but I don't see how that is relevant to our \ndiscussion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We are discussing both evolution and culture. Obviously genetic distance is \none obvious criterion from the evolutionary side of things, but its \nrelationship to culture seems less obvious. Furthermore, it could be that a \nlot of the genetic distance between apes and humans relates to brain \ndevelopment, while that between mice and rats may have less difference here. \nSo it is not obvious that simplistic measurements of genetic difference are \nappropriate here even in their own terms." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As for tools other than rationality and logic, I do not in the least\ndiscount them. I assert that the best understanding comes when we use all\nour tools, not just some. From my perspective, you seem averse to using \nthe\ntools of rationality and logic, lest they show you something you do not\nlike." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You seem to discount intuition and gestalt understanding in here. I can't \nspeak to\nyour attitude else where. You are descending to rhetorical snottiness \nrather than\nyour true observations. If I was really averse to using the tools of \nrationality and\nlogic then my cheese would be riposted by the hyperbolic perigee of \npinballs and gum." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have stated quite clearly above that I do not discount such tools, but \n*value* them. I do not think you are valuing logic and rationality enough \nas criteria. I think that undervaluing logic and rationality leads to \nelephant theories. I don't see any \"rhetorical snottiness\" in what I said." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I am 51, so it would appear that a generational difference may be \ndiscounted\nas a possibility." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Agreed. I asked because there was a time period in my life when I thought \nand spoke as you\ndo now." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again with the patronisation. Grow up little Gerry and you will understand \nthe true wisdom behind my theory that Typhon is Severian's sister." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " I think we will have to just agree that we think differently and leave it \nat that.\nI will defer any last words to you." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What would be the point? You have almost invariably placed words in my \nmouth rather than deal with those I have already spoken.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] } ] }