# Mirror Image Freedom *The Urth list — 21 messages, 9 voices, 15 Dec 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 *15 Dec 2010, 12:37* Discussion of Sidero sparked my thoughts regarding Inire and Tzadkiel, Commonwealth and The Ship as reversed mirror images of each other. On the issue of freedom: The Commonwealth is highly restrictive place. A caste system locks people into their social status. Guilds lock people into careers. There is slavery/ indentured servitude. The roads are closed. Reverence for the Autarch is mouthed everywhere (joining the war seems to be the only measure of freedom available..oh, and also pioneering a barren land as Casdoe and Becan do). (if we expand our view of Urth to Ascia the freedom issue is even worse) On the Ship there isn't much restriction at all. We have an apparently absent Captain about whom sailors grumble has been too lax in control of jibers. Severian can wander around anywhere and everywhere, on deck, climb the sails etc. He can become a sailor at the drop of a hat. The only measure of authority seems to be, ironically, a piece of machinery designed entirely for human servitude: a suit of armour. Sidereo is (to me) one of the most unpleasant characters in BotNS. But perhaps he is a symbol of freedom, (or the problems with too much freedom?) in his fury at being put to the use he was designed for, by Severian crawling inside him. --- ### David Stockhoff *15 Dec 2010, 13:41 · in reply to Lee Berman* You're right---that's a huge, diametrical opposition. Stark differences in freedom seem to appear in the series, as well as the Wizard Knight. What do you think it means? > On 12/15/2010 7:37 AM, Lee Berman wrote: > > Discussion of Sidero sparked my thoughts regarding Inire and Tzadkiel, Commonwealth and The Ship as > reversed mirror images of each other. On the issue of freedom: The Commonwealth is highly restrictive place. > A caste system locks people into their social status. Guilds lock people into careers. There is slavery/ > indentured servitude. The roads are closed. Reverence for the Autarch is mouthed everywhere (joining the > war seems to be the only measure of freedom available..oh, and also pioneering a barren land as Casdoe and > Becan do). (if we expand our view of Urth to Ascia the freedom issue is even worse) > > On the Ship there isn't much restriction at all. We have an apparently absent Captain about whom sailors > grumble has been too lax in control of jibers. Severian can wander around anywhere and everywhere, on deck, > climb the sails etc. He can become a sailor at the drop of a hat. The only measure of authority seems to be, > ironically, a piece of machinery designed entirely for human servitude: a suit of armour. Sidereo is (to me) > one of the most unpleasant characters in BotNS. But perhaps he is a symbol of freedom, (or the problems with > too much freedom?) in his fury at being put to the use he was designed for, by Severian crawling inside him. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Lee Berman *15 Dec 2010, 15:48 · follows David Stockhoff* > David Stockhoff- You're right---that's a huge, diametrical opposition. Stark differences > in freedom seem to appear in the series, as well as the Wizard Knight. > What do you think it means? Heh, good question! You made me think about it. I have to be cautious to not inject my own views into things, but rather focus on what I think are Gene Wolfe's (my own socio-anthropological viewpoint is that individual freedom and government control are, along with all political and religious variations, a function of human adaptation to the prevailing environment of the time). > From a gnostic point of view, order/control in opposition to freedom/chaos is found in the > metaphors of Apollonian vs. Dionysian aspects of human nature. Apollonian being the scientific > male side and Dionysian being the female (or perhaps hermaphroditic) mystical side. (haven't we seen a conflict between these two approaches in recent debates in here? As I mentioned in one post, my approach here is seen in an entirely different light when I am perceived as female; testosterone levels drop and the alpha male snarling subsides) I am more and more considering that The Cumaean should be seen as the female aspect of Father Inire just as Tzadkiel has "his" female side. Since the Commonwealth is a controlled, regulated, rigidly maintained place, we have *Father* Inire as its de facto ruler. We never see Tzadkiel as captain of the rather mystical, free-wheeling Ship on the outgoing voyage. But on the return trip we do see Tzadkiel sitting in the captain's chair and at that time Tzadkiel is female. > From a poltiical point of view, Gene Wolfe is a mixed bag. He (like me) was born and raised in a society > which (some say fanatically) obsesses about individual freedom. But as an engineer and scholar We can guess > he has an appreciation for the need for a rigidly ordered society also; though order through a royal hierarchy > seems to appeal to him more than order imposed by communist ideology and politburo committees (Group > of 17). By assigning the Dionysian, personal freedom loving domain of BotNS to his Angel and the Apollonian rigidly controlled domain to his Devil (sorry) I think Wolfe is suggesting that if we cannot have perfect balance we ought to always err on the side of freedom. Having Tzadziel's son, Venant, be killed during the battle on Yesod probably invokes his recognition of the price we must pay for freedom. I have not read Wizard Knight yet. Since it was written by Wolfe post-Cold War I would be interested in finding any socio-political differences from BotNS. Spoilers by those who have read it are welcome. --- ### Gerry Quinn *15 Dec 2010, 18:35 · in reply to Lee Berman* > From: "Lee Berman" > From a gnostic point of view, order/control in opposition to freedom/chaos > is found in the > metaphors of Apollonian vs. Dionysian aspects of human nature. Apollonian > being the scientific > male side and Dionysian being the female (or perhaps hermaphroditic) > mystical side. > > (haven't we seen a conflict between these two approaches in recent debates > in here? As I mentioned > in one post, my approach here is seen in an entirely different light when > I am perceived as female; > testosterone levels drop and the alpha male snarling subsides) That must be the explanation. This "alpha male snarling" (i.e. expressions of doubt regarding your theories) couldn't possibly be simply an indication that some people find your ideas unconvincing, now, could it? - Gerry Quinn --- ### Lee Berman *15 Dec 2010, 19:41 · follows Gerry Quinn* > Gerry Quinn- That must be the explanation. This "alpha male snarling" (i.e. expressions > of doubt regarding your theories) couldn't possibly be simply an indication that some people > find your ideas unconvincing, now, could it? Gerry I don't find your posts the best example of alpha dog snarling around here in the past 6 years but if the shoe fits.. You have strongly asserted that all ideas must be subjected to rigorous testing and evaluation. And you have presented yourself as the perfect testor and evaluator, a dispassionate, ethereal dispenser of objective, rational, logical evaluation. One who is able to correctly assess the likelihood, the mathematical probability of correctness of all ideas presented here. I myself, do not believe that ideas and the testing of ideas can be somehow divorced from the humanity of the thinker and evaluator. Surely if ideas must be rigorously tested, so must the evaluator be tested, yes? You have undergone an examination recently. I am pleased to report you seem fully human to me. Nothing to be ashamed of there IMHO. You have been proven to not be a computer program. You are driven by factors other than pure dispassionate intellect. But perhaps the time has come to stop woofin'. or in other words... You may not always be right but I ain't always wrong ;- ). --- ### Gerry Quinn *16 Dec 2010, 17:33 · in reply to Lee Berman* > From: "Lee Berman" >> Gerry Quinn- That must be the explanation. This "alpha male snarling" >> (i.e. expressions >> of doubt regarding your theories) couldn't possibly be simply an >> indication that some people >> find your ideas unconvincing, now, could it? > Gerry I don't find your posts the best example of alpha dog snarling > around here in the past 6 > years but if the shoe fits.. > > You have strongly asserted that all ideas must be subjected to rigorous > testing and evaluation. Yes. > And you have presented yourself as the perfect testor and evaluator, a > dispassionate, ethereal > dispenser of objective, rational, logical evaluation. When have I ever presented myself as such? I have indicated that it is something we should aspire to; I have never stated or implied that I embody it. > One who is able to correctly assess the > likelihood, the mathematical probability of correctness of all ideas > presented here. I would like to think that my assessments are good, but I make no special claim to success. In particular, I make no special claim to authority in this regard. My arguments in favour of are against a particular idea or theory should stand on their own merits, just like yours or anyone else's. > I myself, do not believe that ideas and the testing of ideas can be > somehow divorced from > the humanity of the thinker and evaluator. Surely if ideas must be > rigorously tested, so must the > evaluator be tested, yes? It rather depends on the nature of the evaluation. If A presents a theory and B stamps it 'REJECTED' without explanation, we must certainly take into account or views of B if we are paying heed to the rejection. But if B lays out a strong and logical case for rejection, B's character and motives of less import. Indeed, we may suspect that A's protests in this regard may reflect more on A than on B. > You have undergone an examination recently. I am pleased to report you > seem fully human to me. Nothing > to be ashamed of there IMHO. You have been proven to not be a computer > program. You are driven by factors > other than pure dispassionate intellect. But perhaps the time has come to > stop woofin'. > > or in other words... > > You may not always be right but I ain't always wrong ;- ). I will continue to express my views regarding theories you or others may present here, just as I hope others will express their views regarding mine. In all cases I would expect such views and theories to be supported or challenged by evidence (principally textual) rather than by special pleading and innuendo. - Gerry Quinn --- ### Lee Berman *16 Dec 2010, 18:08 · follows Gerry Quinn* > Gerry Quinn- If A presents a theory and B stamps it 'REJECTED' without explanation, we must > certainly take into account or views of B if we are paying heed to the rejection. But if B lays > out a strong and logical case for rejection, B's character and motives of less import. Indeed, we may > suspect that A's protests in this regard may reflect more on A than on B. This is simplistic and biased. You clearly see yourself in the role of B. Only A is seen as capable of ego-related bias, never B. You just won't recognize that what seems "strong and logical" to you is not seen that way by every other person. > I will continue to express my views regarding theories you or others may present here, just as I hope > others will express their views regarding mine. In all cases I would expect such views and theories to > be supported or challenged by evidence (principally textual) rather than by special pleading and innuendo. Your "God and Christ are in the Sun Series" theory is a good example. To you, that theory is based on strong textual evidence. Yet I can see your mental edits, resulting in the deletion of texual mentions of so many other gods, many by name. You don't want them so aren't there. But Christ is wanted, so you include him in the story based on flimsy evidence which is as good an example of "pleading and inuendo" as there can be. Normally I would not use such patronising language to express doubt regarding someone else's valued, long- considered personal interpretations. I only use it here to illustrate what it is like to be criticized by Gerry Quinn. I would never suggest you stop expressing your views. Nor do I expect you to change the unctuous tone that creeps into your posts. You are who you are. The best I can hope is that you become aware of it. I'll leave it at that. --- ### Gerry Quinn *16 Dec 2010, 19:25 · in reply to Lee Berman* > From: "Lee Berman" >> Gerry Quinn- If A presents a theory and B stamps it 'REJECTED' without >> explanation, we must >> certainly take into account or views of B if we are paying heed to the >> rejection. But if B lays >> out a strong and logical case for rejection, B's character and motives of >> less import. Indeed, we may >> suspect that A's protests in this regard may reflect more on A than on B. > This is simplistic and biased. You clearly see yourself in the role of B. > Only A is seen as capable of > ego-related bias, never B. You just won't recognize that what seems > "strong and logical" to you is not > seen that way by every other person. Far from it. In the case of the Antechamber, for example, I am clearly in the position of A, whereas David Stockhoff, in particular, is in trhe position of B. I don't whimper and question his motives and attempt to pyschoanalyse him. I answer his points as best I can and try to come up with better ones of my own. >> I will continue to express my views regarding theories you or others may >> present here, just as I hope >> others will express their views regarding mine. In all cases I would >> expect such views and theories to >> be supported or challenged by evidence (principally textual) rather than >> by special pleading and innuendo. > Your "God and Christ are in the Sun Series" theory is a good example. To > you, that theory is based on strong > textual evidence. Yet I can see your mental edits, resulting in the > deletion of texual mentions of so many > other gods, many by name. You don't want them so aren't there. But Christ > is wanted, so you include him in > the story based on flimsy evidence which is as good an example of > "pleading and inuendo" as there can be. I've accepted without demur that Dionysus is mentioned, which I had not noticed before. I have tended to refer to Jesus rather than Christ, as the text is explicit there. > Normally I would not use such patronising language to express doubt > regarding someone else's valued, long- > considered personal interpretations. I only use it here to illustrate what > it is like to be criticized by > Gerry Quinn. I can only hope you will learn to criticise like Gerry Quinn. You could make a start by including more references to the text and fewer personal attacks. > I would never suggest you stop expressing your views. Nor do I expect you > to change the unctuous tone > that creeps into your posts. You are who you are. The best I can hope is > that you become aware of it. I'll > leave it at that. It makes me laugh when you refer to 'patronising language' and 'unctuous tones'. - Gerry Quinn --- ### James Wynn *16 Dec 2010, 19:37 · in reply to Gerry Quinn* > It makes me laugh when you refer to 'patronising language' and > 'unctuous tones'. He laughed unctuously. --- ### Lee Berman *16 Dec 2010, 19:52 · follows James Wynn* > Gerry Quinn- I can only hope you will learn to criticise like Gerry Quinn. You could make a > start by including more references to the text and fewer personal attacks. I don't know you personally, Gerry. Any criticism I have of you is based purely on your writing. By your definition, wouldn't calling someone else's expression of heartfelt feelings as "whimpering" be a personal attack? Not really interested in lessons of that sort. Sorry. My references to the text are numerous and substantial, as you would know if you read them. Your assessment of my lack of references is based on alpha dog snarling not reality. > It makes me laugh when you refer to 'patronising language' and 'unctuous tones'. What is your purpose in telling me this? So I can, in a sense, "hear" your laughter? Lee Berman is also wondering what personality trait is implied by referring to one's self in third person. --- ### Son of Witz *16 Dec 2010, 20:10 · in reply to Lee Berman* I'm gonna say it for everybody... Give it a rest, guys, you have made your points over and over and now it's time to move away from the discussions about the discussion. Both Lee and Gerry are making excellent contributions aside from this sniping bullshit. Just leave it alone already. ~witz > On Dec 16, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Lee Berman wrote: >> Gerry Quinn- I can only hope you will learn to criticise like Gerry Quinn. You could make a >> start by including more references to the text and fewer personal attacks. > I don't know you personally, Gerry. Any criticism I have of you is based purely on your writing. > > By your definition, wouldn't calling someone else's expression of heartfelt feelings as "whimpering" > be a personal attack? > > Not really interested in lessons of that sort. Sorry. My references to the text are numerous and > substantial, as you would know if you read them. Your assessment of my lack of references is based on > alpha dog snarling not reality. >> It makes me laugh when you refer to 'patronising language' and 'unctuous tones'. > What is your purpose in telling me this? So I can, in a sense, "hear" your laughter? > > > Lee Berman is also wondering what personality trait is implied by referring to one's self in third person. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *16 Dec 2010, 20:11 · in reply to Son of Witz* +1 > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Son of Witz > wrote: > > I'm gonna say it for everybody... > > Give it a rest, guys, you have made your points over and over and now it's time to move away from the discussions about the discussion. > > Both Lee and Gerry are making excellent contributions aside from this sniping bullshit. > Just leave it alone already. > > ~witz --- ### Lee Berman *16 Dec 2010, 20:24 · follows Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > Son o' Witz- I'm gonna say it for everybody...Give it a rest, guys > Dan'l- +1 Oh, you guys. Gerry and I have been having a lot of fun with this. But, once it expressly becomes an annoyance to others, well...that needs to be it. All fun things must come to an end. And with apologies to all for the annoyance and thanks for indulging the gladiators for as long as y'all did. :- ) --- ### Son of Witz *16 Dec 2010, 20:36 · in reply to Lee Berman* > On Dec 16, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Lee Berman wrote: >> Son o' Witz- I'm gonna say it for everybody...Give it a rest, guys >> Dan'l- +1 > Oh, you guys. Gerry and I have been having a lot of fun with this. But, once > it expressly becomes an annoyance to others, well...that needs to be it. All > fun things must come to an end. And with apologies to all for the annoyance and > thanks for indulging the gladiators for as long as y'all did. > > :- ) > _______________________________________________ Like I said, I enjoy the hell out of both of your posts when they are on topic. --- ### Gerry Quinn *16 Dec 2010, 20:49 · in reply to Son of Witz* Will try ;) - Gerry Quinn ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Son of Witz" > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 8:10 PM > Subject: Re: (urth) Mirror Image Freedom > > I'm gonna say it for everybody... > > Give it a rest, guys, you have made your points over and over and now it's > time to move away from the discussions about the discussion. > > Both Lee and Gerry are making excellent contributions aside from this > sniping bullshit. > Just leave it alone already. > > ~witz > > On Dec 16, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Lee Berman wrote: >>> Gerry Quinn- I can only hope you will learn to criticise like Gerry >>> Quinn. You could make a >>> start by including more references to the text and fewer personal >>> attacks. >> I don't know you personally, Gerry. Any criticism I have of you is based >> purely on your writing. >> >> By your definition, wouldn't calling someone else's expression of >> heartfelt feelings as "whimpering" >> be a personal attack? >> >> Not really interested in lessons of that sort. Sorry. My references to >> the text are numerous and >> substantial, as you would know if you read them. Your assessment of my >> lack of references is based on >> alpha dog snarling not reality. >>> It makes me laugh when you refer to 'patronising language' and 'unctuous >>> tones'. >> What is your purpose in telling me this? So I can, in a sense, "hear" >> your laughter? >> >> >> Lee Berman is also wondering what personality trait is implied by >> referring to one's self in third person. >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Marc Aramini *18 Dec 2010, 15:51 · in reply to Son of Witz* One more point, all this talk of an "unknown" christ in Severian's Universe just seems wrong, wrong, very wrong. Even though Severian was later conflated with the Conciliator, those early descriptions of the Conciliator are so Christlike as to be absurd, and the jungle hut with those missionaries seems like, you know, such an obvious reference not to a Conciliator but to a Christian missionary system, in our universe. Marc --- ### Son of Witz *18 Dec 2010, 16:38 · in reply to Marc Aramini* > On Dec 18, 2010, at 7:51 AM, Marc Aramini wrote: > > One more point, all this talk of an "unknown" christ in Severian's Universe just seems wrong, wrong, very wrong. Even though Severian was later conflated with the Conciliator, those early descriptions of the Conciliator are so Christlike as to be absurd, and the jungle hut with those missionaries seems like, you know, such an obvious reference not to a Conciliator but to a Christian missionary system, in our universe. > Marc Yeah. Again, it seems sooooooooo obvious I can't believe it is controversial. --- ### Craig Brewer *18 Dec 2010, 17:04 · in reply to Son of Witz* "Jungle Hut Jesus" ... band name? --- ### David Stockhoff *18 Dec 2010, 19:09 · in reply to Marc Aramini* That's exactly what it is: an obvious reference not to a Conciliator but to a Christian missionary system, in our universe. > On 12/18/2010 10:51 AM, Marc Aramini wrote: > > One more point, all this talk of an "unknown" christ in Severian's > Universe just seems wrong, wrong, very wrong. Even though Severian > was later conflated with the Conciliator, those early descriptions of > the Conciliator are so Christlike as to be absurd, and the jungle hut > with those missionaries seems like, you know, such an obvious > reference not to a Conciliator but to a Christian missionary system, > in our universe. > Marc > > > > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List --- ### Lee Berman *18 Dec 2010, 21:44 · follows David Stockhoff* > Marc Aramini: >One more point, all this talk of an "unknown" christ in Severian's > Universe just seems wrong, wrong, very wrong. Even though Severian > was later conflated with the Conciliator, those early descriptions of > the Conciliator are so Christlike as to be absurd, and the jungle hut > with those missionaries seems like, you know, such an obvious > reference not to a Conciliator but to a Christian missionary system, > in our universe. > David Stockhoff: That's exactly what it is: an obvious reference not to a Conciliator but > to a Christian missionary system, in our universe. Christian missionaries who have been put on display at a zoo and rendered somewhat ridiculous in their speech and behavior. I think this is an example of starting with a conclusion and then finding the evidence which supports it. Not excluding myself from the process. If the conclusion is that our Jesus is present in BotNS, the ambiguous evidence will be seen as supporting it. Once my conclusion that this is a gnostic, non-Christ universe hit me, all the evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ seemed turned to the opposite; evidence against him in this universe. For me, we have BotNS Flood but it isn't our Flood. We have a BotNS Typhon but he isn't our Typhon. My default assumption becomes that the BotNS Jesus isn't our Jesus. Might have gotten buried, but earlier I built an argument for how the "scourger" in the Long Sun legend could refer to Severian. I think we must all admit that our chosen conclusion shapes how we see the evidence. --- ### Jeff Wilson *19 Dec 2010, 03:38 · in reply to Son of Witz* > On 12/18/2010 10:38 AM, Son of Witz wrote: > > > On Dec 18, 2010, at 7:51 AM, Marc Aramini > wrote: >> One more point, all this talk of an "unknown" christ in Severian's >> Universe just seems wrong, wrong, very wrong. Even though Severian was >> later conflated with the Conciliator, those early descriptions of the >> Conciliator are so Christlike as to be absurd, and the jungle hut with >> those missionaries seems like, you know, such an obvious reference not >> to a Conciliator but to a Christian missionary system, in our universe. >> Marc > Yeah. > Again, it seems sooooooooo obvious I can't believe it is controversial. I thought it had already been suggested that Christianity had died out on Urth circa the First Empire and never came back, rendering it effectively unknown to the Commonwealth. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana < http://www.tamut.edu/CIL > ``` ---