# Sigh. *The Urth list — 11 messages, 7 voices, 11 Jan 2011* > 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. --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *11 Jan 2011, 21:05* Look. I'm sorry, but any connection between the Blue/Green(/Whorl) system and the Urth/Lune(/Ushas) system is purely thematic/symbolic -- NOT physical. Urth's sun, still red, is visible in the skies of Blue. Unless you want to propose that Ushas and Lune, in their distant, post-Severian, future, are transported (a) across the sea of stars and (b) backwards in time, they're different systems. There's all sorts of good thematic/symbolic stuff going on, of course, and StCroix/SteAnne can also be brought in here, but please don't confuse this hermeneutic level with that of the fictive "reality." ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### Lee Berman *11 Jan 2011, 21:30 · follows Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: Urth's sun, still red, is visible in the skies of Blue. > Unless you want to propose that Ushas and Lune, in their distant, > post-Severian, future, are transported (a) across the sea of stars and > (b) backwards in time, they're different systems. Seems to be so. It would take a lot of space-time contortions to make the theory work. So, is that it? Is that all there is to it? An academic proof of incorrectness? For me there is a human aspect. Will it really be a joyous day for the List when Marc Aramini is forced to retract all hopes for Urth=Green and admit eternal, irrevocable wrongness? Party hats and noisemakers on that day? Pithy platitude of the day: It's the journey not the destination. It's the chase not the catch. Whether you see people's lupine theories as journey companions or as a nasty little fox to corner and kill, these principles apply. Speaking strictly for myself, I found my thought processes stimulated more by trying to think of ways to support Marc's theory than by trying to delete it. > There's all sorts of good thematic/symbolic stuff going on, of course,.... How about ecological and spiritual, hey? ;- ) --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *11 Jan 2011, 21:39 · in reply to Lee Berman* > Lee Berman wrote: > So, is that it? Is that all there is to it? An academic proof of incorrectness? For me > there is a human aspect. Will it really be a joyous day for the List when Marc Aramini is > forced to retract all hopes for Urth=Green and admit eternal, irrevocable wrongness? > Party hats and noisemakers on that day? No; and I specifically did not suggest that this eliminates Urth == Green _except_ on the (rather mundane) hermeneutic level of "plot." With Wolfe, other levels are almost always more interesting (which is why I find Wolfe an interesting writer). Returning to the Moby Dick analogy, one is reasonable in suggesting that "Moby Dick is God" provided one does not mean "Moby Dick, the whale in the story, created the world in which the story takes place." The ways in which Moby Dick can be God are much more interesting than that. Likewise, the ways in which Urth can be Green are much more interesting than the merely physical way in which it clearly can't. > Pithy platitude of the day: It's the journey not the destination. It's the chase > not the catch. That depends on whether you're a fox-hunter, in it for the sport, or a predator in it for your dinner. (Or, of course, the prey, in it for your life.) > Whether you see people's lupine theories as journey companions or as a > nasty little fox to corner and kill, these principles apply. I see them as neither. I see them as ideas to be considered on their own merits. > Speaking strictly for myself, > I found my thought processes stimulated more by trying to think of ways to support > Marc's theory than by trying to delete it. Very well; and I am looking to support it on the level where it is best supportable. >> There's all sorts of good thematic/symbolic stuff going on, of course,.... > How about ecological and spiritual, hey? ;- ) Certainly spiritual. Ecological? I can't say. Not if it means one planet's ecology is a descendant of another's in a simple plot-level manner. ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### Jordon Flato *11 Jan 2011, 22:05 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > > > Returning to the Moby Dick analogy, one is reasonable in suggesting > that "Moby Dick is God" provided one does not mean "Moby Dick, the > whale in the story, created the world in which the story takes place." > The ways in which Moby Dick can be God are much more interesting than > that. Likewise, the ways in which Urth can be Green are much more > interesting than the merely physical way in which it clearly can't. This is it for me. The interest in the resonance between Urth/Green and Ushas/Blue (my preference there) is pretty much flattened if we are asked to pretzel our understanding in order to make it literally true. The amount of gymnastics required to make it work are, to me, astounding...and yet it adds little to the thematic resonance which is already there, in existence, and pretty clear (to me, to me, of course). The equation doesn't balance. If I felt some really dramatic metaphoric or symbolic resonance was served by having them be literally the same, I might be more inclined to go with it where it leads. At this point, it actually flattens that resonance for me, and so I reject it. --- ### DAVID STOCKHOFF *11 Jan 2011, 22:21 · in reply to Jordon Flato* --- On Tue, 1/11/11, Jordon Flato wrote: From: Jordon Flato Subject: Re: (urth) Sigh. To: "The Urth Mailing List" Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 5:05 PM On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: ?Returning to the Moby Dick analogy, one is reasonable in suggesting that "Moby Dick is God" provided one does not mean "Moby Dick, the whale in the story, created the world in which the story takes place." The ways in which Moby Dick can be God are much more interesting than that. Likewise, the ways in which Urth can be Green are much more interesting than the merely physical way in which it clearly can't. This is it for me. ?The interest in the resonance between Urth/Green and Ushas/Blue (my preference there) is pretty much flattened if we are asked to pretzel our understanding in order to make it literally true. The amount of gymnastics required to make it work are, to me, astounding...and yet it adds little to the thematic resonance which is already there, in existence, and pretty clear (to me, to me, of course). ?The equation doesn't balance. ?If I felt some really dramatic metaphoric or symbolic resonance was served by having them be literally the same, I might be more inclined to go with it where it leads. ?At this point, it actually flattens that resonance for me, and so I reject it. Exactly. Plus, it's not literature. The proposed elaborate repetition of planetary duos is the kind of thing we have almost seen in various half-mad poets over the centuries ((Yeats, Blake), but even more, what we might imagine scribbled on the walls of insane asylums. In a word, an obsession. Wolfe is not even slightly mad. Marc: If Green is URTH, is Blue not?USHAS? That is, might Green represent the evil past (the corrupted Garden) and Blue the hopeful new world? Couldn't it be that simple? --- ### Jordon Flato *11 Jan 2011, 22:27 · in reply to DAVID STOCKHOFF* > Marc: If Green is URTH, is Blue not USHAS? That is, might Green represent > the evil past (the corrupted Garden) and Blue the hopeful new world? > Couldn't it be that simple? > > David, this is exactly what I propose in another thread on this same topic. > We're on at least very similar pages here. > _______________________________________________ --- ### António Pedro Marques *11 Jan 2011, 23:09 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* No dia 11 de Jan de 2011, ?s 21:05, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" escreveu: > Urth's sun, still red, is visible in the skies of Blue. Space-time is a strange place. Observers may be looking at their own star system far, far away. --- ### Jeff Wilson *11 Jan 2011, 23:32 · in reply to António Pedro Marques* > On 1/11/2011 5:09 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: > No dia 11 de Jan de 2011, ?s 21:05, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" escreveu: >> Urth's sun, still red, is visible in the skies of Blue. > Space-time is a strange place. Observers may be looking at their own star system far, far away. When else do we see this happen? ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana < http://www.tamut.edu/CIL > ``` --- ### António Pedro Marques *11 Jan 2011, 23:42 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* No dia 11 de Jan de 2011, ?s 23:32, Jeff Wilson escreveu: > On 1/11/2011 5:09 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >> No dia 11 de Jan de 2011, ?s 21:05, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" escreveu: >>> Urth's sun, still red, is visible in the skies of Blue. >> Space-time is a strange place. Observers may be looking at their own star system far, far away. > When else do we see this happen? Someone with more motivation would have to sift the data for it. --- ### Gerry Quinn *12 Jan 2011, 00:23 · in reply to António Pedro Marques* > From: "Ant?nio Pedro Marques" > No dia 11 de Jan de 2011, ?s 21:05, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" > escreveu: >> Urth's sun, still red, is visible in the skies of Blue. > Space-time is a strange place. Observers may be looking at their own star > system far, far away. That's not really feasible for stars within a single galaxy - as far as I can see you'd have to be in close orbit around a really gigantic black hole, which would fill most of the sky. - Gerry Quinn --- ### Jeff Wilson *12 Jan 2011, 01:03 · in reply to Gerry Quinn* > On 1/11/2011 6:23 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote: > > From: "Ant?nio Pedro Marques" > No dia 11 de Jan de 2011, ?s 21:05, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" >> escreveu: >>> Urth's sun, still red, is visible in the skies of Blue. >> Space-time is a strange place. Observers may be looking at their own >> star system far, far away. > That's not really feasible for stars within a single galaxy - as far as > I can see you'd have to be in close orbit around a really gigantic black > hole, which would fill most of the sky. A single black hole could not do it; by definition, it does not close the path of light outside its event horizon. Several in a ring might do it , but they would be very noticeable. If you allow negative curvature of space and time, you can do it easily, but that implies interference from above by the Yesodis. ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana < http://www.tamut.edu/CIL > ``` ---