{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5883", "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": 5883, "subject": "Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anne", "messages": 36, "voices": 14, "first": "2011-01-07T20:13:57+00:00", "last": "2011-01-11T20:47:02+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andrew Mason", "address": "andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T20:13:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anne", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Two things that might support the 'recent landing' theory at least if\n'A Story' is taken as basically factual. One is the names Atlantis,\nGondwanaland,etc., which certainly were not used in Atlantis or\nGondwanaland; these are names that modern people might come up with if\nthey want to think of themselves as ancient. The other, which I find\nreally striking, is the name 'John'. I can't see why prehistoric\npeople, or those influenced by them, would call themselves John. (I\nthink this tends,as well, to support the view that the Shadow Children\nare the incomers and the Free :People the natives.It's hard to see why\na race of humans, who presumably had different names when they\narrived, would decide they would all be called John or Mary; a race\nof shapeshifters imitating humans might do so, if those were the names\nof the first humans they met. But I'm less sure of this.)" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T21:21:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anne", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Andrew Mason: Two things that might support the 'recent landing' theory at least if\n'>A Story' is taken as basically factual. One is the names Atlantis,\nGondwanaland,etc., which certainly were not used in Atlantis or\nGondwanaland; these are names that modern people might come up with if\nthey want to think of themselves as ancient. The other, which I find\nreally striking, is the name 'John'. I can't see why prehistoric\npeople, or those influenced by them, would call themselves John." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From my perspective this is evidence to the contrary. We must understand that \"A Story\" " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "in one way or another is translated, like BotNS.\n \nWhy is the name \"John\" used? Indeed a good question, in my opinion. I take the most\nfantastic view and that is that Shadow Children, or their source material, are essentially\nimmortal. How can you kill a shadow? When Shadow Children die, what do they mean? Not the\nsame thing as we mean for death, I suspect. Perhaps \"taking another form\" is meant.\n \nIf VRT is an immortal being, writing a story while in the guise/identity of *John* Marsch, I take\nthe translation to mean that his story of John Sandwalker and John Eastwind is true auto-\nbiography. This is his way of describing an event from a long, long time ago, when he was a divided \nbeing later reunited, as shadows are wont to do. \"John\" for this being is a way of saying \"me\". \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T21:23:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anne", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Lee Berman wrote:\nIf VRT is an immortal being, writing a story while in the guise/identity of *John* Marsch, I take\nthe translation to mean that his story of John Sandwalker and John Eastwind is true auto-\nbiography. This is his way of describing an event from a long, long time ago, when he was a divided\nbeing later reunited, as shadows are wont to do. \"John\" for this being is a way of saying \"me\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Lee, I think you've scored a hit here." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-01-08T01:45:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anne", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Andrew Mason\" \nTwo things that might support the 'recent landing' theory at least if\n'A Story' is taken as basically factual. One is the names Atlantis,\nGondwanaland,etc., which certainly were not used in Atlantis or\nGondwanaland; these are names that modern people might come up with if\nthey want to think of themselves as ancient. The other, which I find\nreally striking, is the name 'John'. I can't see why prehistoric\npeople, or those influenced by them, would call themselves John. (I\nthink this tends,as well, to support the view that the Shadow Children\nare the incomers and the Free :People the natives.It's hard to see why\na race of humans, who presumably had different names when they\narrived, would decide they would all be called John or Mary; a race\nof shapeshifters imitating humans might do so, if those were the names\nof the first humans they met. But I'm less sure of this.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "While I agree that they are the natives, I don;t think the John/Mary thing \nis very strong, as it could be a sort an equivalent of mister/missus, or \nlike some sort of saint's name that everyone gets. They all have other given \nnames anyway. In other words, I can easily imagine a human society that \ndoes this." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-01-08T02:01:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anne", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" \nAndrew Mason: Two things that might support the 'recent landing' theory at \nleast if\n'>A Story' is taken as basically factual. One is the names Atlantis,\nGondwanaland,etc., which certainly were not used in Atlantis or\nGondwanaland; these are names that modern people might come up with if\nthey want to think of themselves as ancient. The other, which I find\nreally striking, is the name 'John'. I can't see why prehistoric\npeople, or those influenced by them, would call themselves John." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From my perspective this is evidence to the contrary. We must understand \nthat \"A Story\"\nin one way or another is translated, like BotNS.\n\nWhy is the name \"John\" used? Indeed a good question, in my opinion. I take \nthe most\nfantastic view and that is that Shadow Children, or their source material, \nare essentially\nimmortal. How can you kill a shadow? When Shadow Children die, what do \nthey mean? Not the\nsame thing as we mean for death, I suspect. Perhaps \"taking another form\" \nis meant." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If you always lean towards the most fantastic view, and also get bent out of \nshape whenever people disagree with you, you are apt to have a hard time.\n\nI would have thought that there is good evidence that for the Shadow \nChildren, death is much the same as it is for us. Death for them means \ndinner for the Marshmen, and the last Shadow Child is not inclined towards \nthis fate.\n\n\"I hear your song,\" the Shadow Child said, \"and I wish to live too. I am \nnot, perhaps of your blood, but I wish to live.\"\n[--]\n \"Nothing is worse than that I should die,\" he says, and breaks the psychic \nbarrier around the twin planets." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If VRT is an immortal being, writing a story while in the guise/identity \nof *John* Marsch, I take\nthe translation to mean that his story of John Sandwalker and John \nEastwind is true auto-\nbiography. This is his way of describing an event from a long, long time \nago, when he was a divided\nbeing later reunited, as shadows are wont to do. \"John\" for this being is \na way of saying \"me\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But VRT isn't a Shadow Child anyway, and neither were Sandwalker and \nEastwind.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-08T08:15:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anne‏", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: If you always lean towards the most fantastic view, and also get bent out of shape \nwhenever people disagree with you, you are apt to have a hard time." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI am not bent out of shape though you may be fooled into thinking so; I retain full elasticity, \nI assure you. Perhaps you are bent out of shape because I disagree with your method of disagreement?\nIt is all simply conversation, is it not?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I would have thought that there is good evidence that for the Shadow Children, death is much the \nsame as it is for us." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nThat's because of the translated word \"death\" which is used. I think we have thesame problem with the \nword \"mother\" when shapeshifting abos use the word. What do these words mean when used by alien creatures \nwho may not have sexual reproduction or death as we know it?\n \nGerry, you are willing to believe the words of Shadow Children when they say they are human even \nthough those words are later called into question. You ignore the words of Shadow Children when\nthey say they are acorporeal and indeterminate in number, though that part is not called into \nquestion. \n \nThe story takes on worlds of new meaning if you can shuck your own human experience a little and make \nan attempt to understand what it would be like to be an immortal, shapeshifting being who happens\nto currently be in human form. \n \nYou have to grasp this concept to fully understand BotNS also. Soldier series too, perhaps. That's why \nthese stories are told in first person. It is an interesting way to disguise someone's identity by \nissuing the story from the mouth of a person who is confused about their identity.\n \nWhere would Gene Wolfe get such a crazy idea as this: A god-like being in human form? hm...where indeed. \nPretty much all ancient literature, I'd say. He just switched it to first person. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-01-08T20:37:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message ----- " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" \nGerry Quinn:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I would have thought that there is good evidence that for the Shadow \nChildren, death is much the\nsame as it is for us." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That's because of the translated word \"death\" which is used." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "How do you mean, \"translated\"? We have a text, presumably written by VRT in \nEnglish, in which he uses the word \"death\" (or words derived from the same \nroot such as \"die\"). He not only uses the word, he uses it in numerous \ncontexts which indicate that it means the same as it means to us (not just \nShadow Children die, but Hillmen, Marshmen, children, trees struck by \nlightning, the Maitre of 666 Saltimbanque St." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think we have thesame problem with the\nword \"mother\" when shapeshifting abos use the word. What do these words \nmean when used by alien creatures\nwho may not have sexual reproduction or death as we know it?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again, he uses it in contexts which make it plain that the meaning is the \nsame as ours. Not just his own mother, but Cedar Branches Waving and Seven \nGirls Waiting.\n\nIn \"A Story\" he indicates that the Hillmen reproduce in a fashion that is, \nif not identical to that of humans, is at least very similar. About \ngestation and birth there is very little room for doubt. He includes a \nsexual interlude between Sandwalker and Seven Girls Waiting. He has \nSweetmouth mock the castrated Eastwind. He enjoys the female fare provided \nby Maitre, and later whatever comforts are provided by Mme.Etienne (about \nwhose misuse of candles he has earlier speculated).\n\nThere may be some room for speculation about the male seed, if any, of the \nnative Annese, though I tend to the view that their reproductive system is \nthe same as that of humans, and the only serious doubt concerns whether the \ntwo species can interbreed. But there seems no good reason to doubt that \nHillmen, Marshmen and Shadow Children all die just as humans do." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry, you are willing to believe the words of Shadow Children when they \nsay they are human even\nthough those words are later called into question. You ignore the words of \nShadow Children when\nthey say they are acorporeal and indeterminate in number, though that part \nis not called into\nquestion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "They don't say that. There are legends about them (we are told by VRT), \nwhich are substantially explained (in the writings of VRT). The latter \nindicate that they draw beings into existence which are not in fact true \nShadow Children. They are expressly *not* acorporeal (they can be eaten) or \nindeterminate in number (\"we have names for one, three, and five\")\n\nWhy won't you pay attention to the text? It seems to me that you pick on \nsome random half-formed idea, decide this must be the true reading of the \ntext, or at least a reading as valid as any other, and then ignore numerous \nparts of the text that show it to be plainly wrong, or even misread the text \nto say it is backing up your latest theory when it very plainly is doing \nnothing of the sort." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The story takes on worlds of new meaning if you can shuck your own human \nexperience a little and make\nan attempt to understand what it would be like to be an immortal, \nshapeshifting being who happens\nto currently be in human form." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Or if you understand it as a retelling of Doctor Who or the Daleks. Or any \nother random idea that is unsupported by the text.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-09T04:30:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: How do you mean, \"translated\"? We have a text, presumably written by VRT in \nEnglish, in which he uses the word \"death\" (or words derived from the same \nroot such as \"die\"). He not only uses the word, he uses it in numerous contexts which \nindicate that it means the same as it means to us (not just Shadow Children die, but Hillmen, \nMarshmen, children, trees struck by lightning, the Maitre of 666 Saltimbanque St." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI mean \"translated\" in the sense of using your interpretation that abos are not human but \ninstead shapeshifting aliens. Since you have sneered at Star Trek in the past I'm sure you\nlikewise sneer at the idea that all aliens in our galaxy speak english. Thus, what we read\nis translated. And if shapeshifters have the ability to become haystacks or trees or whatever\nI can't see how the concept of death could be the same for them as for us. (I also assume you\ndon't ascribe to the notion that aliens evolved independently into human form on Ste. Anne. I am \ncurious Gerry, what do you think is the original form of abos?)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again, he uses it in contexts which make it plain that the meaning is the same as ours. Not \njust his own mother, but Cedar Branches Waving and Seven Girls Waiting." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nSpeak for yourself, please. If you would only qualify your words by saying \"plain to me\" we would\nhave 85% fewer disagreements. I have made it clear that the text suggests to me that the meaning\nof death and motherhood to shapeshifting aliens is likely not the same as our own." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "About gestation and birth there is very little room for doubt. He includes a sexual interlude between \nSandwalker and Seven Girls Waiting. He has Sweetmouth mock the castrated Eastwind." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nCedar Branches waving's lactation and birthing is probably the best evidence that abos reproduced in our \nhuman way. But VRT is only half-abo. What is the other half? Human? That makes no sense if abos are \nfully human in form. As Tony observes, the invocation of Dollo's Law implies that abos have lost some\nof their previous humanity. Lost it to become...what? Again, the question: What is the original form of abos?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "They [shadow children] are expressly *not* acorporeal (they can be eaten) or indeterminate in number." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nHeh, well, perhaps semi-corporeal is a better term. \"I for five\"? I could probably lose a few pounds but \nI don't find myself speaking in single first person for five beings very often. \"Eaten\" is another word \nthat probably has diffrent meaning for insubstantial shadows than for us. When I am walking in bright \nsunlight and I stop to stand next to my small son, my shadow swallows his. If shadows could talk is that \nhow would they describe what happened? How would they describe it when our shadows separate? (birth?)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The story takes on worlds of new meaning if you can shuck your own human experience a little and make\nan attempt to understand what it would be like to be an immortal, shapeshifting being who happens\nto currently be in human form." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry: Or if you understand it as a retelling of Doctor Who or the Daleks. Or any other random idea that \nis unsupported by the text." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nAgain with the Daleks. The only one bringing them up is Gerry Quinn. Essentially immortal, shapeshifting beings\nare found in more than one Wolfe story. Your denials do not erase them except in your own mind. Which is okay,\nbut how can you hope to erase them from everyone else's mind? Pretending they are Daleks? sheesh. I am not \ngetting my ideas from Dr. Who. Gerry. All my ideas are inspired and supported BY THE TEXT OF WOLFE BOOKS. \nPlease stop insinuating otherwise in your attempts to win arguments and promote your own theories.\n \nSomeone recently mentioned \"a different set of axioms\". A good concept to consider. Gerry I understand that you\nare satisfied with your own solutions and interpretations to Wolfe's work. I am not. Why do you hope to force\nyour satisfaction upon someone who sees things differently than you do? You consider my ideas fantastical and \nsilly. I consider your ideas to be threadbare and skeletal. But I don't try to tell you your ideas universally \nsuck. If they work for you then keep them and use them. If they help someone else, that is also great. I don't \nthink your ideas should be repressed or that they are harmful to the lupine universe or whatever. Same for mine.\n \nNobody could possibly match my interpretations of Gene Wolfe word for word because nobody shares my exact brain\narchitecture. The same is true for each of us. But when others ask me questions about my ideas it seems to be \nwith interest and to help shape them. Your comments reflect an interest only in invalidation and elimination. \nI get no sense of cameraderie or sharing and comparison of ideas from you. Which is a shame. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-09T04:58:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No dia 9 de Jan de 2011, ?s 04:30, Lee Berman escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Nobody could possibly match my interpretations of Gene Wolfe word for word because nobody shares my exact brain\narchitecture. The same is true for each of us. But when others ask me questions about my ideas it seems to be \nwith interest and to help shape them. Your comments reflect an interest only in invalidation and elimination. \nI get no sense of cameraderie or sharing and comparison of ideas from you. Which is a shame. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think I've asked more than once whether or not you understand the concept of falsifiability and its importance, but I don't recall getting an answer. \nThe reason the Daleks come in is quite simple: with no regard for falsifiability, *anything* can be put forth as a theory. You *can* get it to be story about the Daleks. You only need motivation. Do you really not see that? Heck, weren't the Daleks on the telly when tFHoC was being written?\n\nOf course, it can be the case that there is no fully satisfying theory that is falsifiable. But in that case, one must tread carefully and carefully. This is where, in my completely worthless and inconsequential opinion, you often though of course not always fail, and it doesn't help that you snap under critique. Also, I for an unspecified number am becoming tired of the rudeness in some of your replies." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-09T12:36:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: I think I've asked more than once whether or not you understand the concept \nof falsifiability and its importance, but I don't recall getting an answer." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nIf you have been reading my posts and are aware of my background in science and academia, then perhaps\nyou can realize the rudeness of your question. But I will answer now as I would always answer that \nquestion: Scientific principles are very useful in understanding the real world, which is (seems to be)\na place created by vast, natural and ultimately incomprehensible processes.\n \nIn my opinion these principles are less useful in understanding fiction and other art which is the creation \nof a much smaller world by a human intelligence for a specific purpose/meaning. In my opinion Gene Wolfe is \nvery aware of this distinction as he writes and is very aware of his role as Creator in the worlds he creates.\n \nIn my opinion, Gene Wolfe deliberately sets traps for those who attempt a purely scientific understanding\nof his work. He places what might be called misleading concrete (\"plowman's\") evidence which will distract\nfrom more intutive \"soothsayer\" and \"transubstantial\" meanings intrinsic to his stories. I suspect this is\nrelated to Gene Wolfe's own religious leanings.\n \nIn my opinion Gene Wolfe is aware that fiction/art has the power to inspire intuition and visions in ways that\nscience does not. He wields this power in ways that few authors can. No, I do NOT think visions and intuition\ncan be \"falsified\" by others. They are personal truths. When someone reports a personal truth they have felt\nI consider it insulting for others to try to falsify it. Contribute, yes. Falsify, no.\n \nIf you think someone is reporting a fake vision that they really don't see or that someone is mentally ill\nand reporting diseased visions I suppose you could say it that way. Or you could ignore it. That is the polite\nmethod, in my opinion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is where, in my completely worthless and inconsequential opinion, you often though of course not always fail, \nand it doesn't help that you snap under critique. Also, I for an unspecified number am becoming tired of the rudeness \nin some of your replies." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nFeel free to do a survey of all my posts. You will find that my replies mirror the tone of the post I am responding\nto, be it polite, rude, friendly, mean, serious or humourous. This is not fully conscious. I do the same sort\nof thing in the real world, to the amusing level of matching a foreign accent or regional dialect. This may give\nme extra understanding when it comes to shapeshifters imitating humans, but it may not.\n \nAs to the frequency of my \"failure\" I think that is a purely individualized assessment. What fails for you may be\na triumph of insight to another. That is none of my business. I accurately and honestly report my visions and do my\nbest to explain how the text or other ancillary sources inspire them. The rest is up to you. \n \nAntonio you can try to change me into you, or into Gerry. But you must know the futility of that. I am what I am. \nYou could badger and belittle my ideas until I give up trying to communicate them. Is that what you are hoping for? \nIf you, Gerry and/or others serve a purpose as some sort of regulator on this list then perhaps you can see the value \nof regulating the regulators?\n \nIt is my opinion that this List had degenerated into an endless haggling and niggling over minor details. The result\nwas to chase out any and all who operate on the broader intuitive level. This resulted in a lack of \"big picture\" \ntransubstantial understanding. I am not the best visionary and I will continue to do my best to make this place more \nfriendly to those gentle, sensitive geniuses I value so highly. They are always the source of my own best ideas.\n \nOn an unrelated topic, where is James lately? I highly miss his contributions.\n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<565FC1B5-176D-4D80-BF70-41865877169D@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-09T15:06:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No dia 9 de Jan de 2011, ?s 12:36, Lee Berman escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: I think I've asked more than once whether or not you understand the concept \nof falsifiability and its importance, but I don't recall getting an answer." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If you have been reading my posts and are aware of my background in science and academia, then perhaps\nyou can realize the rudeness of your question." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Other than a recent allusion to something to do with tetrapod phylogeny, I'm afraid \nIt must have escaped me. The question is in earnest. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But I will answer now as I would always answer that \nquestion: Scientific principles are very useful in understanding the real world, which is (seems to be)\na place created by vast, natural and ultimately incomprehensible processes.\n\nIn my opinion these principles are less useful in understanding fiction and other art which is the creation \nof a much smaller world by a human intelligence for a specific purpose/meaning. In my opinion Gene Wolfe is \nvery aware of this distinction as he writes and is very aware of his role as Creator in the worlds he creates." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's all very well, and I did mention the limits of falsifiable hypotheses. But the fact remains that a work of art, and fiction, is part of the real world. \n\nHow, without some kind of falsifiability or meta-falsifiability, can one tell between one's visions of Gene Wolfe's work and one's own visions detached from it? You've been asked this more than once, will you answer it now?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In my opinion Gene Wolfe is aware that fiction/art has the power to inspire intuition and visions in ways that\nscience does not. He wields this power in ways that few authors can. No, I do NOT think visions and intuition\ncan be \"falsified\" by others. They are personal truths. When someone reports a personal truth they have felt\nI consider it insulting for others to try to falsify it. Contribute, yes. Falsify, no." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's good that you've finally admitted it: you consider that this list is the place to share your visions, that others are welcome to build on them, but never to point out problems. I seriously doubt anyone agrees with this last part*, but it's nice that you've admitted once and for all. Unfortunately, I don't think you'll find many others interested in discussing your visions if all they can do is to say amen to them. If I'm misrepresenting this, then please correct it.\n\n(*) With exceptions, of course. As I've tried to explain in the past, sometimes one offers an idea as possible, and everything that follows is only dependent on it being possible, not certain. In that case, of course comments on how said idea is not necessarily certain are out of line. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is where, in my completely worthless and inconsequential opinion, you often though of course not always fail, \nand it doesn't help that you snap under critique. Also, I for an unspecified number am becoming tired of the rudeness \nin some of your replies." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Feel free to do a survey of all my posts. You will find that my replies mirror the tone of the post I am responding\nto, be it polite, rude, friendly, mean, serious or humourous." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Then it's your assessment of the tone of the thing you're responding to that must be off." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I am what I am. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "(Is this a way to say that you're not susceptible of improvement? That's a singularly unfortunate thing if true.)\n\nBeing what you are has brought you into conflict. While others have pointed out specific bits of your *behaviour* that they think are undesirable, you have repeatedly called *them* wholesale unimaginative, limited, coercive and hypocrites. It's a bit late to pretend to have the moral high ground. Since you seem genuinely puzzled why things have become the way they are, I'm trying to provide you with an explanation which, I believe, is simple and accurate. The idea is for you to be able to do your stuff in a way that is more useful for others, so that others in turn may be able to respond in a way that is more useful to you. But what's the result? You feel obliged to reply point by point how you think the explanation shouldn't apply. Which of course leads us nowhere. Is it my time to say that this is my vision and you're free to contribute but nothing else?\n\nThe alternative, if you're not willing to mediate a bit on how to get along better, is to stop whining about how others are mean to you. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On an unrelated topic, where is James lately? I highly miss his contributions." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I hope he's having some nice time somewhere which leaves him none for us. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<3E6371835CE044709503DE2384C9BA50@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-01-09T16:52:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Daleks of Saltimbanque Street", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gene Wolfe's tripartite novel, _The Fifth Head of Cerberus_, has excited and \nexasperated all those who have tried to interpret it in the thirty years \nsince it was written. The mystery is at last resolved! Wolfe, in his \ninimitable style, has cunningly reflected stories and themes from the \npopular BBC serial, Doctor Who.\n\nThe central character is presented obliquely. We learn of a Doctor (of \nanthropology, the study of humankind) about whom the central issue is a \nquestion of identity. Cleverly, Wolfe has created a literal Doctor Who, \nwithout once mentioning the name. (In case some readers missed the clues, \nWolfe later matches him with a young - though male -companion, and makes it \nclear that he has recently undergone a regeneration.)\n\nLess obscure are the identities of characters in the house at 666 \nSaltimbanque Street, where our story commences. The house is presided over \nby Maitre, whose frenchified name does little to hide his identity as Doctor \nWho's arch-enemy, renegade timelord The Master. His character is soon \neastablished as he rants about his \"failure to rule even this miserable \ncolony planet\" - as always, the Master intends to rule the entire Universe.\n\nOther characters we meet here are Number Five, a clone of the Master, and \nMr. Million, also apparently a clone of the Master, but encapsulated in a \nsort of mobile mechanical casing. Mr. Million is obviously a Dalek, or a \nprototype of one. But what are we to make of the numbers? The most obvious \nexplanation is that Mr. Million represents one of the countless Dalek \nfootsoldiers who will soon emerge to conquer the universe, whereas Number \nFive is being groomed for a position of authority. Already, though, the \nMaster drugs and torments Number Five nightly, beginning the process of \ntransforming him from a seemingly normal human being into one of the insane \nhate-filled creatures that animates the shell of every Dalek, even the \ngolden-shelled ruling class.\n\nAnother person here is David, a transparent soubriquet for a young clone of \nDavros, creator of the Daleks in the original series. Although seemingly on \nan equal footing with Number Five, David/Davros is not experimented on by \nthe Master to anything like the same degree. Wolfe does not elaborate on \nthis aspect of the plot, but it's clear that the Master and Davros have \nteamed up to create an army of world-ravaging Daleks. Who will stop them?\n\nEnter the Doctor, who arrives one night at Saltimbanque Street and is let in \nby Number Five. Five is suspicious of him, but the Doctor ably deflects his \nprying questions, and asks instead to speak to the person he has come to \nsee, 'Aunt Jeannine', otherwise known as anthropologist Aubrey Veil. \nJeannine is an early victim of the Master's experiments - she has been \nfitted with a prototype Dalek drive which allows her to glide around the \nhouse well enough, but renders her crippled outside. Unbowed by this \nhorrible fate, she has hit upon the ruse of anthropological discussions to \ncontrive an excuse for the Doctor to enter the Master's domain. Number Five \nis sent away while the Doctor and Jeannine discuss how to stop the Master's \ndastardly plans.\n\nIn the end, it is Number Five whom the Doctor and Jeannine use to foil the \nMaster. As a Master clone, Five is already naturally primed to demand \nsupreme power for himself at any cost, and the Doctor and Jeannine cleverly \nexploit this. Number Five is already motivated by ambition and resentment \nof the Master's experiments. When Jeannine tells him of the Master's hidden \nwealth, his emotions boil over and he resolves to kill the Master. The \nMaster realises he ihis becoming a threat, and (ironically) calls in the \nDoctor, who he believes to be an ordinary anthropologist, to reason with \nhim.\n\nIn the climax, the Doctor - who abhors killing - does indeed try to reason \nwith both Number Five and the Master. But it is too late. Number Five \nsends him away and murders the Master, he is then arrested by the police. \nThe threat to the universe is resolved. Aunt Jeannine lives on at 666 \nSaltimbanque St., keeping Dalek prototype Mr. Million as a servant. [Of \ncourse, the Master never truly dies - at the end, Number Five is back \npreparing new plots for future episodes.]\n\nWe have come to the end of the first and original novella, of which the \ncomplete novel is an expansion. As a Doctor Who story, it is also by far \nthe most standard in construction. In the third novella, VRT, Wolfe plays \nwith the concept, combining two typical Whovian tropes and, in a bow to the \nepisodic nature of the original series, ending in a cliffhanger rather than \na firm conclusion [VRT probably stands for Vestibular Rehabilitation \nTherapy, an acronym for medical treatments intended to restore balance].\n\nIn VRT, we alternate between present and past on the twin planets. In the \npresent, the Doctor is immured in a sinister prison controlled by the brutal \npolice force of Sainte Croix. It is suggested that he is under suspicion \nfor the murder of the Master in the first episode - yet we know that Number \nFive has already been sentenced. An alternate timeline, perhaps? There are \nhints that all is not as it seems - the three 'brothers' who arrest him, one \nof whom has apparently had a brain operation... Cybermen? It is unclear \njust which enemies the Doctor is facing. Perhaps Wolfe has purposely \ncreated ambiguity here in order to point to the recurring tropes of the \nseries, in which the Doctor is forever imprisoned and escaping, forever \nbattling enemies whose nature is recurrent though different in detail. We \nare introduced to Celestine, whom we are given to understand will somehow \nescape with him and become his Companion for the next series, but little in \nthe way of detail plot is provided.\n\nThe rest of VRT is a similarly oblique and incomplete tale, in which the \nDoctor appears on Sainte Anne, claiming to have travelled by starcrosser \nfrom Earth (a likely story!). He adopts a young male companion - and as \nwith Celestine Etienne, Wolfe does not shy away from the notion of sexual \nattraction, heterosexual or otherwise, between the Doctor and Companion, \nsomething which the BBC has shied away from until the recent reboot. Like \nthe BBC, however, Wolfe is never explicit on this aspect, which would be \ndisruptive to the main Whovian themes if placed too muych in the foreground. \nWith his companion, the Doctor explores the wilderness of Sainte Anne. \nThere is some disaster - as in the 'present' sequences of VRT, we are never \nshown what. The Companion dies and the Doctor regenerates. And this very \nregeneration feeds back into the central myster of Who's identity (if any) \nand is the reason he is imprisoned in the 'present' sequencves of VRT. The \n'past' sequences have no middle but an ending, the present sequences have no \nending but are all middle. Indeed, in VRT Wolfe has presented an intriguing \nconfection which riffs on the instability of Story when time travel is in \nplay, viewed from the perspective of a central character who is an immortal \nshapechanging alien who cannot die (one student of Wolfe has observed that \nthis is a central theme of much of his work).\n\n What are we to make of the second novella, though? Neither Doctor Who not \nthe Master appear here, though apparently it is a story (or legend) of the \npast of Sainte Anne, as told by the Doctor.\n\nWe must remember the genesis of _Fifth Head_. Wolfe originally wrote the \nfirst, and most simply constructed novella, as a tribute to the BBC serial. \nThen his editor asked him to expand it to novel length. Wolfe obliged, and \nthe third novella, VRT, moves on from standard plots into an extended \nmeditation on themes of time and identity. But still we have rather a short \nnovel. Wolfe resorts to a technique he has used repeatedly elsewhere, which \nif used by a lesser author we might call 'padding'. He includes a story, as \nusual a dreamlike legend of earlier times, whose direct connection with the \nplot is obscure, but which touches lightly on themes in the surrounding \nnovel. Often such stories are included by means of a storytelling contest, \nor an ancient book read by one of the characters - here Wolfe has the Doctor \ntell the story, perhaps describing a time when he visited pre-discovery \nSainte Anne in his Tardis. Themes of cloned twins amd other concepts found \nin the other novellas are prominent. In VRT we see hints that some of the \ncharacters live on after the colonisation of Sainte Anne, but they seem to \nhave no more direct connection with the characters of the other novellas \nthan do Fish and Frog in the legents incorporated in Book of the New Sun.\n\nAll in all, _Fifth Head_ is quintessential Wolfe, taking tropes from the \npulp fiction or media of the day but putting them to novel use. Even now \nthat the puzzles which have perplexed so many are solved once and for all, I \nam sure it will continue to be the subject of intense discussion, as new \naspects of the Doctor are teased out from its complex and intertwined \nstories.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-01-09T16:53:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn: How do you mean, \"translated\"? We have a text, presumably\nwritten by VRT in\nEnglish, in which he uses the word \"death\" (or words derived from the same\nroot such as \"die\"). He not only uses the word, he uses it in numerous\ncontexts which\nindicate that it means the same as it means to us (not just Shadow\nChildren die, but Hillmen,\nMarshmen, children, trees struck by lightning, the Maitre of 666\nSaltimbanque St." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I mean \"translated\" in the sense of using your interpretation that abos\nare not human but\ninstead shapeshifting aliens. Since you have sneered at Star Trek in the\npast I'm sure you\nlikewise sneer at the idea that all aliens in our galaxy speak english.\nThus, what we read\nis translated." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What we read is written by the shapeshifting alien who replaces Marsch in\nthe lingua franca of Sainte Anne and Sainte Croix, which I assume to be\nEnglish (this is not entirely clear, but the names of colonists of\nnon-French derivation appear to be Anglo-Saxon). Rather obviously, VRT\nspeaks English, or whatever the human lingua franca is. He can converse\nwith the original Dr. Marsch, who comes from Earth.\n\n [As for Star Trek, did they not have a device called a Universal\nTranslator? One might imagine that this device is always used, but elided\nfrom the episodes for the convenience of the audience.]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And if shapeshifters have the ability to become haystacks or trees or\nwhatever\nI can't see how the concept of death could be the same for them as for us.\n(I also assume you\ndon't ascribe to the notion that aliens evolved independently into human\nform on Ste. Anne. I am\ncurious Gerry, what do you think is the original form of abos?)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Trees can die (indeed, \"A Story\" mentions this fact).. I don't know about\nhaystacks, but I imagine that a shapeshifting alien disguised as a haystack\ncould die too. Vigorous use of a pitchfork should soon put an end to it.\n\nThe hypothesis I argue for is that the alien shapeshifters copied the human\nexplorers who later devolved into the Shadow Children. We may as well take\nthe word of the Old Wise One that the aliens could originally take any\nshape. Perhaps they took animal shapes when hunting, and a wider variety of\nshapes for camouflage." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Again, he uses it in contexts which make it plain that the meaning is the\nsame as ours. Not\njust his own mother, but Cedar Branches Waving and Seven Girls Waiting." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Speak for yourself, please. If you would only qualify your words by saying\n\"plain to me\" we would\nhave 85% fewer disagreements. I have made it clear that the text suggests\nto me that the meaning\nof death and motherhood to shapeshifting aliens is likely not the same as\nour own." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Where does he indicate the nature of these alien concepts of death and\nmotherhood? As I have pointed out, he uses the concepts in many places\nwhere they appear identical to the human concepts. I cannot think of any\nplace where he uses them in an unusual fashion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "About gestation and birth there is very little room for doubt. He includes\na sexual interlude between\nSandwalker and Seven Girls Waiting. He has Sweetmouth mock the castrated\nEastwind." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Cedar Branches waving's lactation and birthing is probably the best\nevidence that abos reproduced in our\nhuman way." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not just her." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But VRT is only half-abo. What is the other half? Human? That makes no\nsense if abos are\nfully human in form. As Tony observes, the invocation of Dollo's Law\nimplies that abos have lost some\nof their previous humanity. Lost it to become...what? Again, the question:\nWhat is the original form of abos?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He says \"at least half abo\". I believe the question is open. It is a wise\nchild that knows its own father, as the saying goes, and I do not believe\nVRT can be certain of his. If there is another half, though, it must indeed\nbe human.\n\nAbos are similar to humans in form, but not quite in function. They have\nnot \"lost their previous humanity\" - they have not quite achieved humanity.\nDollo's Law is used as analogy; it is not implied that abos have evolved in\nsuch a way as to lose the use of their thumbs." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "They [shadow children] are expressly *not* acorporeal (they can be eaten)\nor indeterminate in number." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Heh, well, perhaps semi-corporeal is a better term. \"I for five\"? I could\nprobably lose a few pounds but\nI don't find myself speaking in single first person for five beings very\noften." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nor did any Shadow Child. That quotation is from the Old Wise One." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"Eaten\" is another word\nthat probably has diffrent meaning for insubstantial shadows than for us.\nWhen I am walking in bright\nsunlight and I stop to stand next to my small son, my shadow swallows his.\nIf shadows could talk is that\nhow would they describe what happened? How would they describe it when our\nshadows separate? (birth?)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's no indication that Shadow Children are actual shadows. They are\nphysical; they eat and are eaten. (This does not apply to the Old Wise One,\nbut he is not a Shadow Child. The distinction is actually pointed out in\nthe text: \"they won't pick your bones\")." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The story takes on worlds of new meaning if you can shuck your own human\nexperience a little and make\nan attempt to understand what it would be like to be an immortal,\nshapeshifting being who happens\nto currently be in human form." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry: Or if you understand it as a retelling of Doctor Who or the Daleks.\nOr any other random idea that\nis unsupported by the text." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again with the Daleks. The only one bringing them up is Gerry Quinn." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I bring them up because I think they are more plausible than a lot of the\ntheories you have been proposing of late." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Essentially immortal, shapeshifting beings are found in more than one\nWolfe story." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Possibly so, but you have yet to demonstrate that they are found in 5HoC." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Your denials do not erase them except in your own mind. Which is okay,\nbut how can you hope to erase them from everyone else's mind? Pretending\nthey are Daleks? sheesh. I am not\ngetting my ideas from Dr. Who. Gerry. All my ideas are inspired and\nsupported BY THE TEXT OF WOLFE BOOKS." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I will take your word for it that they are so inspired. In cases such as\nthis - and yesterday's proposal that the spacemen who land at the end of \"A\nStory\" are not French - the alleged support seems highly questionable.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<902611.58116.qm@web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-01-09T17:38:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Daleks of Saltimbanque Street", "in_reply_to": "<3E6371835CE044709503DE2384C9BA50@jill>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Awesome, sir.\n\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: Gerry Quinn \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Sun, January 9, 2011 10:52:49 AM\nSubject: (urth) The Daleks of Saltimbanque Street\n\n\nGene Wolfe's tripartite novel, _The Fifth Head of Cerberus_, has excited and \nexasperated all those who have tried to interpret it in the thirty years since \nit was written. The mystery is at last resolved! Wolfe, in his inimitable \nstyle, has cunningly reflected stories and themes from the popular BBC serial, \nDoctor Who.\n\nThe central character is presented obliquely. We learn of a Doctor (of \nanthropology, the study of humankind) about whom the central issue is a question \nof identity. Cleverly, Wolfe has created a literal Doctor Who, without once \nmentioning the name. (In case some readers missed the clues, Wolfe later \nmatches him with a young - though male -companion, and makes it clear that he \nhas recently undergone a regeneration.)\n\nLess obscure are the identities of characters in the house at 666 Saltimbanque \nStreet, where our story commences. The house is presided over by Maitre, whose \nfrenchified name does little to hide his identity as Doctor Who's arch-enemy, \nrenegade timelord The Master. His character is soon eastablished as he rants \nabout his \"failure to rule even this miserable colony planet\" - as always, the \nMaster intends to rule the entire Universe.\n\nOther characters we meet here are Number Five, a clone of the Master, and Mr. \nMillion, also apparently a clone of the Master, but encapsulated in a sort of \nmobile mechanical casing. Mr. Million is obviously a Dalek, or a prototype of \none. But what are we to make of the numbers? The most obvious explanation is \nthat Mr. Million represents one of the countless Dalek footsoldiers who will \nsoon emerge to conquer the universe, whereas Number Five is being groomed for a \nposition of authority. Already, though, the Master drugs and torments Number \nFive nightly, beginning the process of transforming him from a seemingly normal \nhuman being into one of the insane hate-filled creatures that animates the shell \nof every Dalek, even the golden-shelled ruling class.\n\nAnother person here is David, a transparent soubriquet for a young clone of \nDavros, creator of the Daleks in the original series. Although seemingly on an \nequal footing with Number Five, David/Davros is not experimented on by the \nMaster to anything like the same degree. Wolfe does not elaborate on this \naspect of the plot, but it's clear that the Master and Davros have teamed up to \ncreate an army of world-ravaging Daleks. Who will stop them?\n\nEnter the Doctor, who arrives one night at Saltimbanque Street and is let in by \nNumber Five. Five is suspicious of him, but the Doctor ably deflects his prying \nquestions, and asks instead to speak to the person he has come to see, 'Aunt \nJeannine', otherwise known as anthropologist Aubrey Veil. Jeannine is an early \nvictim of the Master's experiments - she has been fitted with a prototype Dalek \ndrive which allows her to glide around the house well enough, but renders her \ncrippled outside. Unbowed by this horrible fate, she has hit upon the ruse of \nanthropological discussions to contrive an excuse for the Doctor to enter the \nMaster's domain. Number Five is sent away while the Doctor and Jeannine discuss \nhow to stop the Master's dastardly plans.\n\nIn the end, it is Number Five whom the Doctor and Jeannine use to foil the \nMaster. As a Master clone, Five is already naturally primed to demand supreme \npower for himself at any cost, and the Doctor and Jeannine cleverly exploit \nthis. Number Five is already motivated by ambition and resentment of the \nMaster's experiments. When Jeannine tells him of the Master's hidden wealth, \nhis emotions boil over and he resolves to kill the Master. The Master realises \nhe ihis becoming a threat, and (ironically) calls in the Doctor, who he believes \nto be an ordinary anthropologist, to reason with him.\n\nIn the climax, the Doctor - who abhors killing - does indeed try to reason with \nboth Number Five and the Master. But it is too late. Number Five sends him \naway and murders the Master, he is then arrested by the police. The threat to \nthe universe is resolved. Aunt Jeannine lives on at 666 Saltimbanque St., \nkeeping Dalek prototype Mr. Million as a servant. [Of course, the Master never \ntruly dies - at the end, Number Five is back preparing new plots for future \nepisodes.]\n\nWe have come to the end of the first and original novella, of which the complete \nnovel is an expansion. As a Doctor Who story, it is also by far the most \nstandard in construction. In the third novella, VRT, Wolfe plays with the \nconcept, combining two typical Whovian tropes and, in a bow to the episodic \nnature of the original series, ending in a cliffhanger rather than a firm \nconclusion [VRT probably stands for Vestibular Rehabilitation Therapy, an \nacronym for medical treatments intended to restore balance].\n\nIn VRT, we alternate between present and past on the twin planets. In the \npresent, the Doctor is immured in a sinister prison controlled by the brutal \npolice force of Sainte Croix. It is suggested that he is under suspicion for \nthe murder of the Master in the first episode - yet we know that Number Five has \nalready been sentenced. An alternate timeline, perhaps? There are hints that \nall is not as it seems - the three 'brothers' who arrest him, one of whom has \napparently had a brain operation... Cybermen? It is unclear just which enemies \nthe Doctor is facing. Perhaps Wolfe has purposely created ambiguity here in \norder to point to the recurring tropes of the series, in which the Doctor is \nforever imprisoned and escaping, forever battling enemies whose nature is \nrecurrent though different in detail. We are introduced to Celestine, whom we \nare given to understand will somehow escape with him and become his Companion \nfor the next series, but little in the way of detail plot is provided.\n\nThe rest of VRT is a similarly oblique and incomplete tale, in which the Doctor \nappears on Sainte Anne, claiming to have travelled by starcrosser from Earth (a \nlikely story!). He adopts a young male companion - and as with Celestine \nEtienne, Wolfe does not shy away from the notion of sexual attraction, \nheterosexual or otherwise, between the Doctor and Companion, something which the \nBBC has shied away from until the recent reboot. Like the BBC, however, Wolfe \nis never explicit on this aspect, which would be disruptive to the main Whovian \nthemes if placed too muych in the foreground. With his companion, the Doctor \nexplores the wilderness of Sainte Anne. There is some disaster - as in the \n'present' sequences of VRT, we are never shown what. The Companion dies and the \nDoctor regenerates. And this very regeneration feeds back into the central \nmyster of Who's identity (if any) and is the reason he is imprisoned in the \n'present' sequencves of VRT. The 'past' sequences have no middle but an ending, \nthe present sequences have no ending but are all middle. Indeed, in VRT Wolfe \nhas presented an intriguing confection which riffs on the instability of Story \nwhen time travel is in play, viewed from the perspective of a central character \nwho is an immortal shapechanging alien who cannot die (one student of Wolfe has \nobserved that this is a central theme of much of his work).\n\nWhat are we to make of the second novella, though? Neither Doctor Who not the \nMaster appear here, though apparently it is a story (or legend) of the past of \nSainte Anne, as told by the Doctor.\n\nWe must remember the genesis of _Fifth Head_. Wolfe originally wrote the first, \nand most simply constructed novella, as a tribute to the BBC serial. Then his \neditor asked him to expand it to novel length. Wolfe obliged, and the third \nnovella, VRT, moves on from standard plots into an extended meditation on themes \nof time and identity. But still we have rather a short novel. Wolfe resorts to \na technique he has used repeatedly elsewhere, which if used by a lesser author \nwe might call 'padding'. He includes a story, as usual a dreamlike legend of \nearlier times, whose direct connection with the plot is obscure, but which \ntouches lightly on themes in the surrounding novel. Often such stories are \nincluded by means of a storytelling contest, or an ancient book read by one of \nthe characters - here Wolfe has the Doctor tell the story, perhaps describing a \ntime when he visited pre-discovery Sainte Anne in his Tardis. Themes of cloned \ntwins amd other concepts found in the other novellas are prominent. In VRT we \nsee hints that some of the characters live on after the colonisation of Sainte \nAnne, but they seem to have no more direct connection with the characters of the \nother novellas than do Fish and Frog in the legents incorporated in Book of the \nNew Sun.\n\nAll in all, _Fifth Head_ is quintessential Wolfe, taking tropes from the pulp \nfiction or media of the day but putting them to novel use. Even now that the \npuzzles which have perplexed so many are solved once and for all, I am sure it \nwill continue to be the subject of intense discussion, as new aspects of the \nDoctor are teased out from its complex and intertwined stories.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D29FA0D.8070702@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2011-01-09T18:10:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Daleks of Saltimbanque Street", "in_reply_to": "<3E6371835CE044709503DE2384C9BA50@jill>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 1/9/2011 10:52 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\nWolfe does not shy away from the notion of\nsexual attraction, heterosexual or otherwise, between the Doctor and\nCompanion, something which the BBC has shied away from until the recent\nreboot." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Technically, the eighth, movie doctor and companion were more than friends." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All in all, _Fifth Head_ is quintessential Wolfe, taking tropes from the\npulp fiction or media of the day but putting them to novel use. Even now\nthat the puzzles which have perplexed so many are solved once and for\nall, I am sure it will continue to be the subject of intense discussion,\nas new aspects of the Doctor are teased out from its complex and\nintertwined stories." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "AS-SIM-I-LATE! AS-SIM-I-LATE!" }, { "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": "David Duffy", "address": "davidd at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2011-01-10T01:44:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Daleks of Saltimbanque Street", "in_reply_to": "<3E6371835CE044709503DE2384C9BA50@jill>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\nGene Wolfe's tripartite novel, _The Fifth Head of Cerberus_, has excited and \nexasperated all those who have tried to interpret it in the thirty years \nsince it was written. The mystery is at last resolved! Wolfe, in his \ninimitable style, has cunningly reflected stories and themes from the popular \nBBC serial, Doctor Who." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Goodo! I can see an episode of the _new_ Doctor already. I am reminded \nof the Gilligan's Island exegesis.\n\nCheers, David Duffy." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jordon Flato", "address": "jordonflatourth at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T04:32:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Daleks of Saltimbanque Street", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gerry, none of that is supported by the text, damn it!\n\nOn Jan 9, 2011 5:49 PM, \"David Duffy\" wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\nGene Wolfe's tripartite novel, _The Fifth Head of Cerber..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Goodo! I can see an episode of the _new_ Doctor already. I am reminded of\nthe Gilligan's Island exegesis.\n\nCheers, David Duffy." } ] }, { "message_id": "<002f01cbb089$df1207a0$fbd04a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2011-01-10T05:47:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Daleks of Saltimbanque Street", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Duffy quoted and wrote:\nOn Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gene Wolfe's tripartite novel, _The Fifth Head of Cerberus_, has excited\nand\nexasperated all those who have tried to interpret it in the thirty years\nsince it was written. The mystery is at last resolved! Wolfe, in his\ninimitable style, has cunningly reflected stories and themes from the\npopular\nBBC serial, Doctor Who." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Goodo! I can see an episode of the _new_ Doctor already. I am reminded\nof the Gilligan's Island exegesis." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Damn! You beat me to it! Anyway, the Gilligan's exegesis was about the\n\"Christic imagery\" in the show. Not the same thing -- I hope. And I blame\nyou for getting that damn tune in my head again!\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<004e01cbb08b$9effd460$fbd04a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2011-01-10T05:59:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Daleks of Saltimbanque Street", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oh, I forgot to mention; good job, Gerry!\n\n\"Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale, a tale of a fateful trip, . . .\n\"\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T10:06:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: I think I've asked more than once whether or not you understand the concept of \nfalsifiability and its importance, but I don't recall getting an answer. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "LB: Scientific principles are very useful in understanding the real world...less useful in understanding \nfiction" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio: But the fact remains that a work of art, and fiction, is part of the real world. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nSuperficially this is true but I'll try to explain why this misses the essence of what art is. It comes\ndown to something like Cartesian dualism or the \"mind-body\" problem if you will. We understand the \noutside world through sensory perceptions and scientific principles. But when we do self-analysis, when\nwe try to understand our own mind, we use different processes. We can't see, hear or objectively measure \nour own mind and thoughts.\n \nI am suggesting that the process of art appreciation, especially literature, is closer to an internal \nperception than an external perception. Yes, we see dots on a page or screen. But in the process, we are trying \nto understand the thoughts of someone else in the way we understand our own thoughts.\n \nIf you wanted to test a Wolfe book scientifically, you would measure its volume and mass and determine its\ndensity. You would perform chemical and spectrographic analysis on the paper and ink and record your results.\nThat is *falsifiable* evidence. Other scientists can repeat your experiments and achieve either the same or\ndifferent results.\n \nYou and Gerry seem to be arguing that if we all read the same book, that is scientific analysis. It is not.\nWe all read the same books but interpret the thoughts of the author in different ways, because our minds\ndiffer. Gerry reads the theories of other people and runs the evidence through *his* mind and, VOILA, \nHe gets different results than the theorist. Thus he thinks he has falsified the person's theory. (every\ntheory but his own, it seems)\n \nWhat he has done is falsified the theory in his own mind. Perhaps he has falsified the theory in some other \npeople's minds also. If that's what you and Gerry are saying, then I have no argument. But you two are arguing \nthat Gerry sifting the fictional evidence through his own mind constitutes some sort of logical, universal truth\nI'm afraid we have a disagreement. As long as we are not Shadow Children and operating with some sort of\nGroup Mind, there is no universal truth when it comes to understanding art. Our minds belong to each of us,\nindividually. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D2B2E75.8020709@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T16:06:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Lee Berman wrote (10-01-2011 10:06):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "LB:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Antonio:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I think I've asked more than once whether or not you understand\nthe concept of falsifiability and its importance, but I don't\nrecall getting an answer." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Scientific principles are very useful in understanding the real\nworld...less useful in understanding fiction" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But the fact remains that a work of art, and fiction, is part of the\nreal world." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Superficially this is true but I'll try to explain why this misses the\nessence of what art is." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, first of all, let me say that it's nice that we're talking now, kind \nof at least." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It comes down to something like Cartesian dualism or the \"mind-body\"\nproblem if you will. We understand the outside world through sensory\nperceptions and scientific principles. But when we do self-analysis, when\nwe try to understand our own mind, we use different processes. We can't\nsee, hear or objectively measure our own mind and thoughts.\n\nI am suggesting that the process of art appreciation, especially\nliterature, is closer to an internal perception than an external\nperception. Yes, we see dots on a page or screen. But in the process, we\nare trying to understand the thoughts of someone else in the way we\nunderstand our own thoughts.\n\nIf you wanted to test a Wolfe book scientifically, you would measure its\nvolume and mass and determine its density. You would perform chemical\nand spectrographic analysis on the paper and ink and record your results.\n That is *falsifiable* evidence. Other scientists can repeat your\nexperiments and achieve either the same or different results." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think you forgot to say somewhere that you're still operating on the realm \nof metaphor. Because of course what you're describing is falsifiability \napplied to physical and chemical analysis, but there's nothing about \nfalsifiability that is tied to physical phenomena.\n\nFalsifiability is simply the corollary of predictiveness. Where you have a \ntheory, you have prediction; and prediction can be tested. If you have a \nInire-is-evil theory, then you sort of have a prediction that somewhere \nthere should be evidence of a sinister side to him. And said evidence indeed \npops up, what with his stories with little girls who no one understands very \nwell. Of course, that evidence is also consistent with other hypotheses. \nUltimately the worth of an interpretation is in the *-est it can be while \nmaking the most correct predictions and the least incorrect ones. Depending \non what adjective is superlativised in *-est, you may have a number of best \ninterpretations. But that's not because you threw out falsifiability.\n\nWith no regard to falsifiability you allow theories which make no [testable] \npredictions at all - and how can one evaluate those? - or that make all \nsorts of incorrect predictions - and how can one still think those have \nreally anything to do with what GW wrote? But from what you write, it sounds \nas if what you're thinking of is rather different - the way the work rings \ninside you and paints for you this or that kind of scenery, which may be \neven completely at odds with what the work apparently says, but is \nnonetheless a product of the work on the collection of stuff that you call \nyour mind.\n\nIn that regard, what can you counter to Gerry's Daleks except for the \nimpression that Gerry doesn't believe them one bit?\n\nI suppose that all this time you've been clamoring for the right to freely \n*appreciate* but calling it *understanding*. Well, those are different. \nSuddenly all your complaints make a lot of sense if what you're calling for \nis appreciation, but I don't think that's what's generally discussed here. \n(I'd call *understanding* the move toward a greater comprehension of the \nmeaning the work supports and the way the author made it so, versus \n*appreciation* the move toward greater personal yield of the work, and \nobviously they aren't necessarily incompatible, but may need to be kept \ndistinct.)\n\nIn short, don't call it 'theory', stick to 'vision' or something like that, \nand try not to mix it with the antics of proper theory, otherwise one won't \nbe able to make heads or tails of it. (Or keep doing it the same way, but in \nthat case expect continued misunderstading.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You and Gerry seem to be arguing that if we all read the same book, that\nis scientific analysis. It is not. We all read the same books but\ninterpret the thoughts of the author in different ways, because our minds\ndiffer. Gerry reads the theories of other people and runs the evidence\nthrough *his* mind and, VOILA, He gets different results than the\ntheorist. Thus he thinks he has falsified the person's theory. (every\ntheory but his own, it seems)\n\nWhat he has done is falsified the theory in his own mind. Perhaps he has\nfalsified the theory in some other people's minds also. If that's what\nyou and Gerry are saying, then I have no argument. But you two are\narguing that Gerry sifting the fictional evidence through his own mind\nconstitutes some sort of logical, universal truth I'm afraid we have a\ndisagreement. As long as we are not Shadow Children and operating with\nsome sort of Group Mind, there is no universal truth when it comes to\nunderstanding art. Our minds belong to each of us, individually." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There is no [universal] truth when it comes to appreciate art, or pretty \nmuch anything else. But in what regards understanding, as the word is used, \nthere are objective criteria to rank different understandings in one or more \nregards. For instance, it may be that the most poetical understanding is not \nthe one that has more evidence for it. Or it may be that the richest one is \nnot the most poetical. Or it may be that one's own preferred isn't the most \ngenerally interesting." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T18:05:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "<4D2B2E75.8020709@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: Well, first of all, let me say that it's nice that we're talking now, kind \nof at least." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nOkay..I think. I don't think we have much common ground but at least we are communicating that we\ndisagree?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think you forgot to say somewhere that you're still operating on the realm \nof metaphor. Because of course what you're describing is falsifiability \napplied to physical and chemical analysis, but there's nothing about \nfalsifiability that is tied to physical phenomena." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually there is. I will quote the godfather of the laws of conducting science, Karl Popper, who said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it \nis not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI think it might be wise to step back now and then and remember the definition of the word \"fiction\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Falsifiability is simply the corollary of predictiveness. Where you have a \ntheory, you have prediction; and prediction can be tested. If you have a \nInire-is-evil theory, then you sort of have a prediction that somewhere \nthere should be evidence of a sinister side to him." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nHeh, I can't believe you went there. Are you (or others) really thinking that when the word \"theory\" is\nused in regard to understanding a Wolfe story that the word is meant in strict scientific definition?\nHow do you propose to test predictability for a theory on fiction? Have the author re-write the \ncharacters using test and control populations of characters? Gather hundreds of first-time readers and...\nwell, I needn't go on. It seems silly. I've always understood that the word \"theory\" is used in the arts \nin the loosest sense, not the scientific sense. I can testify that this same word is used with similar \nmeaning in other discussions of other works of art. Now and then I add \"gestalt vision\" or \"personal \nunderstanding\" to qualify the use of the word \"theory\" but it would be silly to do that all the time when\nmost people (I hope) understand the meaning of the word in this context.\n \nRegarding Father Inire I do not have a \"theory\" which says he is \"evil\". I have had a general sense that\nhe is best understood not just as an alien but as an analog to a Greek sort of god. This understanding\nhas served me well and has been supported in my readings of Long/Short Sun and other Wolfe works.\nHis measure of \"evil\" might best be evaluated in the same way one might evaluate the good/evil to be\nfound in a mythological god. For those who see no mythology in Wolfe's stories, hey..I am comfortable\nwith that. You may understand the story in your own way." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In that regard, what can you counter to Gerry's Daleks except for the impression that Gerry doesn't believe \nthem one bit?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI noticed a thread about Daleks but I didn't read any of it so I can't really comment. Gerry used the term once\nor twice in a different post so maybe I understand his intention. I remember once a long time ago when I was\nin a college philosophy course, one student asserted to the class that he knew he had a soul. I countered by\nasserting I had an invisible turnip in my kidney. The class laughed. The other student felt bad. I felt bad.\nI should have asked him more about what he knew, rather than make fun of him. I have grown wiser and kinder\nsince those days. I am more aware that what I don't know can be as important as what I do know and that other\npeople's thoughts and feelings are as valid as my own. I recommend this direction in personal growth as a \nhuman being. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D2B50E6.5000503@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T18:33:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Lee Berman wrote (10-01-2011 18:05):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't think we have much common ground but at least we are\ncommunicating that we disagree?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure that we're communicating. Your previous message was a\nreasonable exposition of the way you see things, and I tried to address what\nI think were the relevant parts. I don't see that you did the same now -\n'How do you propose to test predictability for a theory on fiction' is\npainful to read - and I think that's a pity. So, for a while, it seemed we\nwere communicating, but maybe hopes were raised too high." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T18:43:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Lee,\n\nYou are using too narrow a definition of \"prediction\" and \"falsifiability.\"\n\nFor sciences like paleontology, astrophysics, cosmology, etc., the\nability to create \"experiments\" is limited. What constitutes\n\"prediction\" in a theory is that it successfully explains the\navailable evidence. What I mean is this: if in looking at fossils A,\nB, and C I come up with a theory T that also turns out to successfully\nexplain fossils X, Y, and Z, then T has made a successful prediction,\nand is more likely to be true; if, on the other hand, fossils X, Y,\nand Z contradict T, then T has been falsified.\n\nIn the case of literary discussion, the \"available evidence\" is the\ntext at hand, as a whole and in parts.\n\nIf, in looking at Horn's experience in the pit, a reader comes up with\nan idea I that also explains some details of his encounter with\nHe-Pen-Sheep, then I has made a successful prediction, and is more\nlikely to be true; if, on the other hand, the details of inhumi\nreproduction contradict I, then I has been falsified.\n\nI am not suggesting that literary criticism and theory have the\nepistemological status of the sciences. I am, however, suggesting that\nthe methods of the sciences can be used to make literary criticism and\ntheory more useful." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T20:05:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: You are using too narrow a definition of \"prediction\" and \"falsifiability.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps, but remember I am not bringing up these terms myself, only responding to the accusations\nof other people using these terms." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In the case of literary discussion, the \"available evidence\" is the text at hand, as a whole and in parts." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI would add literary and other sorts of allusional links and authorial interviews and such but, sure\nthat's okay with me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If, in looking at Horn's experience in the pit, a reader comes up with an idea I that also explains some \ndetails of his encounter with He-Pen-Sheep, then I has made a successful prediction." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nSounds like James's \"theory\". Which I liked. Yet certain authorities deemed it falsified, unlikely, \nnon-predictive or whatever. So who am I to believe, them or you?\n \nSince \"prediction\" implies a future event, I personally think of the concept as a \"connection\"- one part\nof the text or evidence linked to another. My own personal code is that I won't post an idea unless it has at\nleast two such connections. Happily, Wolfe usually provides me with more than two. Yet again, the authorities \nfeel that if one contradicting bit of evidence is found, the whole idea is falsified, disproven, etc. Again, \nwho to believe, them or myself? Should we take a vote?\n \nAs somebody recently suggested, Gene Wolfe himself knows how ruined his work would be if he gave away all the\n\"correct\" answers. If correct answers would enhance his work, then he would give them. In my view, those\nwho correct everyone else to allow only their own interpretations to be valid are striking a blow in ruining \nthe work. Luckily this List is not all there is." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I am not suggesting that literary criticism and theory have the epistemological status of the sciences. \nI am, however, suggesting that the methods of the sciences can be used to make literary criticism and\ntheory more useful." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nPerhaps. But even here, your words suggest you recognize the much greater difficulty in \"proof\" and disproof\nwhen it comes to the understanding of art vs. understanding of the natural and real world. I am rather acutely \naware of how often the ideals of science fail on the basis of human failings. Ego, greed, despotism, \nterritoriality, aggression; all these are factors in whether real science decides to accept or falsify a \nhypothesis.\n \nHow much do these factor in when the subject of the study is fiction and the outcome of little real\nconsequence? From my experience, about the same. It is easy enough to stir these hidden agendas into full view. \nI'm sure you've seen them. You've been around here a lot longer than me. How could they be missed? I do my best \nto put mine on open display, anyway. I've stated my goals. They are being accomplished. I am content.\n \nThe eternal question here- who decides when a connection/prediction is valid and relevant and when it is not?\nCan you ever really know (other than for yourself) what is the best answer for a fictional question?\nIf you know, please tell me. Reveal the Secret Formula. When there is disagreement about fiction...\n *HOW DO YOU KNOW WHO IS RIGHT?*\n \n \n(interestingly, my current work project is an investigation of the 10 year impact of the study linking\nchildhood vaccinations and autism. All the human failings listed above come into play; large sums of money, \nmassive egos, cover-ups, fraud, panic and disease outbreaks are all a part of the equation)\n\n \n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T20:54:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes: You are using too narrow a definition of \"prediction\" and \"falsifiability.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Perhaps, but remember I am not bringing up these terms myself, only responding to the\naccusations of other people using these terms." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So noted." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In the case of literary discussion, the \"available evidence\" is the text at hand, as a whole and in parts." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I would add literary and other sorts of allusional links and authorial interviews\nand such but, sure that's okay with me." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I consider allusions to be \"part of the text.\" Statements made by the\nauthor outside of the text are of secondary importance; they can throw\nlight on the text, but if they contradict what is written, the author is\nwrong. Oh, s/he may well be right about what s/he _intended_, but\nin such a case, that means only that s/he has not successfully\ncommunicated what s/he meant to." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If, in looking at Horn's experience in the pit, a reader comes up with an idea I that also explains some\ndetails of his encounter with He-Pen-Sheep, then I has made a successful prediction." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sounds like James's \"theory\". Which I liked. Yet certain authorities\ndeemed it falsified, unlikely, non-predictive or whatever. So who am\nI to believe, them or you?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The text. Compare the theory to the text. Is it consistent with the\nbare facts presented? Does it enrich your reading of the text\n(hermeneutically speaking)? Then consider the theory to be\n(provisinally) \"true,\" or, better, _useful_.\n\nI don't find it useful to call a literary theory \"true\" except in the\nmost blatant case, e.g., \"Moby Dick is a white whale.\" A theory\nlike \"Moby Dick is a symbol of God\" may be interesting and\nuseful, but it's hard for me to call it \"true.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Since \"prediction\" implies a future event," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not so. It implies an event external to the evidence which\nproduced the theory. Thus, in my palaeontological example,\ntheory T made a prediction about fossils X, Y, and Z, _even if\nX, Y, and Z were already known to the theorist_, provided that\nA, B, and C were the sole evidence which led to T. This kind\nof prediction is sometimes described by saying that the\ntheory in question has \"explanatory power.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I personally think of the concept as a \"connection\"- one part\nof the text or evidence linked to another. My own personal\ncode is that I won't post an idea unless it has at least two\nsuch connections." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A good rule." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Happily, Wolfe usually provides me with more than two.\nYet again, the authorities" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What authorities? Are you suggesting that someone here\nis superior to others?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "feel that if one contradicting bit of evidence is found, the\nwhole idea is falsified, disproven, etc." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If one piece of _textual_ evidence is found that is in _clear_\ncontradiction to a theory, then that theory, at best, cannot\nbe _completely_ true of the text at hand. Rather than\ndecrying those who point out the evidence, it is more\nuseful to seek a more general theory that includes the\npreviously-ignored bit of evidence." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again,\nwho to believe, them or myself? Should we take a vote?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Believe the text." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As somebody recently suggested, Gene Wolfe himself knows\nhow ruined his work would be if he gave away all the \"correct\"\nanswers. If correct answers would enhance his work, then he\nwould give them. In my view, those who correct everyone else\nto allow only their own interpretations to be valid are striking\na blow in ruining the work. Luckily this List is not all there is." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "While I don't think anyone on this list, including you, is doing\nso, I agree that espousing a closed-minded attitude of \"my\ntheory is right _and therefore_ no other can be\" is (at best)\ncounterproductive.\n\nBut saying \"Theory X is wrong\" does not always stem from a\ndesire to prove that Theory Y is right. It sometimes stems\nfrom an awareness that Theory X is inconsistent with some\ncrucial piece of evidence. That, I believe, is what you are\nmostly seeing on this list.\n\nIt may be that there is no golden theory T that explains all\nthe evidence in, say, 5HoC, to the exclusion of contrary\ntheories. In fact, I am inclined to believe that there is none,\neither for 5HoC or the Solar cycle. Someone recently\nbrought up Frank R. Stockton's classic short story \"The\nLady -- or the Tiger?\" and I suspect that Wolfe, in at least\nsome of his novels, plays the same game on a higher level\n-- there are multiple and contradictory theories possible,\nthat are each individually consistent with and explanatory\nof the textual evidence, and no textual way of determining\nwhich is correct.\n\nBut a theory which contradicts some aspect of the text\nis _not_ such a theory. A theory that says that, clearly,\nthe Lady came out of the door is reasonable. A theory that\nsays the Tiger came out of the door is also reasonable.\nBut a theory that says the Daleks came out of the door\nand exterminated the young man, the princess, and the\nking, is _not_ reasonable (though it is amusing)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Perhaps. But even here, your words suggest you\nrecognize the much greater difficulty in \"proof\" and\ndisproof when it comes to the understanding of art\nvs. understanding of the natural and real world." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Heh. Thank you for putting \"proof\" in quotes." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I am rather acutely aware of how often the ideals of\nscience fail on the basis of human failings. Ego,\ngreed, despotism, territoriality, aggression; all\nthese are factors in whether real science decides\nto accept or falsify a hypothesis." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I would suggest that, to the extent ego, greed,\ndespotism, territoriality, or aggression take part in the\nacceptance or rejection of a hypothesis, the process\nis _not_ \"real science.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "How much do these factor in when the subject\nof the study is fiction and the outcome of little real\nconsequence? From my experience, about the\nsame. It is easy enough to stir these hidden\nagendas into full view. I'm sure you've seen them.\nYou've been around here a lot longer than me.\nHow could they be missed?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ego and aggression are the only ones of this list that\nmight reasonably be imputed to this list: there is no money\nto be made, no territory to be controlled; nobody is even\ntrying to gain or defend tenure. And the only one with the\n_ability_ to be a \"despot\" is Our Beloved Moderator, who\nhas largely kept his hands off the debates except to toss\nin a cooling-off suggestion on occasion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The eternal question here- who decides when a\nconnection/prediction is valid and relevant and when it is not?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The text. Always come back to the text." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Can you ever really know (other than for yourself) what is\nthe best answer for a fictional question? If you know,\nplease tell me. Reveal the Secret Formula. When there\nis disagreement about fiction...\n?*HOW DO YOU KNOW WHO IS RIGHT?*" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, we can _sometimes_ know the best answer for a\nfictional question. We can know that the model for Leopold\nBloom's adventures is the _Odyssey_, and not, say, the\n_Iliad_ or _Gulliver's Travels_ - even if the text of _Ulysses_\nmakes allusions to both of them.\n\nOn the other hand, we can't know for certain what the\nsymbolism of the White Whale is." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(interestingly, my current work project is an\ninvestigation of the 10 year impact of the study linking\nchildhood vaccinations and autism. All the human\nfailings listed above come into play; large sums of\nmoney, massive egos, cover-ups, fraud, panic and\ndisease outbreaks are all a part of the equation)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's interesting to me, as both friends and relatives\nfall on the Asperger/autism spectrum (and I may be\never-so-slightly Aspie myself). I've been following this\nfor, well, close to ten years, and ----\n\nAw, shoot. This is off topic, isn't it?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<211481.1680.qm@web161806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T21:14:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- On Mon, 1/10/11, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\nWhat authorities? Are you suggesting that someone here\nis superior to others?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The principal struck me then, such that I recoiled as if struck by Ferrous Mike, that the conciliator himself might be posting here unknown, and his divine theories completely ignored and scorned by the hoi polloi with their pretensions of liberal analysis. \n\nIs not every word he speaks surely fallen from the divine hand of the creator? Is not his interpretation by definition the highest and most corrent form, rather than some abstract lip service to the commonly held view of the general public, largely imaginary?\n\nIt is the most debased form of superstition to assume that we must be unaware of superiority to be influenced by it.\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T21:42:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "<211481.1680.qm@web161806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I would suggest that, to the extent ego, greed,despotism, territoriality, \nor aggression take part in the acceptance or rejection of a hypothesis, the process is _not_ \n\"real science.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nFirst, let me say, Dan't that I think we are essentially on the same page on all accounts. What\nI post in response to others is not exactly what I would post to you. Each deserves his/her own\nappropriate response, I think. So..to respond to you:\n \nSince science is always performed by human beings, these things always intrude. Yet somehow\n\"real\" science gets done perhaps in spite, but sometimes perhaps because of our humanity. Surely\nwe've all read Watson's Double Helix and are aware of the skullduggery and ego battles with Linus\nPauling in the DNA race. Similar stuff for Human Genome project and, in reality, all great discoveries.\nThey are cleaned up for consumption of the science community and public but we all know what goes on \nbehind the scenes.\n \nLikewise for literary analysis. We all have our parts to play in this messy business. There couldn't\nbe some golden standard of perfection but to even get to silver or bronze we gotta hash things out.\nAnd when things get imbalanced...something has to balance them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But a theory which contradicts some aspect of the text is _not_ such a theory. A theory that says that, \nclearly, the Lady came out of the door is reasonable. A theory that says the Tiger came out of the door \nis also reasonable. But a theory that says the Daleks came out of the door and exterminated the young man, \nthe princess, and the king, is _not_ reasonable (though it is amusing)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nYep agreed. But that was Stockton's version. What if Gene Wolfe had written it? Are there ambiguous SF/Fantasy\nanswers that would serve given the sorts of clues Wolfe would provide? How about a woman in a lifelike tiger suit? \nMaybe a female weretiger created by Father Inire? (not good examples but the best I can do right now)\n \nWe all agree that Daleks coming out is not a reasonable answer. So, by accusing someone of theorizing \nDaleks when they have proposed a lady weretiger, we have a psychological ploy designed to discredit the person, \nand leave the idea of complex ambiguity unexamined. Thus is mediocrity enforced. Thus is Wolfe reduced to \nStockton. Lady or Tiger. Must pick one. No ambiguity allowed. It is a common dynamic seen in all human social \nsettings. Peer pressure and fear of derision are powerful motivators, even, apparently, online. I'm not so\njudgemental. Bullies DO have their function in society. Wouldn't want to elminate them. But they need control.\n \nIt is all part of the game. I have been willing to point out the psychological/personal ploy used above\nonly because it serves my purpose which is to pick the brains of certain interesting people. I have deliberately \ntried to make the list more friendly to those who have amazingly creative theories but are easily bruised by \ncriticism and psych tricks. It has been successful. A few posters have been drawn out of retirement and I have \nbeen exposed to some very interesting theories that would have remained buried. In trotting out these theories, \nthe posters have explicitly remarked that they were only willing to do so because they had the sense of a receptive \naudience. I freely admit I have my own competitive tendencies and in this current conflict of creativity vs.\nstifling criticism I am happy to report that I have won. For now. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T21:46:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Lee Berman wrote:\nI freely admit I have my own competitive tendencies and in this current conflict of creativity vs.\nstifling criticism I am happy to report that I have won. For now." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sadly, you persist in seeing things in terms of \"winning\" and\n\"losing.\" I'm done." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<99197.80264.qm@web114703.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T22:08:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But a theory which contradicts some aspect of the text is _not_ such a \ntheory. A theory that says that, " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "clearly, the Lady came out of the door is reasonable. A theory that says the \nTiger came out of the door " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "is also reasonable. But a theory that says the Daleks came out of the door \nand exterminated the young man, " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "the princess, and the king, is _not_ reasonable (though it is amusing)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yep agreed. But that was Stockton's version. What if Gene Wolfe had written \nit? Are there ambiguous SF/Fantasy\nanswers that would serve given the sorts of clues Wolfe would provide? How \nabout a woman in a lifelike tiger suit? \n\nMaybe a female weretiger created by Father Inire? (not good examples but the \nbest I can do right now)\n\nWe all agree that Daleks coming out is not a reasonable answer. So, by \naccusing someone of theorizing \n\nDaleks when they have proposed a lady weretiger, we have a psychological ploy \ndesigned to discredit the person, \n\nand leave the idea of complex ambiguity unexamined." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...\n\nBut when someone says as a theoretical generalization that there's no \nfalsifiability in interpreting fiction, that person does imply that Daleks are \njust as good an interpretation as any other. And quite possibly we have a \npsychological ploy designed to discredit people who make objections they \nconsider valid.\n\nJerry Friedman\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<784124.73871.qm@web84105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "DAVID STOCKHOFF", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-01-10T22:09:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "<211481.1680.qm@web161806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Where then is our Mediator? Where is our Judge? Where then is our he-who-saves, he whose b-b-bones we crush and whose b-b-blood we boil, so we too may suffer with each blow? And in our suffering win the right to see the sun---the s-s-sun, whole and b-b-blinding? " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- On Mon, 1/10/11, Marc Aramini wrote:\nFrom: Marc Aramini \nSubject: Re: (urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anne?\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Monday, January 10, 2011, 4:14 PM\n\n\n--- On Mon, 1/10/11, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "What authorities? Are you suggesting that someone\nhere\nis superior to others?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The principal struck me then, such that I recoiled as if\nstruck by Ferrous Mike, that the conciliator himself might\nbe posting here unknown, and his divine theories completely\nignored and scorned by the hoi polloi with their pretensions\nof liberal analysis. \n\nIs not every word he speaks surely fallen from the divine\nhand of the creator? Is not his interpretation by\ndefinition the highest and most corrent form, rather than\nsome abstract lip service to the commonly held view of the\ngeneral public, largely imaginary?\n\nIt is the most debased form of superstition to assume that\nwe must be unaware of superiority to be influenced by it.\n\n\n? ? ? \n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<357848.111.qm@web114712.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T22:19:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "<784124.73871.qm@web84105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: DAVID STOCKHOFF " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- On Mon, 1/10/11, Marc Aramini wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "--- On Mon, 1/10/11, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "What authorities? Are you suggesting that someone\nhere is superior to others?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The principal struck me then, such that I recoiled as if\nstruck by Ferrous Mike, that the conciliator himself might\nbe posting here unknown, and his divine theories completely\nignored and scorned by the hoi polloi with their pretensions\nof liberal analysis. \n\nIs not every word he speaks surely fallen from the divine\nhand of the creator? Is not his interpretation by\ndefinition the highest and most corrent form, rather than\nsome abstract lip service to the commonly held view of the\ngeneral public, largely imaginary?\n\nIt is the most debased form of superstition to assume that\nwe must be unaware of superiority to be influenced by it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Where then is our Mediator? Where is our Judge? Where then is our he-who-saves, \nhe whose\nb-b-bones we crush and whose b-b-blood we boil, so we too may suffer with each \nblow? And in\nour suffering win the right to see the sun---the s-s-sun, whole and \nb-b-blinding?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You may be right. Perhaps each person is entitled to his own reading, or to two \nreadings\nthat conflict with each other, as the oboist said to the clarinetist. Have you \never heard of\nan instrument with a name like \"oboe\"?\n\nJerry Friedman\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "adam at io.com", "address": "adam at io.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T22:42:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "<357848.111.qm@web114712.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:19:34 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You may be right. Perhaps each person is entitled to his own reading,\nor\nto two \nreadings\nthat conflict with each other, as the oboist said to the clarinetist. \nHave you \never heard of\nan instrument with a name like \"oboe\"?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's an ill woodwind that nobody blows good, as the courtesan said to the\nclergyman.\n\nAdam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T23:07:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeff Wilson: This is so not me. Please get a real e-mail service with functional \nquoting and threading. There are several free ones, like g-mail." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n \nSorry for the misquote. All my fault..carelessness I think. Still I like my way of\nquoting. WOrks best for me and avoids a lot of clutter." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l: Sadly, you persist in seeing things in terms of \"winning\" and \"losing.\" I'm done." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nOnly in terms of accomplishing my goals. I am sorry to offend. But I am loathe to ride on \nthe pretense that I am a cold, robotic academician. I have emotions and human failures and \nwill admit to them when I am aware of them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff- Where then is our Mediator? Where is our Judge? Where then is our he-who-saves, \nhe whose b-b-bones we crush and whose b-b-blood we boil, so we too may suffer with each blow? And \nin our suffering win the right to see the sun---the s-s-sun, whole and b-b-blinding? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nHeh! THat brought a grin to my face. One BotNS's most interesting I think. And kudos to both David \nand Marc for recent posts. True literary creations, imho." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam: It's an ill woodwind that nobody blows good, as the courtesan said to the\nclergyman." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nHah. I am actually a sax player (hence my nom de internet, bsharporflat)\n \n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D2B96D9.9080305@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2011-01-10T23:31:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 1/10/2011 5:07 PM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Jeff Wilson: This is so not me. Please get a real e-mail service with functional\nquoting and threading. There are several free ones, like g-mail." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sorry for the misquote. All my fault..carelessness I think. Still I like my way of\nquoting. WOrks best for me and avoids a lot of clutter." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Your stated philosophy of communication is that it is primarily for the \nconvenience of the sender? As one of your receivers, I find that \nrepugnant, insulting, and exploitative, not unlike the attitudes of \nspammers or demonstrative racists. But as a member of what is left of \nthe first family of the Confederacy, I'm used to it, and I regret that \nit obscures the other, more humane qualities you may have." }, { "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": "<3487D5671E6049DFA87A41A149923433@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-01-11T20:47:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth)Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: >>In that regard, what can you counter to Gerry's \nDaleks except for the impression that Gerry doesn't believe them one bit?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I noticed a thread about Daleks but I didn't read any of it so I can't \nreally comment. Gerry used the term once\nor twice in a different post so maybe I understand his intention. I \nremember once a long time ago when I was\nin a college philosophy course, one student asserted to the class that he \nknew he had a soul. I countered by\nasserting I had an invisible turnip in my kidney. The class laughed. The \nother student felt bad. I felt bad.\nI should have asked him more about what he knew, rather than make fun of \nhim. I have grown wiser and kinder\nsince those days. I am more aware that what I don't know can be as \nimportant as what I do know and that other\npeople's thoughts and feelings are as valid as my own. I recommend this \ndirection in personal growth as a\nhuman being." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "One can also imagine a scenario in which someone claims to have an invisible \nturnip in his kidney, and when others doubt this assertion, he insists that \nthey are attacking his soul.\n\nOf course it is not nice to have our theories confounded. Those who \nproposed that certain vaccines caused autism were subjected to some quite \nstinging criticism. Presumably the critics insisted that they were right \nand the proponents of the vaccine-autism theory wrong. Horribly rude of \nthem, eh?\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] } ] }