{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5826", "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": 5826, "subject": "christ, already", "messages": 67, "voices": 13, "first": "2010-12-15T20:09:55+00:00", "last": "2010-12-22T03:05:52+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-15T20:09:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l D. Oakes: The Outsider is the Christian God, to be sure" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI don't know enough to debate yea or nay on this. But RttW seems to explicitly define\nThe Outsider as The God of Wine, son of Thyone. i.e. a version of Dionysus. I think there\nare some who here have knowledge which suggests there is religious justification for considering\nDionysus as a version or precursor of Christ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "the stories analogous to those of Jesus are attributed to \"a fortunate man whom\nthe Outsider had both enlightened and possessed\" -- an Jesus-analogue in the Briahtic Universe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI think it was Andrew who recently pointed out the Long Sun story of a legendary figure who got\nbusy with moneychangers in a temple.\n \nIn one interview, Gene Wolfe quips that since Jesus used a scourge during that temple episode, even \nhe knows what it is to be a torturer.\n \nSome interesting conjoining of concepts here. I'm interested how y'all might sort them out.\n \n \n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<794300.54286.qm@web84108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-12-15T21:11:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, whoever the \"fortunate man ... possessed by the Outsider\" was, he must not have been crucified. Not very fortunate, that.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Lee Berman \nSubject: (urth) christ, already\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nDate: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 3:09 PM\nDan'l D. Oakes: The Outsider is the Christian God, to be sure" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI don't know enough to debate yea or nay on this. But RttW seems to explicitly define\nThe Outsider as The God of Wine, son of Thyone. i.e. a version of Dionysus. I think there\nare some who here have knowledge which suggests there is religious justification for considering\nDionysus as a version or precursor of Christ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "the stories analogous to those of Jesus are attributed to \"a fortunate man whom\nthe Outsider had both enlightened and possessed\" -- an Jesus-analogue in the Briahtic Universe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI think it was Andrew who recently pointed out the Long Sun story of a legendary figure who got\nbusy with moneychangers in a temple.\n \nIn one interview, Gene Wolfe quips that since Jesus used a scourge during that temple episode, even \nhe knows what it is to be a torturer.\n \nSome interesting conjoining of concepts here. I'm interested how y'all might sort them out.\n \n \n? ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ? " } ] }, { "message_id": "<618CF257-8D2F-470F-B925-7B47E926C7D3@butcherbaker.org>", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2010-12-15T21:12:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2010, at 12:09 PM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l D. Oakes: The Outsider is the Christian God, to be sure" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't know enough to debate yea or nay on this. But RttW seems to explicitly define\nThe Outsider as The God of Wine, son of Thyone. i.e. a version of Dionysus. I think there\nare some who here have knowledge which suggests there is religious justification for considering\nDionysus as a version or precursor of Christ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "the stories analogous to those of Jesus are attributed to \"a fortunate man whom\nthe Outsider had both enlightened and possessed\" -- an Jesus-analogue in the Briahtic Universe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think it was Andrew who recently pointed out the Long Sun story of a legendary figure who got\nbusy with moneychangers in a temple.\n\nIn one interview, Gene Wolfe quips that since Jesus used a scourge during that temple episode, even \nhe knows what it is to be a torturer.\n\nSome interesting conjoining of concepts here. I'm interested how y'all might sort them out." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I always liked Scorsesi's Last Temptation portrayal of Jesus making crucifixes. (I don't know if that is valid to the tradition) but it says the same thing. Jesus knows what it is to be a torturer.\n\nI don't know about Dionysus. I need to read those again, but I thought that Outsider=Christ was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets." } ] }, { "message_id": "<656167.48294.qm@web84103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-12-15T21:20:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<618CF257-8D2F-470F-B925-7B47E926C7D3@butcherbaker.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'd say?Outsider=God was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already" } ] }, { "message_id": "<879ED888-C9D7-4365-A39B-3D0FAA33CFB2@butcherbaker.org>", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2010-12-15T21:35:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<656167.48294.qm@web84103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Are you forgetting the tripartite nature of Christ?\nThe Father, The son, and The Holy Ghost. Christ is an aspect of God and is used by Christians interchangeably with God." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2010, at 1:20 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\nI'd say Outsider=God was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-15T21:36:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<879ED888-C9D7-4365-A39B-3D0FAA33CFB2@butcherbaker.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In Catholic (and most Christian) theology, Christ is not tripartite;\nHe is one of the three persons of the Triune God. He does, however,\nhave a _dual_ nature, thus the Theanthropos." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\nAre you forgetting the tripartite nature of Christ?\nThe Father, The son, and The Holy Ghost. ?Christ is an aspect of God and is\nused by Christians interchangeably with God.\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 1:20 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\n\nI'd say?Outsider=God was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "palaeologos at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-15T21:39:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<879ED888-C9D7-4365-A39B-3D0FAA33CFB2@butcherbaker.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Christ is used exclusively in Christianity to refer to the second Person of\nthe Trinity. Nobody refers to the Father or the Holy Ghost as Christ.\n\nHere's a handy photographic mnemonic :\nhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/aozuas/2404074070/" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\nAre you forgetting the tripartite nature of Christ?\nThe Father, The son, and The Holy Ghost. Christ is an aspect of God and is\nused by Christians interchangeably with God.\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 1:20 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF \nwrote:\n\nI'd say Outsider=God was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets.\n\n--- On *Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz < \nSonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>* wrote:\n\n\nFrom: Son of Witz < Sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Subject: Re: (urth) christ, already" } ] }, { "message_id": "<997798.2239.qm@web84104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-12-15T21:48:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<879ED888-C9D7-4365-A39B-3D0FAA33CFB2@butcherbaker.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hey, you're the one who said Outsider=Christ.\nAnd no, Christians do not \"use Christ interchangeably with God.\" Even I know that.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 4:35 PM\n\nAre you forgetting the tripartite nature of Christ?The Father, The son, and The Holy Ghost. ?Christ is an aspect of God and is used by Christians interchangeably with God.\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 1:20 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\n\nI'd say?Outsider=God was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 4:12 PM\nI don't know about Dionysus. I need to read those again, but I thought that Outsider=Christ was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets.\n-----Inline Attachment Follows-----" } ] }, { "message_id": "<767859.50696.qm@web84106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-12-15T21:49:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Scary!\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Matthew Weber wrote:\n\nFrom: Matthew Weber \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 4:39 PM\n\nChrist is used exclusively in Christianity to refer to the second Person of the Trinity. Nobody refers to the Father or the Holy Ghost as Christ.\n\nHere's a handy photographic mnemonic : http://www.flickr.com/photos/aozuas/2404074070/" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2010-12-15T22:21:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<997798.2239.qm@web84104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What I mean is that you will find Christian's saying things like \"Jesus is Lord\" and \"Find Jesus\" and \"find God\" almost interchangeably. My real point is that Stockhoff seemed to be implyinga difference, when editing my Outsider=Christ to Outsider=God. I'm saying that this doesn't fundamentally change the meaning.\n\n~Witz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2010, at 1:48 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\nHey, you're the one who said Outsider=Christ.\n\nAnd no, Christians do not \"use Christ interchangeably with God.\" Even I know that.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 4:35 PM\n\nAre you forgetting the tripartite nature of Christ?\nThe Father, The son, and The Holy Ghost. Christ is an aspect of God and is used by Christians interchangeably with God.\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 1:20 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'd say Outsider=God was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2010-12-15T22:25:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, but the Trinity is a unity, and thus makes my statement true, no? We can equally say that the Outsider = Christ = God. Am I wrong?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:\nChrist is used exclusively in Christianity to refer to the second Person of the Trinity. Nobody refers to the Father or the Holy Ghost as Christ.\n\nHere's a handy photographic mnemonic : http://www.flickr.com/photos/aozuas/2404074070/\n\nOn Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\nAre you forgetting the tripartite nature of Christ?\nThe Father, The son, and The Holy Ghost. Christ is an aspect of God and is used by Christians interchangeably with God.\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 1:20 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'd say Outsider=God was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 4:12 PM\nI don't know about Dionysus. I need to read those again, but I thought that Outsider=Christ was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-15T22:33:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I believe that the Outsider is the first Person of the Trinity, God\nthe Father, and thus distinct from Christ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\nYes, but the Trinity is a unity, and thus makes my statement true, no? We\ncan equally say that the Outsider = Christ = God. “Am I wrong”\n\n\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:\n\nChrist is used exclusively in Christianity to refer to the second Person of\nthe Trinity. Nobody refers to the Father or the Holy Ghost as Christ.\n\nHere's a handy photographic mnemonic :\nhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/aozuas/2404074070/\n\nOn Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Son of Witz \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Are you forgetting the tripartite nature of Christ?\nThe Father, The son, and The Holy Ghost. ?Christ is an aspect of God and\nis used by Christians interchangeably with God.\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 1:20 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF \nwrote:\n\nI'd say?Outsider=God was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 4:12 PM\nI don't know about Dionysus. I need to read those again, but I thought\nthat Outsider=Christ was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "palaeologos at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-15T22:35:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Christ is indeed \"Very God of Very God,\" but Christ didn't alight upon\nhimself in the form of a dove at his baptism, nor did he speak by\nventriloquism \"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.\" The\nPersons of the Trinity aren't pseudopods of God-stuff extended at need to\nfulfill functions; they are separate persons who are all of the same\nsubstance (substantia, ousia). The Son was incarnate as Jesus; neither the\nFather nor the Holy Ghost were ever incarnate. Christ is God; the Father is\nGod; the Holy Ghost is God. But the Father is not Christ, nor is Christ the\nHoly Ghost, nor is the Holy Ghost the Father.\n\nWe can say that the Outsider is the God we find in Christianity, but to say\nthat he is Christ makes assumptions about the correspondence of Christianity\nto Briah that we don't have data to support. An argument might be made that\nthe Conciliator is Christ, although again the details of Urthian religion\nare a bit too sketchy to make that very convincing. On the other hand,\nChrist's mission was certainly conciliatory; to repair, by means of his\nsacrifice, the broken relationship between God and Man." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\nYes, but the Trinity is a unity, and thus makes my statement true, no? We\ncan equally say that the Outsider = Christ = God. Am I wrong?\n\n\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:\n\nChrist is used exclusively in Christianity to refer to the second Person of\nthe Trinity. Nobody refers to the Father or the Holy Ghost as Christ.\n\nHere's a handy photographic mnemonic :\n\nhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/aozuas/2404074070/\n\nOn Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Son of Witz <\nSonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Are you forgetting the tripartite nature of Christ?\nThe Father, The son, and The Holy Ghost. Christ is an aspect of God and\nis used by Christians interchangeably with God.\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 1:20 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF < \ndstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote:\n\nI'd say Outsider=God was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets.\n\n--- On *Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz < \nSonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>* wrote:\n\n\nFrom: Son of Witz < \nSonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>\nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already" } ] }, { "message_id": "<97D48130-43E6-4F7C-8763-B20D77BDCDC7@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Adam Thornton", "address": "adam at io.com" }, "date": "2010-12-15T22:44:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<767859.50696.qm@web84106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2010, at 3:49 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\nScary!\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Matthew Weber wrote:\n\nFrom: Matthew Weber \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 4:39 PM\n\nChrist is used exclusively in Christianity to refer to the second Person of the Trinity. Nobody refers to the Father or the Holy Ghost as Christ.\n\nHere's a handy photographic mnemonic : http://www.flickr.com/photos/aozuas/2404074070/" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wow!\n\nA Tetrahedral Teratoid Trinity!\n\nAdam" } ] }, { "message_id": "<8FC284D6-2D40-439B-8BD7-64AFE44D66DB@butcherbaker.org>", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2010-12-15T22:55:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:\nChrist is indeed \"Very God of Very God,\" but Christ didn't alight upon himself in the form of a dove at his baptism, nor did he speak by ventriloquism \"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.\" The Persons of the Trinity aren't pseudopods of God-stuff extended at need to fulfill functions; they are separate persons who are all of the same substance (substantia, ousia). The Son was incarnate as Jesus; neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost were ever incarnate. Christ is God; the Father is God; the Holy Ghost is God. But the Father is not Christ, nor is Christ the Holy Ghost, nor is the Holy Ghost the Father." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I didn't say Christ was the Father. \nAgain, I said that this is true: Outsider=Christ=God (not The Father)\nI don't think we are in disagreement." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We can say that the Outsider is the God we find in Christianity, but to say that he is Christ makes assumptions about the correspondence of Christianity to Briah that we don't have data to support. An argument might be made that the Conciliator is Christ, although again the details of Urthian religion are a bit too sketchy to make that very convincing. On the other hand, Christ's mission was certainly conciliatory; to repair, by means of his sacrifice, the broken relationship between God and Man." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again, I think that this is only a problem if you feel that there is no Christ without the Man Jesus. (sorry, I don't know Dark Tower cosmology, but I read that name in one of the comics)\nPope Benedict XVI or whatever he's called recently, (within the last few years) afirrmed that \"From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the Logos\" \nBut \"Logos\" is a greek term that originally meant \"ratio\" more than \"word\". The Logos was originally understood as a mediator reconciling man and god, or so some Thologians have written. In this sense, I see Severian as embodying the Logos. Now I understand Logos to be a healing ASPECT of God. Thus I equate the outsider as a non-incarnate Logos. I think I confuse people in that I often use Christ as a name for the non-incarnate Logos and only use Jesus to refer to the possibly incarnate Logos." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\nYes, but the Trinity is a unity, and thus makes my statement true, no? We can equally say that the Outsider = Christ = God. Am I wrong?\n\n\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Christ is used exclusively in Christianity to refer to the second Person of the Trinity. Nobody refers to the Father or the Holy Ghost as Christ.\n\nHere's a handy photographic mnemonic : http://www.flickr.com/photos/aozuas/2404074070/\n\nOn Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\nAre you forgetting the tripartite nature of Christ?\nThe Father, The son, and The Holy Ghost. Christ is an aspect of God and is used by Christians interchangeably with God.\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 1:20 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I'd say Outsider=God was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D094E5A.7030806@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-12-15T23:25:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oh, yes it does.\n\nDid the Outsider die on the cross here on Earth, or did he \"give his \nonly begotten son\" who did that? That's one little point of difference" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/15/2010 5:21 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\nWhat I mean is that you will find Christian's saying things like \n\"Jesus is Lord\" and \"Find Jesus\" and \"find God\" almost \ninterchangeably. My real point is that Stockhoff seemed to be \nimplyinga difference, when editing my Outsider=Christ to Outsider=God. \nI'm saying that this doesn't fundamentally change the meaning.\n\n~Witz" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2010-12-15T23:34:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<4D094E5A.7030806@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oh my God!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2010, at 3:25 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nOh, yes it does.\n\nDid the Outsider die on the cross here on Earth, or did he \"give his only begotten son\" who did that? That's one little point of difference\n\nOn 12/15/2010 5:21 PM, Son of Witz wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "What I mean is that you will find Christian's saying things like \"Jesus is Lord\" and \"Find Jesus\" and \"find God\" almost interchangeably. My real point is that Stockhoff seemed to be implyinga difference, when editing my Outsider=Christ to Outsider=God. I'm saying that this doesn't fundamentally change the meaning.\n\n~Witz" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2010-12-15T23:38:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<997798.2239.qm@web84104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Christ and God are explicit, though part of the Holy Trinity. God is within Christ, and Christ symbolizes God. And God created the symbol.\n\nSomething about symbols inventing us echoes in my mind.\n\n:)\n\n...ryan" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2010, at 4:48 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\nHey, you're the one who said Outsider=Christ.\n\nAnd no, Christians do not \"use Christ interchangeably with God.\" Even I know that.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 4:35 PM\n\nAre you forgetting the tripartite nature of Christ?\nThe Father, The son, and The Holy Ghost. Christ is an aspect of God and is used by Christians interchangeably with God.\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 1:20 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'd say Outsider=God was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already" } ] }, { "message_id": "<635563.10431.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-12-15T23:51:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I get the point about the Outsider being \"God\" but not \"Christ\" in the sense \nthat the Outsider didn't deliver the sermon on the mount or actually be the body \nthat died on the cross, etc.\n\nBut isn't there a bigger point here that the Outsider is the Outsider. \"It\" is \nthe \"real\" God outside of man-made mythology. We can assume that it's ultimately \nthe God of Christianity because of what we know of Wolfe, and, textually, \nbecause of its close association with Kypris/love/etc. and because of what *we* \nknow those thematic relationships suggest to non-fictional theology outside of \nthe made-up world in the books.\n\nBut, in the book, I always assumed that the real point of having the Outsider be \ncalled very deliberately \"the Outsider\" was that its actual nature remains \nlargely unknown and mysterious, even to Silk after his vision. The books stress \nhow difficult gnosis can be to come to terms with, even after direct revelation. \nSilk continually misunderstands the nature of the Outsider throughout the books, \nstill trying to understand it through the \"dark glass\" of Pas' cobbled-together \nmythology at times, even as he learns how false that mythology actually is. At \nno point is Silk given a Bible in which he can read the gospels, etc. in any way \nthat makes the identification of the Outsider as God/Holy Spirit/Christ really \nmeaningful within the world of the book.\n\nIn Long Sun, the Outsider is the real God, sure, but none of the characters ever \nreally understands what that means in the same way that Wolfe might believe he \nunderstands it. That truth remains difficult and distant even after revelation \nseems to be much the point of the books.\n\nSo I'll stick with calling it the Outsider.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Christ and God are \nexplicit, though part of the Holy Trinity. God is within Christ, and Christ \nsymbolizes God. And God created the symbol.\n\nSomething about symbols inventing us echoes in my mind.\n\n:)\n\n...ryan\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 4:48 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\n\n\nHey, you're the one who said Outsider=Christ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And no, Christians do not \"use Christ interchangeably with God.\" Even I know \nthat.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 4:35 PM\n\n\nAre you forgetting the tripartite nature of Christ?\nThe Father, The son, and The Holy Ghost. Christ is an aspect of God and is used \nby Christians interchangeably with God.\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 1:20 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:\n\n\nI'd say Outsider=God was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "From: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 4:12 PM\nI don't know about Dionysus. I need to read those again, but I thought that \nOutsider=Christ was about as unambiguous as Gene Wolfe gets." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "-----Inline Attachment Follows-----\n\n\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "<079e01de0b48e44e28352b5d1528ba33.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2010-12-16T00:03:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Christ and God are\nexplicit, though part of the Holy Trinity. God is within Christ, and\nChrist symbolizes God. And God created the symbol." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Christ is the Logos, sure, but doctrinarily the Logos (symbol or word) is\nuncreated; co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is also the\nSon, though he's not the Son until Mary conceives. This makes the Son\nsomething of a temporal state, but that's okay, since Christ as the Son is\nsupposed to partake of man's mortal nature so man can have a personal\nrelationship with God." } ] }, { "message_id": "<071d0d995463e3b274eb34a87085e49c.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2010-12-16T00:04:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<4D094E5A.7030806@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Oh, yes it does.\n\nDid the Outsider die on the cross here on Earth, or did he \"give his\nonly begotten son\" who did that? That's one little point of difference" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Christian Atheism for the win!" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2010-12-16T00:06:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<635563.10431.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I pretty much agree with you but I feel like I'm hitting my head against a wall.\nJesus of Nazareth delivered the sermon on the mount and died on the cross. Christians essentially title Jesus of Nazareth with the title Christ to denote that he is the Messiah.\nChrist means Messiah (redeemer) (\"Annointed one\" comes after Messiah\")\nEvery time I use Christ no one can ever seem to separate it from Jesus.\nI have not EVER said the Outsider or Severianhas any connection with the man Jesus of Nazareth or his sermons or sacrifice.\n\nSURELY, if the universe repeats itself, each universe will need a Christ / Messiah / Redeemer / Conciliator to help it from Outside creation, if it can be said that any of the creations have this.\n\n~witz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2010, at 3:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nI get the point about the Outsider being \"God\" but not \"Christ\" in the sense that the Outsider didn't deliver the sermon on the mount or actually be the body that died on the cross, etc.\n\nBut isn't there a bigger point here that the Outsider is the Outsider. \"It\" is the \"real\" God outside of man-made mythology. We can assume that it's ultimately the God of Christianity because of what we know of Wolfe, and, textually, because of its close association with Kypris/love/etc. and because of what *we* know those thematic relationships suggest to non-fictional theology outside of the made-up world in the books.\n\nBut, in the book, I always assumed that the real point of having the Outsider be called very deliberately \"the Outsider\" was that its actual nature remains largely unknown and mysterious, even to Silk after his vision. The books stress how difficult gnosis can be to come to terms with, even after direct revelation. Silk continually misunderstands the nature of the Outsider throughout the books, still trying to understand it through the \"dark glass\" of Pas' cobbled-together mythology at times, even as he learns how false that mythology actually is. At no point is Silk given a Bible in which he can read the gospels, etc. in any way that makes the identification of the Outsider as God/Holy Spirit/Christ really meaningful within the world of the book.\n\nIn Long Sun, the Outsider is the real God, sure, but none of the characters ever really understands what that means in the same way that Wolfe might believe he understands it. That truth remains difficult and distant even after revelation seems to be much the point of the books.\n\nSo I'll stick with calling it the Outsider.\n\n\nFrom: Ryan Dunn \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Wed, December 15, 2010 5:38:34 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already\n\nIn the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Christ and God are explicit, though part of the Holy Trinity. God is within Christ, and Christ symbolizes God. And God created the symbol.\n\nSomething about symbols inventing us echoes in my mind.\n\n:)\n\n...ryan\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 4:48 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Hey, you're the one who said Outsider=Christ.\n\nAnd no, Christians do not \"use Christ interchangeably with God.\" Even I know that.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already" } ] }, { "message_id": "<232831.93281.qm@web114711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-12-16T00:13:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Interesting, Dan'l. I was going to ask which Person the Outsider was.\n\nIs it correct in Catholic theology to say that the Second Person or Logos has \nexisted eternally but didn't become Jesus Christ till he incarnated?\n\nIf so, and taking Wolfe's word that Briah is a previous cycle, I think one could \nsay that the Logos existed in (or in relation to) Briah, but Christ didn't. \nWhat that means for grace and salvation I don't know; I think it's been \nsuggested that Jesus's incarnation had a retroactive effect and thus saved, for \nexample, Abraham.\n\nI assume that the Conciliator and the man who scourged the merchants are \nretroactive \"echoes\" of Jesus the way the scene at Baldanders's castle echoes \n/Frankenstein/. I don't know whether these echoes happen by some kind of \n\"automatic\" process, like morphic resonance, or by divine intervention. If the \nOutsider did possess the merchant-beater, that must have been a deliberate \ndecision on His part.\n\n(By the way, somebody, David Stockhoff I think, suggested that the man wouldn't \nhave been \"fortunate\" if he'd been crucified later, but Silk is the one who \ncalls hims fortunate. I think Silk might have thought being enlightened or \npossessed outweighed being crucified, or even that martyrdom was also good \nfortune.)\n\nDavid asked about the point of similar repeated universes. One possibility \nthat's been mentioned here is that the author might want to have a Flood without \nhaving God violate his promise to Noah.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "palaeologos at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-16T00:16:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<079e01de0b48e44e28352b5d1528ba33.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Quibble, irrelevant to this discussion, but :\n\nThe Fatherhood & Sonship of the Father & Son are coeternal. The Son was the\nSon from eternity, as the Nicene Creed saith. \"Father\" and \"Son\" in this\ncase suggest a relationship, not temporal precedence. Logos = Son. The\ndiscussion of Wisdom in Proverbs & elsewhere in the OT is taken by\nChristians as typifying the Son as Logos." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nIn the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Christ and God\nare\nexplicit, though part of the Holy Trinity. God is within Christ, and\nChrist symbolizes God. And God created the symbol." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Christ is the Logos, sure, but doctrinarily the Logos (symbol or word) is\nuncreated; co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is also the\nSon, though he's not the Son until Mary conceives. This makes the Son\nsomething of a temporal state, but that's okay, since Christ as the Son is\nsupposed to partake of man's mortal nature so man can have a personal\nrelationship with God.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<6631.24221.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-12-16T00:17:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Strangely enough, I think that's actually a point of debate in the history of \ntheology: namely, does the universe only need one redeemer? Does every planet \nneed its own Christ? Would every iteration of a cyclical universe need its own \nChrist to be saved? Or was one enough to get the job done, as it were? Seems \nlike I remember reading once that this argument has popped up a number of times \nin places FAR removed from science fiction. (I'm no theology expert, so I \ncouldn't tell you where I read this.)\n\nAs for separating Christ from Jesus, though...for a Christian, that's splitting \nhairs, isn't it? Christ/\"annointed one\"/the \"Messiah\" isn't an abstraction. It \nhad an actual, personal, historical occurrence in Jesus of Nazareth and that \nSPECIFIC instantiation matters. I mean, if Christ is the Word/Logos made flesh, \nthen the flesh of Jesus isn't an accidental property. The whole point was that \ngod became a specific, historical man, not just a man in general.\n\nAgain, I'm no theologian, so I've probably got all kinds of things wrong...and \nin the end, like I said about the Outsider, I'm not sure how much any of this \nreally matters to Long Sun.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI pretty much agree with you but I feel like I'm hitting my head against a wall.\nJesus of Nazareth delivered the sermon on the mount and died on the cross. \nChristians essentially title Jesus of Nazareth with the title Christ to denote \nthat he is the Messiah.\nChrist means Messiah (redeemer) (\"Annointed one\" comes after Messiah\")\nEvery time I use Christ no one can ever seem to separate it from Jesus.\nI have not EVER said the Outsider or Severianhas any connection with the man \nJesus of Nazareth or his sermons or sacrifice.\n\nSURELY, if the universe repeats itself, each universe will need a Christ / \nMessiah / Redeemer / Conciliator to help it from Outside creation, if it can be \nsaid that any of the creations have this.\n\n~witz\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 3:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\n\n\nI get the point about the Outsider being \"God\" but not \"Christ\" in the sense \nthat the Outsider didn't deliver the sermon on the mount or actually be the body \nthat died on the cross, etc." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But isn't there a bigger point here that the Outsider is the Outsider. \"It\" is \nthe \"real\" God outside of man-made mythology. We can assume that it's ultimately \nthe God of Christianity because of what we know of Wolfe, and, textually, \nbecause of its close association with Kypris/love/etc. and because of what *we* \nknow those thematic relationships suggest to non-fictional theology outside of \nthe made-up world in the books.\n\nBut, in the book, I always assumed that the real point of having the Outsider be \ncalled very deliberately \"the Outsider\" was that its actual nature remains \nlargely unknown and mysterious, even to Silk after his vision. The books stress \nhow difficult gnosis can be to come to terms with, even after direct revelation. \nSilk continually misunderstands the nature of the Outsider throughout the books, \nstill trying to understand it through the \"dark glass\" of Pas' cobbled-together \nmythology at times, even as he learns how false that mythology actually is. At \nno point is Silk given a Bible in which he can read the gospels, etc. in any way \nthat makes the identification of the Outsider as God/Holy Spirit/Christ really \nmeaningful within the world of the book.\n\nIn Long Sun, the Outsider is the real God, sure, but none of the characters ever \nreally understands what that means in the same way that Wolfe might believe he \nunderstands it. That truth remains difficult and distant even after revelation \nseems to be much the point of the books.\n\nSo I'll stick with calling it the Outsider." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "palaeologos at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-16T00:18:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<232831.93281.qm@web114711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\n\n\nIs it correct in Catholic theology to say that the Second Person or Logos\nhas existed eternally but didn't become Jesus Christ till he incarnated?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That is precisely the case." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Matt +\n\nThe seaman's story is of tempest, the plowman's of his team of bulls; the\nsoldier tells his wounds, the shepherd his tale of sheep.\n Sextus Propertius (54 B.C.-A.D. 2), Elegies, II, i, 43" } ] }, { "message_id": "<571415.9589.qm@web37608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-12-16T00:22:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just curious, then: if the Logos was eternal, why did it have to enter history \nin the form of an actual living man?\n\n(Not arguing...honestly curious. And sorry to get away from Wolfe. Theological \ndiscussions on this list sometimes seem to get contentious.)" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "palaeologos at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-16T00:36:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<571415.9589.qm@web37608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Incarnation can be seen in a number of different ways. According to St\nGregory Nazianzen, the entrance of an incarnate God into his fallen creation\nhas a ripple effect which gradually re-sanctifies the world--an idea later\nappropriated by contemporary Catholic theologian Karl Rahner. As St Clement\nof Alexandria writes : ?The Word of God became man, that you may learn from\nman how man may become God.\" Eastern Christians refer to this as theosis.\n\nIn Western Christianity, it is seen as necessary in order for God to be able\nto suffer and die (God by nature being impassible and immortal) in order to\npay the price for humanity's sins. The Epistle to the Hebrews compares the\nsacrifice of Jesus (God incarnate) to the sacrifices of the Temple, and\nposes the question that if God is willing to accept mere birds and bullocks\nas sacrifices for this or that sin, how much more could the sacrifice of God\nHimself be worth to blot out the sins of all humanity?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nJust curious, then: if the Logos was eternal, why did it have to enter\nhistory in the form of an actual living man?\n\n(Not arguing...honestly curious. And sorry to get away from Wolfe.\nTheological discussions on this list sometimes seem to get contentious.)\n\n------------------------------\n*From:* Matthew Weber \n\n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Wed, December 15, 2010 6:18:46 PM\n\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) christ, already\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Is it correct in Catholic theology to say that the Second Person or Logos\nhas existed eternally but didn't become Jesus Christ till he incarnated?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That is precisely the case.\n\n--\nMatt +\n\nThe seaman's story is of tempest, the plowman's of his team of bulls; the\nsoldier tells his wounds, the shepherd his tale of sheep.\n Sextus Propertius (54 B.C.-A.D. 2), Elegies, II, i, 43\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4e0e4107c4063cc369ccafb5c870bd93.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2010-12-16T00:41:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<571415.9589.qm@web37608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Just curious, then: if the Logos was eternal, why did it have to enter\nhistory\nin the form of an actual living man?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He was to be the final sacrifice; no one can top sacrificing God. This\nUltimate Sacrifice paid the blood price for all sins committed and yet to\nbe committed by generations yet unborn, completing the older quid pro\nquo-style covenants and making way for the new covenant of forgiveness,\nand a personal relationship with God." } ] }, { "message_id": "<0or4smslv76r1cy7qba05drx.1292460301704@email.android.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-12-16T00:45:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<4e0e4107c4063cc369ccafb5c870bd93.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So I get all the sacrifice stuff and redemption, etc.\n\nBut why is that aspect of God also identified as the Logos/Word?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Jeff Wilson wrote:\nJust curious, then: if the Logos was eternal, why did it have to enter\nhistory\nin the form of an actual living man?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "He was to be the final sacrifice; no one can top sacrificing God. This\nUltimate Sacrifice paid the blood price for all sins committed and yet to\nbe committed by generations yet unborn, completing the older quid pro\nquo-style covenants and making way for the new covenant of forgiveness,\nand a personal relationship with God.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<7AAA0C37-F4CC-4EFE-AF21-2BB840162D5B@butcherbaker.org>", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2010-12-16T00:45:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<6631.24221.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nStrangely enough, I think that's actually a point of debate in the history of theology: namely, does the universe only need one redeemer? Does every planet need its own Christ? Would every iteration of a cyclical universe need its own Christ to be saved? Or was one enough to get the job done, as it were? Seems like I remember reading once that this argument has popped up a number of times in places FAR removed from science fiction. (I'm no theology expert, so I couldn't tell you where I read this.)\n\nAs for separating Christ from Jesus, though...for a Christian, that's splitting hairs, isn't it? Christ/\"annointed one\"/the \"Messiah\" isn't an abstraction. It had an actual, personal, historical occurrence in Jesus of Nazareth and that SPECIFIC instantiation matters. I mean, if Christ is the Word/Logos made flesh, then the flesh of Jesus isn't an accidental property. The whole point was that god became a specific, historical man, not just a man in general." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not suggesting that this force that sometimes incarnates intemporal reality is an abstraction. It is a real force. And if humanity can lose it's way again and again, it needs a saviour again and again. \n\nMan, I'm no theology expert either, nor do I believe in Jesus of Nazareth, though when my son asks me if I believe in Jesus the simplest answer seems to be \"Yes\". I believe that God sends an aspect of itself into temporal reality to heal us and show us the way. If you think the Nazzarene was the an example of this, well fine. I think there are or can be more than one instance of this help." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again, I'm no theologian, so I've probably got all kinds of things wrong...and in the end, like I said about the Outsider, I'm not sure how much any of this really matters to Long Sun.\n\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nCc: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Wed, December 15, 2010 6:06:37 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already\n\nI pretty much agree with you but I feel like I'm hitting my head against a wall.\nJesus of Nazareth delivered the sermon on the mount and died on the cross. Christians essentially title Jesus of Nazareth with the title Christ to denote that he is the Messiah.\nChrist means Messiah (redeemer) (\"Annointed one\" comes after Messiah\")\nEvery time I use Christ no one can ever seem to separate it from Jesus.\nI have not EVER said the Outsider or Severianhas any connection with the man Jesus of Nazareth or his sermons or sacrifice.\n\nSURELY, if the universe repeats itself, each universe will need a Christ / Messiah / Redeemer / Conciliator to help it from Outside creation, if it can be said that any of the creations have this.\n\n~witz\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 3:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I get the point about the Outsider being \"God\" but not \"Christ\" in the sense that the Outsider didn't deliver the sermon on the mount or actually be the body that died on the cross, etc.\n\nBut isn't there a bigger point here that the Outsider is the Outsider. \"It\" is the \"real\" God outside of man-made mythology. We can assume that it's ultimately the God of Christianity because of what we know of Wolfe, and, textually, because of its close association with Kypris/love/etc. and because of what *we* know those thematic relationships suggest to non-fictional theology outside of the made-up world in the books.\n\nBut, in the book, I always assumed that the real point of having the Outsider be called very deliberately \"the Outsider\" was that its actual nature remains largely unknown and mysterious, even to Silk after his vision. The books stress how difficult gnosis can be to come to terms with, even after direct revelation. Silk continually misunderstands the nature of the Outsider throughout the books, still trying to understand it through the \"dark glass\" of Pas' cobbled-together mythology at times, even as he learns how false that mythology actually is. At no point is Silk given a Bible in which he can read the gospels, etc. in any way that makes the identification of the Outsider as God/Holy Spirit/Christ really meaningful within the world of the book.\n\nIn Long Sun, the Outsider is the real God, sure, but none of the characters ever really understands what that means in the same way that Wolfe might believe he understands it. That truth remains difficult and distant even after revelation seems to be much the point of the books.\n\nSo I'll stick with calling it the Outsider.\n\n\nFrom: Ryan Dunn \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Wed, December 15, 2010 5:38:34 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already\n\nIn the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Christ and God are explicit, though part of the Holy Trinity. God is within Christ, and Christ symbolizes God. And God created the symbol.\n\nSomething about symbols inventing us echoes in my mind.\n\n:)\n\n...ryan\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 4:48 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Hey, you're the one who said Outsider=Christ.\n\nAnd no, Christians do not \"use Christ interchangeably with God.\" Even I know that.\n\n--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nFrom: Son of Witz \nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2010-12-16T01:00:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<571415.9589.qm@web37608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I can't answer this as a Christian, though, as usual I see a very frakking clear symbol right under our noses that I've never heard anyone else explain, though it probably has been put forward.\n\nThis goes back to the idea I'm always harping on that the Vertical represents the Eternal and the Horizontal representing The Temporal World.\n\nWith that in mind, what is the central image of Christianity? A man crucified on a cross that is (seemingly historically innacurately structured) an intersection of the vertical and horizontal.\nSo then, we have a man nailed to the intersection of the Eternal and the Temporal, such as any Good Man is. \n\nI take it that we are all the sons and daughters of God, and that we must each choose how we orient ourselves, or at least bear this burden of seemigly cross purposes. Shall we navigate the world without considering the Eternal? Should we turn our backs to the temporal and only align ourselves with the eternal? No, we each need to bear our cross. Each of us has this struggle, unless we are so insensitive as to not care about the vertical domain.\n\nIf it is true that a crucifix was more of an X than a T, this even seems to support my idea, because the symbol must have been changed to send a message, otherwise, why not use the X shaped crucifix?\n\nBut you know, the only people who have ever told me I'm right about this are some far out, super-deep Greek Orthodox Christian Theology buffs. Everyone else thinks I'm smoking too much pot.\n\n~witz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nJust curious, then: if the Logos was eternal, why did it have to enter history in the form of an actual living man?\n\n(Not arguing...honestly curious. And sorry to get away from Wolfe. Theological discussions on this list sometimes seem to get contentious.)\n\nFrom: Matthew Weber " } ] }, { "message_id": "<209BFE4F-11D5-49CC-94D2-27A24A99D3EA@butcherbaker.org>", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2010-12-16T01:06:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<0or4smslv76r1cy7qba05drx.1292460301704@email.android.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, see my point about Logos originally meaning ratio. It makes more sense that way.\nA ratio is a relationship. If we have a relationship between Man and God ( God: Man or God / Man) then the ratio is that which relates them. \n\nTo take that to an almost ridiculous extreme, look at the second way I wrote that ratio, as a division problem. Now Jesus said he came to bring the sword. Does anyone know of a christ-figure in these books carrying a sword around with the inscribed quote \"Here is the line of division\"\n\nIt's pretty funny actually.\n\n~witz" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nSo I get all the sacrifice stuff and redemption, etc.\n\nBut why is that aspect of God also identified as the Logos/Word?\n\nJeff Wilson wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Just curious, then: if the Logos was eternal, why did it have to enter\nhistory\nin the form of an actual living man?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "He was to be the final sacrifice; no one can top sacrificing God. This\nUltimate Sacrifice paid the blood price for all sins committed and yet to\nbe committed by generations yet unborn, completing the older quid pro\nquo-style covenants and making way for the new covenant of forgiveness,\nand a personal relationship with God.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "palaeologos at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-16T01:06:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, you're definitely onto something which is not bud here.\n\nThe vertical meeting the horizontal is also a way of looking at the\nIncarnation. God, who exists outside of Time and even of Space, enters\nhuman history at a specific point as a human being. The horizontal\n(time-based humanity) meets the vertical (God, who is OUTSIDE--eh?). And of\ncourse, the symbol you refer to is the instrument of death.\n\nAll through the Fourth Gospel Jesus refers to his impending \"glorification\".\n The Apostles think he's talking about being crowned King of a reunited\nJudah & Israel, but he's referring to another kind of elevation\nentirely--his raising-up upon the wood of the Cross." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nI can't answer this as a Christian, though, as usual I see a very frakking\nclear symbol right under our noses that I've never heard anyone else\nexplain, though it probably has been put forward.\n\nThis goes back to the idea I'm always harping on that the Vertical\nrepresents the Eternal and the Horizontal representing The Temporal World.\n\nWith that in mind, what is the central image of Christianity? A man\ncrucified on a cross that is (seemingly historically innacurately\nstructured) an intersection of the vertical and horizontal.\nSo then, we have a man nailed to the intersection of the Eternal and the\nTemporal, such as any Good Man is.\n\nI take it that we are all the sons and daughters of God, and that we must\neach choose how we orient ourselves, or at least bear this burden of\nseemigly cross purposes. Shall we navigate the world without considering\nthe Eternal? Should we turn our backs to the temporal and only align\nourselves with the eternal? No, we each need to bear our cross. Each of us\nhas this struggle, unless we are so insensitive as to not care about the\nvertical domain.\n\nIf it is true that a crucifix was more of an X than a T, this even seems to\nsupport my idea, because the symbol must have been changed to send a\nmessage, otherwise, why not use the X shaped crucifix?\n\nBut you know, the only people who have ever told me I'm right about this\nare some far out, super-deep Greek Orthodox Christian Theology buffs.\nEveryone else thinks I'm smoking too much pot.\n\n~witz\n\n\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\n\nJust curious, then: if the Logos was eternal, why did it have to enter\nhistory in the form of an actual living man?\n\n(Not arguing...honestly curious. And sorry to get away from Wolfe.\nTheological discussions on this list sometimes seem to get contentious.)\n\n------------------------------\n*From:* Matthew Weber " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2010-12-16T01:10:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Good stuff, Weber!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 15, 2010, at 5:06 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:\nNo, you're definitely onto something which is not bud here. \n\nThe vertical meeting the horizontal is also a way of looking at the Incarnation. God, who exists outside of Time and even of Space, enters human history at a specific point as a human being. The horizontal (time-based humanity) meets the vertical (God, who is OUTSIDE--eh?). And of course, the symbol you refer to is the instrument of death. \n\nAll through the Fourth Gospel Jesus refers to his impending \"glorification\". The Apostles think he's talking about being crowned King of a reunited Judah & Israel, but he's referring to another kind of elevation entirely--his raising-up upon the wood of the Cross.\n\nOn Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\n\nI can't answer this as a Christian, though, as usual I see a very frakking clear symbol right under our noses that I've never heard anyone else explain, though it probably has been put forward.\n\nThis goes back to the idea I'm always harping on that the Vertical represents the Eternal and the Horizontal representing The Temporal World.\n\nWith that in mind, what is the central image of Christianity? A man crucified on a cross that is (seemingly historically innacurately structured) an intersection of the vertical and horizontal.\nSo then, we have a man nailed to the intersection of the Eternal and the Temporal, such as any Good Man is. \n\nI take it that we are all the sons and daughters of God, and that we must each choose how we orient ourselves, or at least bear this burden of seemigly cross purposes. Shall we navigate the world without considering the Eternal? Should we turn our backs to the temporal and only align ourselves with the eternal? No, we each need to bear our cross. Each of us has this struggle, unless we are so insensitive as to not care about the vertical domain.\n\nIf it is true that a crucifix was more of an X than a T, this even seems to support my idea, because the symbol must have been changed to send a message, otherwise, why not use the X shaped crucifix?\n\nBut you know, the only people who have ever told me I'm right about this are some far out, super-deep Greek Orthodox Christian Theology buffs. Everyone else thinks I'm smoking too much pot.\n\n~witz\n\n\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Just curious, then: if the Logos was eternal, why did it have to enter history in the form of an actual living man?\n\n(Not arguing...honestly curious. And sorry to get away from Wolfe. Theological discussions on this list sometimes seem to get contentious.)\n\nFrom: Matthew Weber \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Wed, December 15, 2010 6:18:46 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) christ, already\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\n \nIs it correct in Catholic theology to say that the Second Person or Logos has existed eternally but didn't become Jesus Christ till he incarnated?\n \n\nThat is precisely the case. \n\n-- \nMatt +\n\nThe seaman's story is of tempest, the plowman's of his team of bulls; the soldier tells his wounds, the shepherd his tale of sheep.\n Sextus Propertius (54 B.C.-A.D. 2), Elegies, II, i, 43\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D096E47.8090805@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-12-16T01:41:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<635563.10431.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's not terribly different from \"Increate.\" We can guess what that term \nincludes but not so easily what it excludes." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/15/2010 6:51 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nI get the point about the Outsider being \"God\" but not \"Christ\" in the \nsense that the Outsider didn't deliver the sermon on the mount or \nactually be the body that died on the cross, etc.\n\nBut isn't there a bigger point here that the Outsider is the Outsider. \n\"It\" is the \"real\" God outside of man-made mythology. We can assume \nthat it's ultimately the God of Christianity because of what we know \nof Wolfe, and, textually, because of its close association with \nKypris/love/etc. and because of what *we* know those thematic \nrelationships suggest to non-fictional theology outside of the made-up \nworld in the books.\n\nBut, in the book, I always assumed that the real point of having the \nOutsider be called very deliberately \"the Outsider\" was that its \nactual nature remains largely unknown and mysterious, even to Silk \nafter his vision. The books stress how difficult gnosis can be to come \nto terms with, even after direct revelation. Silk continually \nmisunderstands the nature of the Outsider throughout the books, still \ntrying to understand it through the \"dark glass\" of Pas' \ncobbled-together mythology at times, even as he learns how false that \nmythology actually is. At no point is Silk given a Bible in which he \ncan read the gospels, etc. in any way that makes the identification of \nthe Outsider as God/Holy Spirit/Christ really meaningful within the \nworld of the book.\n\nIn Long Sun, the Outsider is the real God, sure, but none of the \ncharacters ever really understands what that means in the same way \nthat Wolfe might believe he understands it. That truth remains \ndifficult and distant even after revelation seems to be much the point \nof the books.\n\nSo I'll stick with calling it the Outsider." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D09737B.6000703@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-12-16T02:03:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I understand what you're saying. I just disagree. This is a fictional \nuniverse---it need follow no laws but those of its Creator. ;)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/15/2010 7:06 PM, Son of Witz wrote:\nI pretty much agree with you but I feel like I'm hitting my head \nagainst a wall.\nJesus of Nazareth delivered the sermon on the mount and died on the \ncross. Christians essentially title Jesus of Nazareth with the title \nChrist to denote that he is the Messiah.\nChrist means Messiah (redeemer) (\"Annointed one\" comes after Messiah\")\nEvery time I use Christ no one can ever seem to separate it from Jesus.\nI have not EVER said the Outsider or Severianhas any connection with \nthe man Jesus of Nazareth or his sermons or sacrifice.\n\nSURELY, if the universe repeats itself, each universe will need a \nChrist / Messiah / Redeemer / Conciliator to help it from Outside \ncreation, if it can be said that any of the creations have this.\n\n~witz\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 3:51 PM, Craig Brewer > wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I get the point about the Outsider being \"God\" but not \"Christ\" in \nthe sense that the Outsider didn't deliver the sermon on the mount or \nactually be the body that died on the cross, etc.\n\nBut isn't there a bigger point here that the Outsider is the \nOutsider. \"It\" is the \"real\" God outside of man-made mythology. We \ncan assume that it's ultimately the God of Christianity because of \nwhat we know of Wolfe, and, textually, because of its close \nassociation with Kypris/love/etc. and because of what *we* know those \nthematic relationships suggest to non-fictional theology outside of \nthe made-up world in the books.\n\nBut, in the book, I always assumed that the real point of having the \nOutsider be called very deliberately \"the Outsider\" was that its \nactual nature remains largely unknown and mysterious, even to Silk \nafter his vision. The books stress how difficult gnosis can be to \ncome to terms with, even after direct revelation. Silk continually \nmisunderstands the nature of the Outsider throughout the books, still \ntrying to understand it through the \"dark glass\" of Pas' \ncobbled-together mythology at times, even as he learns how false that \nmythology actually is. At no point is Silk given a Bible in which he \ncan read the gospels, etc. in any way that makes the identification \nof the Outsider as God/Holy Spirit/Christ really meaningful within \nthe world of the book.\n\nIn Long Sun, the Outsider is the real God, sure, but none of the \ncharacters ever really understands what that means in the same way \nthat Wolfe might believe he understands it. That truth remains \ndifficult and distant even after revelation seems to be much the \npoint of the books.\n\nSo I'll stick with calling it the Outsider.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n*From:* Ryan Dunn >\n*To:* The Urth Mailing List >\n*Sent:* Wed, December 15, 2010 5:38:34 PM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) christ, already\n\nIn the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Christ and \nGod are explicit, though part of the Holy Trinity. God is within \nChrist, and Christ symbolizes God. And God created the symbol.\n\nSomething about symbols inventing us echoes in my mind.\n\n:)\n\n...ryan\n\nOn Dec 15, 2010, at 4:48 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF > wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Hey, you're the one who said Outsider=Christ.\n\nAnd no, Christians do not \"use Christ interchangeably with God.\" \nEven I know that.\n\n--- On *Wed, 12/15/10, Son of Witz />/* wrote:\n\n\n From: Son of Witz >\n Subject: Re: (urth) christ, already" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D09744C.7070906@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-12-16T02:07:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<232831.93281.qm@web114711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/15/2010 7:13 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\n(By the way, somebody, David Stockhoff I think, suggested that the man \nwouldn't have been \"fortunate\" if he'd been crucified later, but Silk \nis the one who calls hims fortunate. I think Silk might have thought \nbeing enlightened or possessed outweighed being crucified, or even \nthat martyrdom was also good fortune.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "---Yes, that's how I took it. Surely Wolfe was being ironic, if Silk was \nnot." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David asked about the point of similar repeated universes. One \npossibility that's been mentioned here is that the author might want \nto have a Flood without having God violate his promise to Noah." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "---That would make sense in a universe in which that promise was made. \nI'm not saying it wasn't made in Briah, but I'm increasingly thinking that." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D097971.9000501@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2010-12-16T02:29:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<0or4smslv76r1cy7qba05drx.1292460301704@email.android.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/15/2010 6:45 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nSo I get all the sacrifice stuff and redemption, etc.\n\nBut why is that aspect of God also identified as the Logos/Word?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it is because the Son is the Person who addresses all of \nmankind; He communicates, He is the good news." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D097C94.4090909@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2010-12-16T02:42:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<6631.24221.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/15/2010 6:17 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nStrangely enough, I think that's actually a point of debate in the\nhistory of theology: namely, does the universe only need one redeemer?\nDoes every planet need its own Christ? Would every iteration of a\ncyclical universe need its own Christ to be saved? Or was one enough to\nget the job done, as it were? Seems like I remember reading once that\nthis argument has popped up a number of times in places FAR removed from\nscience fiction. (I'm no theology expert, so I couldn't tell you where I\nread this.)\n\nAs for separating Christ from Jesus, though...for a Christian, that's\nsplitting hairs, isn't it? Christ/\"annointed one\"/the \"Messiah\" isn't an\nabstraction. It had an actual, personal, historical occurrence in Jesus\nof Nazareth and that SPECIFIC instantiation matters. I mean, if Christ\nis the Word/Logos made flesh, then the flesh of Jesus isn't an\naccidental property. The whole point was that god became a specific,\nhistorical man, not just a man in general." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think this is best explained by reconciliation between the former and \nnew covenants; Jesus as the sacrfice of God's essence validates the new \ncovenant for all time on its own terms, but He is born of David's line \nin the final generation of the Temple to honor the old covenant and \ndissolve it on its own terms so the Israelites can enjoy the kingdom of \nheaven like the rest of mankind, rather than continuing to atone for all \nthe broken covenants past." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-16T05:13:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "<4D097C94.4090909@io.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In reading Long Sun, I also got the impression that The Outsider was to be considered\nthe same as our God, creator of all universes. Even if this Briah universe never had a \nJesus Christ, the Outsider could enlighten Silk with his story from another universe.\n \nThen I read Short Sun, and specifically, RttW, and my impression got turned on its head.\nWolfe goes through a long and dramatic exposition which dramatically resolves in revealing\nthat the Outsider is, essentially, Dionysus. It isn't just a hint, he brings the Guy's \nmother (Thyone) into it!\n \nFor me this says either Briah has a different God than we do or Gene Wolfe is willing to \nextend the identity of our God to encompass some pagan/gnostic ideas of Him. I say this in \nlight of quotes below from the Gene WOlfe-James Jordan interview. \n \n(Here is the link to the whole thing: http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze2tmhh/wolfejbj.html#sold)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "JJ: Which is another way of saying, do we have fallen angels here or some type of power that \nreally was operative in the world before the kingdom of God?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "GW: That is my personal belief. I think that the gods of paganism were real. But what I tried to \ndo was to write about that pagan world as the pagans themselves wrote about it. If we read modern \nhistorians we are reading a very rationalistic viewpoint of this which says that all of these people \nwere absolutely wasting their time by building temples to Ares or Apollo or you name it. And by offering \nsacrifices in worship and all that it was nothing there. Nothing at all there and that whether it is \ntrue or not that certainly is not the way the people who were doing it felt. They were convinced that \nthere was something there and they had all sorts of legends and so forth about the appearances of the \ngod and in fact there is one place in the Acts where Paul and another one of the apostles are mistaken \nfor Zeus and Mercury. Zeus and Hermes, we are mixing the Latin and the Greek which is what I was trying \nto get away from. They are mistaken for Zeus and Hermes in human form because people in those days expected \nthat you could see Zeus and Hermes in human form. I am not so sure they were wrong. I am not convinced that \nthey were wrong. We love to think how much smarter we are than people of ancient times or biblical times or \nso forth but I am very dubious about that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nThat was in regard to a question about the Soldier books but as Wolfe talks about his \"personal belief\" I think\nit applies to the Sun series also. It may be relevant that many pagans believe that Christ was an aspect of\nthe One True God, Dionysus/Pan, but Jahweh of the Old Testament is more of an evil demiurge.\n \nOkay more from that interview:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "JJ: ....Okay, you do seem to have some symbolic overtones in The Soldier of Arete. Certainly with Latro, or \nLucius,' I guess that was a real name and that means wolf, there is a wolf aspect in him being from Rome being \na descendant of Romulus or at least in some way and then Ares being primary agricultural and marshall god of Rome, \nMarias. He actually seems to incarnate Ares on occasion. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nImpressive actually. In one paragraph, James Jordan (in 1996) manages to pre-sage Borski's werewolfe theory and\nhint at James Wynn's ideas on Typhon, Mars, Romulus, etc. Wolfe does not comment in his reply.\n \nAlso perhaps a clue to BotNS: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "GW: We vastly underestimate the importance of Jesus. We think we don't. We have all these churches and we say how \ncan we be underestimating Jesus? We don't **until we start trying to figure out what it would be like if he had never \nlived**. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nIt's a shame James Jordan doesn't contribute to this Board anymore. I enjoyed a few conversations with him. The whole \nlong interview is SO worth reading. I think he got more out of Gene Wolfe than all other interviewers combined. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D0A05D9.7080109@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-12-16T12:28:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "For me, that is the basic premise of BOTNS. It supersedes any scheme of \nuniverses, in that the correct scheme must allow the Father to be \nseparated from the Son.\n\nIf the Logos is the \"good news,\" then plainly it is possible for the \nnews to never come.\n\nDon't ask me about the Holy Ghost. ;)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2010 12:13 AM, Lee Berman wrote:\nAlso perhaps a clue to BotNS:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "GW: We vastly underestimate the importance of Jesus. We think we don't. We have all these churches and we say how\ncan we be underestimating Jesus? We don't **until we start trying to figure out what it would be like if he had never\nlived**." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's a shame James Jordan doesn't contribute to this Board anymore. I enjoyed a few conversations with him. The whole\nlong interview is SO worth reading. I think he got more out of Gene Wolfe than all other interviewers combined." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2010-12-16T15:06:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) christ, already", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" \n\nIn reading Long Sun, I also got the impression that The Outsider was to be \nconsidered\nthe same as our God, creator of all universes. Even if this Briah universe \nnever had a\nJesus Christ, the Outsider could enlighten Silk with his story from \nanother universe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree that they are the same. On Urth, God is known as the Increate \n(emphasing, I think, that he created all but was not himself created). On \n(in!) the whorl, he is known as the Outsider, for a variety of reasons:\n\n*The Whorl is ruled by (created) Gods; Typhon is not quite a god on Urth, \nbut in the Whorl he has ascended to godhood, along with all his retinue. \nThe Increate could not be banished from the Whorl, but he is labeled a minor \ngod, an Outsider. (Typhon and his family are the Insiders, I guess...)\n\n*He is the god of all outside the Whorl. Silk recognises this when he views \nthe outside universe from inside the lander. He recognises the smallness of \nPas compared to the greatness of the Outsider/\n\n*He is the god of the poor, the weak, the hunted... the Outsiders. (This is \nthe aspect that can be most closely related to Jesus as an aspect of the \nOutsider.)\n\nAs for Jesus as enlightened human man, I think that's how Silk would \ninevitably understand it, given his background. Theories of homoousia and \nsuch are foreign to him. (Though in fact possession does mix the substances \nof god and mon to a degree, so there may be an echo here.)\n\nSilk's Outsider has multiple voices, either two or many - the number three \nis not mentioned. I do not think Wolfe is emphasising the doctrine of the \nTrinity, although there is an element of multiplicity here.\n\n\nThe Outsider is defined in the character lists of books 2, 3 and 4 of the \nLong Sun. As I've noted earlier, it's not quite clear whether Wolfe or Horn \nis speaking. It may not be all that important, of course, except that Wolfe \nhas more authority on the subject! I interpret this as our (or Silk's) \nprogression of understanding the Outsider:\n\n1: No character list.\n\n2: The minor god who enightened Silk.\n\n3: The god of the broken and disparaged, whose realm lies outside the \nWhorl.]\n\n4: The god of gods.\n\nMakes things clear enough, I believe. Although there is a hint of the \nTrinity here in reverse order; the Holy Ghost, the Son and the Father." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Then I read Short Sun, and specifically, RttW, and my impression got \nturned on its head.\nWolfe goes through a long and dramatic exposition which dramatically \nresolves in revealing\nthat the Outsider is, essentially, Dionysus. It isn't just a hint, he \nbrings the Guy's\nmother (Thyone) into it!\n\nFor me this says either Briah has a different God than we do or Gene Wolfe \nis willing to\nextend the identity of our God to encompass some pagan/gnostic ideas of \nHim. I say this in\nlight of quotes below from the Gene WOlfe-James Jordan interview." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think you may be reading too much into this. Certainly, Silk accepts as \npossible Hound's theory that Dionysus and the Outsider may be the same. \nBut this is not the first time that such an observation has been made. In \nCalde of the Long Sun, Quetzal mentions Ah Lah. In the list of characters, \nhe is defined thusly.\n\nAh Lah: A forgotten god. (Perhaps an alternative name for the Outsider.)\n\nSo we have both Dionysus and Allah mentioned in similar contexts. Both are \nforgotten (nobody even remembers the name of the son of Thyone), while the \nOutsider is nearly forgotten on the Whorl. On Urth (at least at Severian's \ntime - which is simultaneous but in a sense later due to relativistic time \ndistortion) - the Increate is somewhat less forgotten. Typhon has built a \nclosed universe in the Whorl, and expelled, as far as he is able, \nnon-subservient gods. But he was not able.\n\nI think Wolfe is just saying that the Increate has been worshipped in \ndifferent ways under different names, as men have groped towards the truth. \nThis is not really terribly controversial or heretical. I don't think there \nis any strong reason to import specific characteristics of Dionysus, any \nmore than specific characteristics of Allah (if Allah has such, he seems \naustere in this regard).\n\nThere remains the question of Jesus. I think this aspect of the Increate is \nstrongly emphasised in the persona of the Outsider. Allah and Dionysus, not \nso mucxh.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<515522.55596.qm@web58206.mail.re3.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-12-19T03:49:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of pas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay, the problem with the syncretism of Wolfe's universe is multifold for interpreting whether a \"Jesus\" exists. Some of Silk's \"Enlightenment\" seems to have scenes of the life of Christ, without a doubt. Unfortunately, they have a secular explanation. They are pre-recorded in his head from his father?Pas and his mother the blue eyed Kypris, or?Typhon and his mistress, who I believe to be the blue eyed dark haired sleeper Mamelta. The two voices speaking in his head is the voice of the Outsider, who is for all intents and purposes both our God and Typhon in conjunction with his Mistress, the goddess of love. Wolfe makes Crane's explanation seem lame but there is a real physical explanation for it since Silk is a planted grown embryo specially chosen by?Typhon who?\"wants an heir\". All the enlightenment is secular, BUT THAT DOESN\"T MEAN IT ISN\"T DIVINE TOO.\n\nThis is why Wolfe is so amazing and all these divergent interpretations are possible. Sure, the Outsider seems to be the Christian God, but he is all the pagan gods, and Typhon in love, the Satan figure redeemed by the love that sets free. The degraded and the downcast become something much more, whether it be Severian becoming the Conciliator or Typhon becoming the Outsider, or at least a very important agent of the Outsider whose plan is indistinguishable.\n\nMarc\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D0E0E6B.1020501@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-12-19T13:53:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of\n\tpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "<515522.55596.qm@web58206.mail.re3.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exactly. You just can't separate these things, and Wolfe doesn't want us to." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/18/2010 10:49 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:\nOkay, the problem with the syncretism of Wolfe's universe is multifold \nfor interpreting whether a \"Jesus\" exists. Some of Silk's \n\"Enlightenment\" seems to have scenes of the life of Christ, without a \ndoubt. Unfortunately, they have a secular explanation. They are \npre-recorded in his head from his father Pas and his mother the blue \neyed Kypris, or Typhon and his mistress, who I believe to be the blue \neyed dark haired sleeper Mamelta. The two voices speaking in his head \nis the voice of the Outsider, who is for all intents and purposes both \nour God and Typhon in conjunction with his Mistress, the goddess of \nlove. Wolfe makes Crane's explanation seem lame but there is a real \nphysical explanation for it since Silk is a planted grown embryo \nspecially chosen by Typhon who \"wants an heir\". All the enlightenment \nis secular, BUT THAT DOESN\"T MEAN IT ISN\"T DIVINE TOO.\nThis is why Wolfe is so amazing and all these divergent \ninterpretations are possible. Sure, the Outsider seems to be the \nChristian God, but he is all the pagan gods, and Typhon in love, the \nSatan figure redeemed by the love that sets free. The degraded and \nthe downcast become something much more, whether it be Severian \nbecoming the Conciliator or Typhon becoming the Outsider, or at least \na very important agent of the Outsider whose plan is indistinguishable.\nMarc\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D0E229C.7040207@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-19T15:19:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of\n\tpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "<4D0E0E6B.1020501@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wouldn't want anyone to miss the subversiveness of Marc's theory. He's \nsaying the Outsider is actually Typhon and Kypris manipulating him.\n\nu+16b9" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/19/2010 7:53 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nExactly. You just can't separate these things, and Wolfe doesn't want \nus to.\n\nOn 12/18/2010 10:49 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Okay, the problem with the syncretism of Wolfe's universe is \nmultifold for interpreting whether a \"Jesus\" exists. Some of Silk's \n\"Enlightenment\" seems to have scenes of the life of Christ, without a \ndoubt. Unfortunately, they have a secular explanation. They are \npre-recorded in his head from his father Pas and his mother the blue \neyed Kypris, or Typhon and his mistress, who I believe to be the blue \neyed dark haired sleeper Mamelta. The two voices speaking in his \nhead is the voice of the Outsider, who is for all intents and \npurposes both our God and Typhon in conjunction with his Mistress, \nthe goddess of love. Wolfe makes Crane's explanation seem lame but \nthere is a real physical explanation for it since Silk is a planted \ngrown embryo specially chosen by Typhon who \"wants an heir\". All the \nenlightenment is secular, BUT THAT DOESN\"T MEAN IT ISN\"T DIVINE TOO.\nThis is why Wolfe is so amazing and all these divergent \ninterpretations are possible. Sure, the Outsider seems to be the \nChristian God, but he is all the pagan gods, and Typhon in love, the \nSatan figure redeemed by the love that sets free. The degraded and \nthe downcast become something much more, whether it be Severian \nbecoming the Conciliator or Typhon becoming the Outsider, or at least \na very important agent of the Outsider whose plan is indistinguishable.\nMarc\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-19T17:11:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of pas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "<4D0E229C.7040207@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I wouldn't want anyone to miss the subversiveness of Marc's theory. He's \nsaying the Outsider is actually Typhon and Kypris manipulating him." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI agree that it is subversive but I get the opposite impression of Marc's theory. If \nanything, The Outsider as the One True God is manipulating Typhon and Kypris. Quite\na briliant theory/concept, actually (and Marc correct me if I'm wrong, but risk dimming the \nbrilliance, ;-))\n \nIt is subversive in that it suggests the almighty, incomprehensible God of Briah, at times, will \nsplit Himself into pieces which can operate directly at the human level. Proper (and inevitable) \nhuman action will reuinite the pieces in the proper way to provide a miraculous, human-level ephiphany \nor syngergy or something which truly expresses God in a way we can almost comprehend and understand. \nKypris + Pas. Severian + Apheta. etc.\n\n \nThis is subversive in that it might suggest our Earthy God does the same thing; spliting himself\ninto ancient nature gods, then reforming. Then splitting into Olympian gods then coalescing again.\nCould it be that Jesus was just one such synergy among many in our history. Dionysus, Buddha, Muhammed\netc. Could it mean we are due for another?\n \nWhat gods do we worship now which could be coalesced into a global epiphany? Jahweh, Allah, Brahma and \nSatan? Science, economics, politics and warfare? I dunno.\n \n \nWell, I've taken it places Marc probably never intended. But I'm interested to see his own interpretation\nof what he is saying." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/18/2010 10:49 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Okay, the problem with the syncretism of Wolfe's universe is \nmultifold for interpreting whether a \"Jesus\" exists. Some of Silk's \n\"Enlightenment\" seems to have scenes of the life of Christ, without a \ndoubt. Unfortunately, they have a secular explanation. They are \npre-recorded in his head from his father Pas and his mother the blue \neyed Kypris, or Typhon and his mistress, who I believe to be the blue \neyed dark haired sleeper Mamelta. The two voices speaking in his \nhead is the voice of the Outsider, who is for all intents and \npurposes both our God and Typhon in conjunction with his Mistress, \nthe goddess of love. Wolfe makes Crane's explanation seem lame but \nthere is a real physical explanation for it since Silk is a planted \ngrown embryo specially chosen by Typhon who \"wants an heir\". All the \nenlightenment is secular, BUT THAT DOESN\"T MEAN IT ISN\"T DIVINE TOO.\nThis is why Wolfe is so amazing and all these divergent \ninterpretations are possible. Sure, the Outsider seems to be the \nChristian God, but he is all the pagan gods, and Typhon in love, the \nSatan figure redeemed by the love that sets free. The degraded and \nthe downcast become something much more, whether it be Severian \nbecoming the Conciliator or Typhon becoming the Outsider, or at least \na very important agent of the Outsider whose plan is indistinguishable.\nMarc\n\t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-19T17:24:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of pas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just had to add something which occurred to me and may sound crazy or may have\noccurred to others. The means by which Wolfe suggests the motherhood of Catherine \nand Mamelta are similar, requiring a non-logical intuition. In one case Severian is \nstaring a a pool of clear water in the woods and her face \"tears at his heart\", etc. \nIn the other, Silk is disconcertedly staring at the crotch of a woman for whom the very \nsound of her name invokes motherhood.\n \nFor me there is just a lot of similarity there though it's hard to say exactly why. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Son of Witz", "address": "sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org" }, "date": "2010-12-19T18:50:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of\n\tpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "<515522.55596.qm@web58206.mail.re3.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Dec 18, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:\nOkay, the problem with the syncretism of Wolfe's universe is multifold for interpreting whether a \"Jesus\" exists. Some of Silk's \"Enlightenment\" seems to have scenes of the life of Christ, without a doubt. Unfortunately, they have a secular explanation. They are pre-recorded in his head from his father Pas and his mother the blue eyed Kypris, or Typhon and his mistress, who I believe to be the blue eyed dark haired sleeper Mamelta. The two voices speaking in his head is the voice of the Outsider, who is for all intents and purposes both our God and Typhon in conjunction with his Mistress, the goddess of love. Wolfe makes Crane's explanation seem lame but there is a real physical explanation for it since Silk is a planted grown embryo specially chosen by Typhon who \"wants an heir\". All the enlightenment is secular, BUT THAT DOESN\"T MEAN IT ISN\"T DIVINE TOO.\n \nThis is why Wolfe is so amazing and all these divergent interpretations are possible. Sure, the Outsider seems to be the Christian God, but he is all the pagan gods, and Typhon in love, the Satan figure redeemed by the love that sets free. The degraded and the downcast become something much more, whether it be Severian becoming the Conciliator or Typhon becoming the Outsider, or at least a very important agent of the Outsider whose plan is indistinguishable.\n \nMarc\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<726396.91999.qm@web58205.mail.re3.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-12-20T02:13:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of\n\tpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks James and Lee for your comments. If a theory is perceived at first as brilliant, it can be dangerous to elaborate too much to risk sounding ordinary once again, but let me try to take a slightly better thematic stab? at it.\n\nThe sun books overarching, unifying trope beyond even salvation is that imitation begets truth. Severian says time turns our lies into truth, and the process of creating a closed universe of the whorl with himself as a god within it made something much more noble out of Typhon (ie - the immortal computerized intellect of Pas is morally more respectable than Typhon even though it is the culmination of Typhon's attempts to become a God, the height of his hubris.)? \n\nAnd even though he is clearly Satanic, his attempts to become god-like and his creation of a closed system with the possibility of a messiah/heir already built in make him a positive force (ie- the whorl is ready for Silk to come and take over because it has been programmed that way by its demiurge Typhon, just as in the Christian view of the B.C. world the world was ready and waiting for its messiah)\n\nI am not sure that teasing out the actual implications matter, because Silk was the result of all that tampering, and he is probably the most morally unambiguous hero Wolfe has ever created. (and the imitation goes even further - Horn is only good at all because of his respect for Silk, while the truly good Silk, guilty over the demise of Horn, spends all of In Green's Jungles and Return to the Whorl denying who he is so that the less noble and less righteous Horn might really still be alive). (or conversely, did the truly good Silk only exist in Horn's mind and in his account of the salvation of the people of the whorl?)\n\nNow, as far as your implications, Lee, whether the Christian God is some kind of amoeba like proteus may be symbolically?presaged by several personages in the text: the mother and her little break away parts, tzadkiel waiting in the brook madregot, etc. So, whether or not I want to say that Wolfe's picture of God is really that way, symbolically your analysis seems right, anything that imitates the divine enough, even with BAD OR SELFISH INTENTIONS, can still wind up serving the greater good. \n\nHowever, there is certainly a negative side to Silk's enlightenment having a rational physical explanation, and once again this is attached to hubris and the malleability of our perceptions on morality and absolute goodness and evil.\n\nWolfe is the trickiest of authors, because even basic questions about identity, good, and evil are very very complicated. However, there is one thing I want to point out from the Soldier books as well. \n\n\"I ran across a tribe years ago who blieve that the War God's none other than Ahura Mazda - Ahura Mazda incognito, as it were. Perhaps they're right. How did you know where to look for me?\" (472)?\n\n\n\nThis progression from Ahura Mazda to Pleistorus to Latro himself is important to my theory of what is going on in those books (ie - the war god manifests himself as a mortal warrior, becomes jaded with war and death, and actually allows the paradigm shift in the amorphous divinity that allows Christ to come into creation, since Ahura Mazda's avatar Latro is tired of war).\n\nDon't know if that applies, but that is DEFINITELY more like what you were talking about, Lee. And I think it definitely applies at least to my own interpretation of what is really going on in the Soldier books if not the Sun books.\n\nThanks for taking the time to read all that!\nMarc\n\n\n--- On Sun, 12/19/10, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Lee Berman \nSubject: (urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of pas/kypris\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nDate: Sunday, December 19, 2010, 9:11 AM\nI wouldn't want anyone to miss the subversiveness of Marc's theory. He's \nsaying the Outsider is actually Typhon and Kypris manipulating him." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree that it is subversive but I get the opposite impression of Marc's theory. If \nanything, The Outsider as the One True God is manipulating Typhon and Kypris. Quite\na briliant theory/concept, actually (and Marc correct me if I'm wrong, but risk dimming the \nbrilliance, ;-))\n\nIt is subversive in that it suggests the almighty, incomprehensible God of Briah, at times, will \nsplit Himself into pieces which can operate directly at the human level. Proper (and inevitable) \nhuman action will reuinite the pieces in the proper way to provide a miraculous, human-level ephiphany \nor syngergy or something which truly expresses God in a way we can almost comprehend and understand. \nKypris + Pas. Severian + Apheta. etc.\n\n\nThis is subversive in that it might suggest our Earthy God does the same thing; spliting himself\ninto ancient nature gods, then reforming. Then splitting into Olympian gods then coalescing again.\nCould it be that Jesus was just one such synergy among many in our history. Dionysus, Buddha, Muhammed\netc. Could it mean we are due for another?\n\nWhat gods do we worship now which could be coalesced into a global epiphany? Jahweh, Allah, Brahma and \nSatan? Science, economics, politics and warfare? I dunno.\n\n\nWell, I've taken it places Marc probably never intended. But I'm interested to see his own interpretation\nof what he is saying." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/18/2010 10:49 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Okay, the problem with the syncretism of Wolfe's universe is \nmultifold for interpreting whether a \"Jesus\" exists. Some of Silk's \n\"Enlightenment\" seems to have scenes of the life of Christ, without a \ndoubt. Unfortunately, they have a secular explanation. They are \npre-recorded in his head from his father Pas and his mother the blue \neyed Kypris, or Typhon and his mistress, who I believe to be the blue \neyed dark haired sleeper Mamelta. The two voices speaking in his \nhead is the voice of the Outsider, who is for all intents and \npurposes both our God and Typhon in conjunction with his Mistress, \nthe goddess of love. Wolfe makes Crane's explanation seem lame but \nthere is a real physical explanation for it since Silk is a planted \ngrown embryo specially chosen by Typhon who \"wants an heir\". All the \nenlightenment is secular, BUT THAT DOESN\"T MEAN IT ISN\"T DIVINE TOO.\nThis is why Wolfe is so amazing and all these divergent \ninterpretations are possible. Sure, the Outsider seems to be the \nChristian God, but he is all the pagan gods, and Typhon in love, the \nSatan figure redeemed by the love that sets free. The degraded and \nthe downcast become something much more, whether it be Severian \nbecoming the Conciliator or Typhon becoming the Outsider, or at least \na very important agent of the Outsider whose plan is indistinguishable.\nMarc\n??? ???????? ?????? ??? ? " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-20T04:47:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of pas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "<726396.91999.qm@web58205.mail.re3.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc Aramini: [Silk] is probably the most morally unambiguous hero Wolfe has ever created....\nHorn is only good at all because of his respect for Silk, while the truly good Silk, guilty \nover the demise of Horn, spends all of In Green's Jungles and Return to the Whorl denying who \nhe is so that the less noble and less righteous Horn might really still be alive" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI personally agree about Silk. But I'm not sure Wolfe does. Or at least I suspect Wolfe has\ncreated Silk as a symbolic expression of why outward \"goodness\" (and even charisma) are not\nthe best traits to admire.\n \nThis may be in debate, but I agree with those who think Silk committed suicide over \nHyacinth's death. I once characterized Silk as a bit of a mama's boy/metrosexual and it may be\nthat Gene Wolfe, even if he felt he shared some of these characteristics, might not find such\ntraits the most admirable; more like signs of weakness (not to mention the mortal sin of suicide \nwithin Catholicism).\n \nIn contrast, Horn is, as you say, less good, less noble than Silk. But he is tougher, more\nresilient. More of a survivor. Compare with Severian who is described as \"a weed which grows best\nwhen stepped upon\". And perhaps more to the point, as a construction of *horn* and boiled leather.\nI wouldn't be shocked if Gene Wolfe ever divulged that Horn's name was derived from that earlier \ndescription of Severian.\n \n(are you familiar with James' theory regarding the actual tri-partite nature of SilkHorn? [apologies\nto James for the \"partite\" I know it is supposed to be 100% of all 3)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The sun books overarching, unifying trope beyond even salvation is that imitation begets truth." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI couldn't agree more. (in fact I see little evidence of true salvation anywhere in the story but\nI'm not itchn' for a fight on that).\n \n \nBut I sense another, perhaps secondary, unifying trope: that God (gods?) is(are) too damn overwhelming\nand awesome to appear in their true form to human beings. We know that Zeus had to appear in smaller\nbite-sized pieces, like bulls, swans, women's husbands, etc. to carry on his affairs with human women.\nHe killed Dionysus' mother Semele/Thyone when forced to reveal himself in full glory to her. Likewise\nthe Judeo-Christian God needed to take the form of a burning bush or pillar of smoke or, I guess, Jesus\nthe Theanthropos?\n \nLikewise we never see Abaia or Erebus in BotNS. Nor the full glory/size of Tzadkiel, imho. We just see\npieces of them in the form of undines or Zaks or godlings or.. (well, I can't mention a certain F.I. here). \nPieces of gods interacting with humans is surely a strong theme in the Long/Short Sun stories also.\n \nMarc your post got me thinking about how joinings of such pieces at a human level may be how WOlfe sees God's\nwork being done on Urth (and maybe Earth). It seems to offer new avenues to view some of the interactions\nwe see. I mentioned Severian-Apheta as one possibility. Perhaps Severian-Juturna was a failed attempt by the \n\"bad guys\"? \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D0F8FF1.9030900@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-20T17:18:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of\n\tpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "<726396.91999.qm@web58205.mail.re3.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc Aramini-\nThe sun books overarching, unifying trope beyond even salvation is \nthat imitation begets truth. Severian says time turns our lies into \ntruth, and the process of creating a closed universe of the whorl with \nhimself as a god within it made something much more noble out of \nTyphon (ie - the immortal computerized intellect of Pas is morally \nmore respectable than Typhon even though it is the culmination of \nTyphon's attempts to become a God, the height of his hubris.) " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Marc hasn't received any push-back on his \"Pas/Kypris=Outsider\" theory \nso I figure I'll provide some.\n\nThe fundamental characteristic of the Outsider from Silk's POV is that \nHe is OUTSIDE the Whorl as opposed to the other gods of the Whorl who \n(as Silk is well aware at the beginning of Nightside) are ONLY in the \nWhorl. Silk knows that the gods of the Whorl were not worshiped in Urth. \nHe knows the Outsider /was/. Horn knows that the gods of the Whorl did \ntransport to Blue in any normal sense.\n\nSo, the fundamental problem with this theory, as I see it, is that it \ncasually flicks to the gutter the most fundamental attributes of the \nOutsider. By this theory, Silk's Outsider is NOT a god outside of the \nWhorl. Instead he is ACTUALLY and existentially _only_ an INSIDER. This \nseems to be a serious betrayal of everything going on in the books.\n\nNow there is an alternate theory, as I see it, in which the Outsider \nMIGHT be other than the Increate. But, I have serious problems with that \none as well. But I'm willing to discuss it after we addressed some of \nthe problems with /your/ theory.\n\nu+16b9" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D0F93DA.2080807@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-20T17:35:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of\n\tpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "<4D0F8FF1.9030900@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/20/2010 11:18 AM, James Wynn wrote:\nHorn knows that the gods of the Whorl did transport to Blue in any \nnormal sense. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "did NOT" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-20T18:33:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of pas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "<4D0F93DA.2080807@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn: So, the fundamental problem with this theory, as I see it, is that it \ncasually flicks to the gutter the most fundamental attributes of the \nOutsider. By this theory, Silk's Outsider is NOT a god outside of the \nWhorl. Instead he is ACTUALLY and existentially _only_ an INSIDER." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nJames you are often a step or two ahead of me in reasoning, so it can be hard to \nkeep up. I don't see this conclusion within Marc's theory. How is the Outsider\nrestricted to being inside the Whorl?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Horn knows that the gods of the Whorl did not transport to Blue in any normal sense. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI agree though I think one is present on Blue, in the form of The Mother. Some think she is \nScylla but I think Scylla is her daughter, who manifests as a monster on Urth. On Blue we have \nGaon worshipping Echidna, the mythological \"Mother of all Monsters\". And the names of\nher 7 children are all derived from either monstrous or somewhat malevolent mythological\nbeings.\n \nSo my guess is that Blue is the home planet for the monsters in Urth's oceans. Perhaps they arrived\non Urth in \"black bean\" form...inhumi disguised as human? I get the sense they started in human\nform anyway, but some grew really big, into monsters. Thus at the end of RTTW we have the appearance\nof human girl Scylla but also Great Scylla, the monster in the sea.\n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<846089.18356.qm@web84104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-12-20T20:26:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of\n\tpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "<4D0F8FF1.9030900@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hmm. What's wrong with the Outsider actually being an Insider?\nI mean, it's awkward, but he's not a god that \"plays by the rules,\" is he? He's everywhere; \"Outsider\" is an ironic moniker.\n\n--- On Mon, 12/20/10, James Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: James Wynn \nSubject: Re: (urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of pas/kypris\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Monday, December 20, 2010, 12:18 PM\nMarc Aramini-\nThe sun books overarching, unifying trope beyond even salvation is that imitation begets truth. Severian says time turns our lies into truth, and the process of creating a closed universe of the whorl with himself as a god within it made something much more noble out of Typhon (ie - the immortal computerized intellect of Pas is morally more respectable than Typhon even though it is the culmination of Typhon's attempts to become a God, the height of his hubris.) " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Marc hasn't received any push-back on his \"Pas/Kypris=Outsider\" theory so I figure I'll provide some.\n\nThe fundamental characteristic of the Outsider from Silk's POV is that He is OUTSIDE the Whorl as opposed to the other gods of the Whorl who (as Silk is well aware at the beginning of Nightside) are ONLY in the Whorl. Silk knows that the gods of the Whorl were not worshiped in Urth. He knows the Outsider /was/. Horn knows that the gods of the Whorl did transport to Blue in any normal sense.\n\nSo, the fundamental problem with this theory, as I see it, is that it casually flicks to the gutter the most fundamental attributes of the Outsider. By this theory, Silk's Outsider is NOT a god outside of the Whorl. Instead he is ACTUALLY and existentially _only_ an INSIDER. This seems to be a serious betrayal of everything going on in the books.\n\nNow there is an alternate theory, as I see it, in which the Outsider MIGHT be other than the Increate. But, I have serious problems with that one as well. But I'm willing to discuss it after we addressed some of the problems with /your/ theory.\n\nu+16b9" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2010-12-21T15:09:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of\n\tpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "<515522.55596.qm@web58206.mail.re3.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " From: Marc Aramini \n Okay, the problem with the syncretism of Wolfe's universe is multifold for interpreting whether a \"Jesus\" exists. Some of Silk's \"Enlightenment\" seems to have scenes of the life of Christ, without a doubt. Unfortunately, they have a secular explanation. They are pre-recorded in his head from his father Pas and his mother the blue eyed Kypris, or Typhon and his mistress, who I believe to be the blue eyed dark haired sleeper Mamelta. The two voices speaking in his head is the voice of the Outsider, who is for all intents and purposes both our God and Typhon in conjunction with his Mistress, the goddess of love. Wolfe makes Crane's explanation seem lame but there is a real physical explanation for it since Silk is a planted grown embryo specially chosen by Typhon who \"wants an heir\". All the enlightenment is secular, BUT THAT DOESN\"T MEAN IT ISN\"T DIVINE TOO.\n\nI don't think Mamelta fits the part of Kypris well. She seems to remember an ordinary life on Urth. She doesn't speak like Kypris. She gives no evidence of special concern with her appearance. She is trained as a computer technician.\n\nWithout any obvious evidence to vthe contrary, I assume she was just an ordinary Sleeper, one of an indeterminate but large number which may run into millions.\n\nDuring her beief appearance does she give any clues to suggest she is someone special? She was awakened by Mucor, certainly, but she was not the first to be so awakened.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<155429.94538.qm@web58201.mail.re3.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-12-21T15:15:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction of\n\tpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, Gerry, this depends how much credence you put in dreams and throw away comments in the text. Here are some quotes that outright say Kypris is Mamelta, and I infer that Kypris is just possessing Hyacinth.\n\nThis is a cut and paste from a very old post of mine to the archives.\n\nvision on page 534 of Litany of the Long Sun\n\n\"the woman who slept in the glass tube, the tube in\nwhich he himself now slept beside Chenille, who was\nKypris, who was Hyacinth, who was Mamelta, with\nHyacinth's jet-black hair,\"\n\nChenille and Hyacinth were both possessed by Kypris -\nand since Mamelta has Hyacinth hair, and Kypris had\nHyacinth hair, and they are all related here, I\nfigured it would be neat if Mamelta were Kypris. Then\nI found this bit of niftiness: p 424\n\n\"But quite soon now, as the swift floater sailed over\na landscape grown liquid, his mother would come to\nkiss him good-night; he liked to be awake for it, to\nsay distinctly, 'good night to you, too Mama,' when\nshe left. He resolved not to sleep until she came\"\n\nHere, Silk resolves not to sleep until his mommy comes\n(here, it is Mama). Well, who does he meet in the next\nchapter? Mamelta! And later, what do we get in\nEpiphany of the Long Sun (Calde,actually) on page 220:\n\"The Outsider was the dancing man on a toy, and the\nwater the polished toy-top on which he danced with\nKypris, who was Hyacinth and Mother, too.\"\n\nKypris is Mother!? and she is probably Mamelta, too. \nNow I understand why the Mamelta scene is so familiar\n- it is like the Dorcas scene in Shadow of the\nTorturer - except instead of Grandma, we get Silk's\nmom! In the scene where he leaves his body, I am\ncertain that the tall man with blue eyes is Pas, and \nthe mother (not the one who raised him) was Mamelta.\n\n\n--- On Tue, 12/21/10, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n\nFrom: Gerry Quinn gerryq at indigo.ie\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI don't think Mamelta fits the part of Kypris well. She seems to remember an ordinary life on Urth. She doesn't speak like Kypris. She gives no evidence of special concern with her appearance. She is trained as a computer technician.\n\nWithout any obvious evidence to vthe contrary, I assume she was just an ordinary Sleeper, one of an indeterminate but large number which may run into millions.\n\nDuring her beief appearance does she give any clues to suggest she is someone special? She was awakened by Mucor, certainly, but she was not the first to be so awakened.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n-----Inline Attachment Follows-----" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2010-12-21T18:41:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction ofpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "<155429.94538.qm@web58201.mail.re3.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You mention three points in favour of Mamelta being Kypris, or Silk's biological mother, or both. Possibly a few more can be found too. But none of them seem very definitive:\n\nThe first can easily be interpreted as just sleep imagery, lots of faces and people running together.\n\nIn the second, while it can certainly be argued that Silk's dream and Mamelta's name are tips to the reader, it is inescapable that Silk himself is thinking of his non-biological mother, and therefore not Mamelta. (Also, he does fall asleep before he meets Mamelta.)\n\nIn the third, it may be that Kypris is - in Silk's thoughts - representing all women.\n\nAs against these, we must weigh the evidence of what Mamelta actually does and says. Surely these speak very heavily against the notion that Mamelta is Kypris? Kypris was Typhon's favourite courtesan. She speaks in a very characteristic voice, which Mamelta does not share. Kypris herself says that she was scanned and her previous self remained on Urth. Mamelta is a computer technician who was forced on board the Whorl. She dreams of returning home to her mother, brothers and pet parrot. She remembers the Monarch and his family, but those memories do not seem intimate. \n\nCould all this be reconciled with her being Kypris? Only if one assumes that Typhon has for some perverse reason had her memory and personality wiped and replaced by another's, and loaded her on the whorl as a sleeper! Why on Urth would he do such a thing?\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n \n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----- \n From: Marc Aramini \n\n Well, Gerry, this depends how much credence you put in dreams and throw away comments in the text. Here are some quotes that outright say Kypris is Mamelta, and I infer that Kypris is just possessing Hyacinth.\n\n vision on page 534 of Litany of the Long Sun\n\n \"the woman who slept in the glass tube, the tube in\n which he himself now slept beside Chenille, who was\n Kypris, who was Hyacinth, who was Mamelta, with\n Hyacinth's jet-black hair,\"\n\n Chenille and Hyacinth were both possessed by Kypris -\n and since Mamelta has Hyacinth hair, and Kypris had\n Hyacinth hair, and they are all related here, I\n figured it would be neat if Mamelta were Kypris. Then\n I found this bit of niftiness: p 424\n\n \"But quite soon now, as the swift floater sailed over\n a landscape grown liquid, his mother would come to\n kiss him good-night; he liked to be awake for it, to\n say distinctly, 'good night to you, too Mama,' when\n she left. He resolved not to sleep until she came\"\n\n Here, Silk resolves not to sleep until his mommy comes\n (here, it is Mama). Well, who does he meet in the next\n chapter? Mamelta! And later, what do we get in\n Epiphany of the Long Sun (Calde,actually) on page 220:\n \"The Outsider was the dancing man on a toy, and the\n water the polished toy-top on which he danced with\n Kypris, who was Hyacinth and Mother, too.\"\n\n Kypris is Mother! and she is probably Mamelta, too. \n Now I understand why the Mamelta scene is so familiar\n - it is like the Dorcas scene in Shadow of the\n Torturer - except instead of Grandma, we get Silk's\n mom! In the scene where he leaves his body, I am\n certain that the tall man with blue eyes is Pas, and \n the mother (not the one who raised him) was Mamelta.\n\n\n --- On Tue, 12/21/10, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n\n From: Gerry Quinn gerryq at indigo.ie\n\n\n I don't think Mamelta fits the part of Kypris well. She seems to remember an ordinary life on Urth. She doesn't speak like Kypris. She gives no evidence of special concern with her appearance. She is trained as a computer technician.\n\n Without any obvious evidence to vthe contrary, I assume she was just an ordinary Sleeper, one of an indeterminate but large number which may run into millions.\n\n During her beief appearance does she give any clues to suggest she is someone special? She was awakened by Mucor, certainly, but she was not the first to be so awakened.\n\n - Gerry Quinn\n\n\n -----Inline Attachment Follows-----\n\n\n _______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-21T19:07:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction ofpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc: \"the woman who slept in the glass tube, the tube in\n which he himself now slept beside Chenille, who was\n Kypris, who was Hyacinth, who was Mamelta, with\n Hyacinth's jet-black hair,\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry: The first can easily be interpreted as just sleep imagery, lots of faces \nand people running together." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nEasily only if there was a real person sleeping. There is not. There is an author \ncreating this scene with carefully chosen words. It is actually quite difficult for\nme to interpret this as Gene Wolfe randomly throwing faces and people together with\nno meaning to it other than conveying a dream atmosphere." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc: his mother would come to kiss him good-night; he liked to be awake for it, to\nsay distinctly, 'good night to you, too Mama,'" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry: In the second, while it can certainly be argued that Silk's dream and Mamelta's \nname are tips to the reader, it is inescapable that Silk himself is thinking of his \nnon-biological mother, and therefore not Mamelta. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nAgain, we are not dealing with a real person named Silk. Therefore whatever Silk may be\n\"thinking\" is secondary in importance to \"tips to the Reader\". Gene Wolfe's main purpose in\nwriting is to communicate to his readers not to create independent, imaginary characters \nwithout meaning to the reader." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc: on which he danced with Kypris, who was Hyacinth and Mother, too.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry- In the third, it may be that Kypris is - in Silk's thoughts - representing all women." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nOr it may be that Wolfe repeatedly connecting Mamelta and Hyacinth and Mother and Kypris in \nvarious ways is once again trying to tell the reader something. Perhaps it is something more than \nsimply \"some women = all women\". I'm willing to take a hint. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<232546.21963.qm@web58206.mail.re3.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-12-21T20:41:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction ofpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All right Gerry. But it you have to admit it outright SAYS in the text she is. And it says Pas \"wants an heir\" that is worthy, that's the whole underlying struggle in mainframe. The Whorl is ready for Silk because Pas has set it up that way for his heir.\n\nI didn't just fabricate that association between Kypris and Mamelta and Mother, you know. We know Kypris possesses Hyacinth because she reminds her of herself. And Mamelta has the same hair as Hy, is one of the only females with blue eyes which are rare in Viron, and Kypris has them too. If this isn't enough inference for you, and is just symbolic assocation of all women, then I don't think any close readings will quite convince you. Are you sure Eleanor Bold is Mrs. Porter, and that tree was planted on dead people? Now that I look at?Peace, that just seems like a bunch of random facts. Nothing to em.\n\nIf Wolfe said this any more clearly it wouldn't be a mystery at all, in my opinion. We should leave those dreams alone, I guess.\n\nI don't know what else to say, I've provided my evidence, and in addition there is a creepy quality to Silk looking up Mamelta's loins that is slightly redeemed by her being his mother. Why she is on the whorl I really can't say, and this is a valid area for exploration, and in my mind the only argument against her being Kypris, since I believe it is not beyond Typhon's powers to partially or completely affect the minds of the sleepers he places on board.\n\nMarc\n\n--- On Tue, 12/21/10, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n\nFrom: Gerry Quinn \nSubject: Re: (urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction ofpas/kypris\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Tuesday, December 21, 2010, 10:41 AM\n\n\n\nYou mention three points in favour of Mamelta being Kypris, or Silk's biological mother, or both. Possibly a few more can be found too. But none of them seem very definitive:\n\nThe first can easily be interpreted as just sleep imagery, lots of faces and people running together.\n\nIn the second, while it can certainly be argued that Silk's dream and Mamelta's name are tips to the reader, it is inescapable that Silk himself is thinking of his non-biological mother, and therefore not Mamelta. (Also, he does fall asleep before he meets Mamelta.)\n\nIn the third, it may be that Kypris is - in Silk's thoughts - ?representing all women.\n\nAs against these, we must weigh the evidence of what Mamelta actually does and says. Surely these speak very heavily against the notion that Mamelta is Kypris? Kypris was Typhon's favourite courtesan. She speaks in a very characteristic voice, which Mamelta does not share. ?Kypris herself says that she was scanned and her previous self remained on Urth. Mamelta is a computer technician who was forced on board the Whorl. She dreams of returning home to her mother, brothers and pet parrot. She remembers the Monarch and his family, but those memories do not seem intimate.\n\nCould all this be reconciled with her being Kypris? Only if one assumes that Typhon has for some perverse reason had her memory and personality wiped and replaced by another's, and loaded her on the whorl as a sleeper!? Why on Urth would he do such a thing?\n\n-?Gerry Quinn\n\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----- \n\nFrom: Marc Aramini \n\n\n\n\n\nWell, Gerry, this depends how much credence you put in dreams and throw away comments in the text. Here are some quotes that outright say Kypris is Mamelta, and I infer that Kypris is just possessing Hyacinth.\n\nvision on page 534 of Litany of the Long Sun\n\n\"the woman who slept in the glass tube, the tube in\nwhich he himself now slept beside Chenille, who was\nKypris, who was Hyacinth, who was Mamelta, with\nHyacinth's jet-black hair,\"\n\nChenille and Hyacinth were both possessed by Kypris -\nand since Mamelta has Hyacinth hair, and Kypris had\nHyacinth hair, and they are all related here, I\nfigured it would be neat if Mamelta were Kypris. Then\nI found this bit of niftiness: p 424\n\n\"But quite soon now, as the swift floater sailed over\na landscape grown liquid, his mother would come to\nkiss him good-night; he liked to be awake for it, to\nsay distinctly, 'good night to you, too Mama,' when\nshe left. He resolved not to sleep until she came\"\n\nHere, Silk resolves not to sleep until his mommy comes\n(here, it is Mama). Well, who does he meet in the next\nchapter? Mamelta! And later, what do we get in\nEpiphany of the Long Sun (Calde,actually) on page 220:\n\"The Outsider was the dancing man on a toy, and the\nwater the polished toy-top on which he danced with\nKypris, who was Hyacinth and Mother, too.\"\n\nKypris is Mother!? and she is probably Mamelta, too. \nNow I understand why the Mamelta scene is so familiar\n- it is like the Dorcas scene in Shadow of the\nTorturer - except instead of Grandma, we get Silk's\nmom! In the scene where he leaves his body, I am\ncertain that the tall man with blue eyes is Pas, and \nthe mother (not the one who raised him) was Mamelta.\n\n\n--- On Tue, 12/21/10, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n\nFrom: Gerry Quinn gerryq at indigo.ie\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI don't think Mamelta fits the part of Kypris well. She seems to remember an ordinary life on Urth. She doesn't speak like Kypris. She gives no evidence of special concern with her appearance. She is trained as a computer technician.\n\nWithout any obvious evidence to vthe contrary, I assume she was just an ordinary Sleeper, one of an indeterminate but large number which may run into millions.\n\nDuring her beief appearance does she give any clues to suggest she is someone special? She was awakened by Mucor, certainly, but she was not the first to be so awakened.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n-----Inline Attachment Follows-----" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D1115D3.6070904@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-21T21:02:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction ofpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/21/2010 12:41 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\nCould all this be reconciled with her being Kypris? Only if one \nassumes that Typhon has for some perverse reason had her memory and \npersonality wiped and replaced by another's, and loaded her on the \nwhorl as a sleeper! Why on Urth would he do such a thing?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah. Why would Typhon have a perverse reason to do anything? Who ever \nheard of a tyrant disposing of his mistress? What could be a less \nconvenient method than loading her on a generation ship along with \nthousands of others taking off at the time? How could I ask a more \nobvious question?\n\nu+16b9" } ] }, { "message_id": "<5DF6017A7DEF45AAB5D778787E2F1A2A@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2010-12-21T21:56:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction ofpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" \nGerry: The first can easily be interpreted as just sleep imagery, lots of \nfaces\nand people running together." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Easily only if there was a real person sleeping. There is not. There is an \nauthor\ncreating this scene with carefully chosen words. It is actually quite \ndifficult for\nme to interpret this as Gene Wolfe randomly throwing faces and people \ntogether with\nno meaning to it other than conveying a dream atmosphere." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Most of his dream is about the fish that swallowed Mamelta. It also \nincludes Lemur, and certain women. The women seem to be ones Silk \nassociates with sex to some degree. It's not randomly thrown together, but \nnor is it necessarily a cipher by which one can decode the meaning of the \nentire text. If it does mean something, maybe it suggests we should think \nmore about that fish!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Marc: his mother would come to kiss him good-night; he liked to be awake \nfor it, to\nsay distinctly, 'good night to you, too Mama,'" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry: In the second, while it can certainly be argued that Silk's dream \nand Mamelta's\nname are tips to the reader, it is inescapable that Silk himself is \nthinking of his\nnon-biological mother, and therefore not Mamelta." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again, we are not dealing with a real person named Silk. Therefore \nwhatever Silk may be\n\"thinking\" is secondary in importance to \"tips to the Reader\". Gene \nWolfe's main purpose in\nwriting is to communicate to his readers not to create independent, \nimaginary characters\nwithout meaning to the reader." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But he is communicating by way of a novel, asnd to do this he must create \ncharacters with some element of versimilitude. You cannot simply ignore the \nevents of the novel in favour of what might be one of a million \ninterpretations of apparent allusions." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Marc: on which he danced with Kypris, who was Hyacinth and Mother, too.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry- In the third, it may be that Kypris is - in Silk's thoughts - \nrepresenting all women." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Or it may be that Wolfe repeatedly connecting Mamelta and Hyacinth and \nMother and Kypris in\nvarious ways is once again trying to tell the reader something. Perhaps it \nis something more than\nsimply \"some women = all women\". I'm willing to take a hint." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "By all means! But what about the part of my post that you didn't reply to, \nconcerning: the acts and words of Mamelta herself? Gene Wolfe wrote those \ntoo, you know! Are you willing to take a hint from that part? If so, how \ndo you reconcile it with your interpretations of the parts above?\n\nI *don't* think Wolfe throws things together randomly. So I try to find an \ninterpretation that fits the different clues.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2010-12-21T22:17:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction ofpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "<232546.21963.qm@web58206.mail.re3.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But the passage that identifies Mamelta with Kypris and Kypris's mother also says that the Outsider is a toy dancer and the water is a polished toy-top. We cannot take the last part literally, so surely it is reasonable not to take the first literally either?\n\nWhat you say about Pas's desire for an heir underlying the struggle in Mainframe is new to me. As I understood it, the struggle in Mainframe is between Pas's desire to fulfil his original colonisation plan, and Echidna's desire to keep her congregation on board the Whorl. Indeed, one might argue that on Urth as well as in the Whorl, Pas has hit upon a solution to his undoubted desire for a male heir - he has decided to become immortal! I can see the logic in what you are saying; I am not clear in why it is needed to drive the plot. Silk is a special embryo, certainly, but perhaps just one with special leadership abilities and no direct biological relationship to Typhon. (Of course if leadership ability is genetic as it appears to be, this part of Silk's genome may well be the same as Typhon's anyway!) \n\nIf Mamelta has had Kypris's memories and personality removed and somebody else's put in thir place, in what sense is she Kypris anyway? She doesn't talk like her or act like her. What do you think is the point?\n\n[As for the creepiness or otherwise of a man looking up a woman's loins, I'm not sure how her being his mother would improve matters!]\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n ----- Original Message ----- \n From: Marc Aramini \n \n All right Gerry. But it you have to admit it outright SAYS in the text she is. And it says Pas \"wants an heir\" that is worthy, that's the whole underlying struggle in mainframe. The Whorl is ready for Silk because Pas has set it up that way for his heir.\n\n I didn't just fabricate that association between Kypris and Mamelta and Mother, you know. We know Kypris possesses Hyacinth because she reminds her of herself. And Mamelta has the same hair as Hy, is one of the only females with blue eyes which are rare in Viron, and Kypris has them too. If this isn't enough inference for you, and is just symbolic assocation of all women, then I don't think any close readings will quite convince you. Are you sure Eleanor Bold is Mrs. Porter, and that tree was planted on dead people? Now that I look at Peace, that just seems like a bunch of random facts. Nothing to em.\n\n If Wolfe said this any more clearly it wouldn't be a mystery at all, in my opinion. We should leave those dreams alone, I guess.\n\n I don't know what else to say, I've provided my evidence, and in addition there is a creepy quality to Silk looking up Mamelta's loins that is slightly redeemed by her being his mother. Why she is on the whorl I really can't say, and this is a valid area for exploration, and in my mind the only argument against her being Kypris, since I believe it is not beyond Typhon's powers to partially or completely affect the minds of the sleepers he places on board.\n\n Marc" } ] }, { "message_id": "<974D142B93B3434E8130AA6138CCDBCC@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2010-12-21T22:24:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the voice of the outsider is the conjunction ofpas/kypris", "in_reply_to": "<4D1115D3.6070904@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He *did* load her on the generation ship - as a god, remember? He held her hand while she was being scanned, as he had just been.\n\nAnd if Urth-Typhon later had a change of heart and decided to bundle her aboard, Whorl-Typhon doesn't seem to have had any problems. You'd think they'd have talked.\n\nNow I *can* imagine that after some falling out, Urth-Typhon decided it would be fun to play a nasty little joke on Pas and Kypris, the punchline of which wouldn't be revealed for 200 years or more. But if he did this, he would most certainly *not* wipe her memories! Where would the fun be in that?\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n ----- Original Message ----- \n From: James Wynn " } ] }, { "message_id": "<247482.55235.qm@web58204.mail.re3.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-12-21T22:49:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) fish eating mamelta", "in_reply_to": "<5DF6017A7DEF45AAB5D778787E2F1A2A@jill>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "my reply to this snippet below ?from Gerry (I would respond on the bottom but can't get rid of the quoting line for some reason, everything I type looks like a continuation of his thoughts.\n\nYes, that fish is one of the great mysteries of Long Sun for me, as well as the spoons and stuff Silk gets in his augury, something I am certain has significance. We NEED to talk about that Fish!\n\nIs it a symbol too, of Christianity eating the Goddess of Love? ie - the outsider is an invention of Typhon and Kypris, but somehow a very real fish (the real Outsider)?eats them up and subsumes their substance? I have always always always been puzzled by it, and the dream as a whole. — And yes, the struggle mentions at one point what Pas really wants is an heir, I will try to find the quote, and it seems like his main motivation, one that would supersede Echidna and her brood, and is so by default their enemy.\n\nForgive the caps.\nI DON\"T WANT TO LEAVE THAT FISH ON A SYMBOLIC LEVEL. I DON\"T WANT TO LEAVE SEVERIAN\"S FACE IN THE MAUSOLEUM UNEXPLORED. I DON\"T WANT TO IGNORE WHY MAMELTA MIGHT BE KYPRIS AND IS ON THE WHORL. THERE MUST BE A REASON. Does it have to do with the broken Seal of the Monarch? Is Mucor killing all the Monarch's real family sealed down there?\n\nMarc\n--- On Tue, 12/21/10, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n\nFrom: Gerry Quinn \n\nMost of his dream is about the fish that swallowed Mamelta. It also includes Lemur, and certain women. The women seem to be ones Silk associates with sex to some degree. It's not randomly thrown together, but nor is it necessarily a cipher by which one can decode the meaning of the entire text. ??If it does mean something, maybe it suggests we should think more about that fish!\n\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-12-22T02:18:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) fish eating mamelta", "in_reply_to": "<247482.55235.qm@web58204.mail.re3.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc Aramini- I DON\"T WANT TO LEAVE THAT FISH ON A SYMBOLIC LEVEL." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nPerhaps I am being too simplistic and naive but the answer that lies between the \nsuperficial text and deeper symbolism seems too easy a puzzle, especially given\nyour theory, Marc.\n \nWe are told that the Whorl gods attempted to preserve themselves by possessing \nanimals. The big nasty fish is in Scylla's lake (and doesn't at all seem like any \nsimple Christ pun/symbol). Scylla is, after all, essentially an aquatic monster.\n \nIf Mamelta is in any way associated with Kypris, it seems no mystery at all why a \nmonstrous fish possessed by Scylla would want to chase her down and eat her. It is \njust the same as Scylla and Echidna in mainframe hunting down Daddy's Mistress, but \nin the real world...erm... whorl. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<986394.47675.qm@web58206.mail.re3.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-12-22T03:05:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) fish eating mamelta", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Cool I definitely buy that and need to pay attention to it next time through!? It always just seemed so random and sad :(. Thanks!? \nMarc\n\n--- On Tue, 12/21/10, Lee Berman wrote:\n\n\n\n\n\nWe are told that the Whorl gods attempted to preserve themselves by possessing \nanimals. The big nasty fish is in Scylla's lake (and doesn't at all seem like any \nsimple Christ pun/symbol). Scylla is, after all, essentially an aquatic monster.\n\nIf Mamelta is in any way associated with Kypris, it seems no mystery at all why a \nmonstrous fish possessed by Scylla would want to chase her down and eat her. ??????????????????????? " } ] } ] }