{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5967", "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": 5967, "subject": "Wolfe and Materialism", "messages": 20, "voices": 7, "first": "2011-02-11T15:09:12+00:00", "last": "2011-02-13T19:17:11+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-02-11T15:09:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: The mistake some people make is to believe that some mythological resonance \nthey find in elements of the story can serve as an alternative to 'nuts and bolts' explanations." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nGerry I get the impression you consider yourself a man of math, logic and science and that for you, \nthese explanatory philosophies are always superior to spiritual, religious or mystical explanations.\n \nNothing wrong with that, but you are claiming that those who find paramount meaning in the myths, \nstories and dreams of Wolfe's work are making a \"mistake\". To demonstrate this you will need to \nprove that Gene Wolfe shares your materialist point of view. (you have said God, if he exists, \nmust conform to the physical laws of the universe, yes?)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "materialism- a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being \nand processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nThere is a section of BotNS where a Pelerine chides Severian for being a materialist. But I am further\ndrawn to this excerpt from the Brendan Baber Wolfe interview:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gene Wolfe: Materialism is one of those things that's so barren you can't do much with it.\nThere was a materialist philosophy student who used to write to me, and would argue all of this stuff. \nHe'd get enormously mad. (Do you know Tree's Law? Sir Tree, the famous British actor, coined the law, \n\"Madmen write \neight-page letters.\") So this guy would send me these philosophical tracts, and they were full of outrageous \npieces of bullshit, like, \"Everybody wants to live!\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And I would say, \"A guy jumps off an eighteen-story building. What could he do to convince you that he wants \nto die?\" I tried to get him to answer that question, and of course he wouldn't. He'd dodge around, and he'd \nget madder and madder. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So he'd say, \"A piece of paper is really just hydrogen and oxygen and six other elements, and that's all it \nis.\" And I said, \"I believe it's actually a piece of paper.\" And he'd say, \"No no no, it's a bunch of elements!\" \nSo I wrote him, and said, \"Okay, but remember now, every day of your life you'll have to adopt my viewpoint to \nlive, to go down to the store and buy a ream of paper.\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Then he said, \"We cannot get along without logic.\" Hell, half the people I know are getting along without logic! \nMost of 'em are doing just fine! All of the animals do it, except on a very basic level. No, the one thing that \nwe really can't get along without is the realization that a piece of paper is a piece of paper. If you're a mouse \nyou've got to say, \"That's cheese. Nobody's fooling me about that. That's not chemicals, it's not gas, it's not \nsome sort of fake cheese. I know cheese.\" That's what you've got to do to live on the animal level. http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze2tmhh/wolfeint.html" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From this, I conclude that Gene Wolfe considers the way a person experiences life is more important than a scientific\nreduction of life to its component elements. Gene Wolfe, by all accounts, is a religious man. He is also well versed\nin mythology and has stated that he considers the gods of mythology to be real. Why then, would he throw this away in\nhis writing to make the material \"evidence\" of his stories of singulary, primary importance and include mythological \nreferences only as throwaway, unimportant items?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nGerry, I think it is perfectly acceptable to interpret a Gene Wolfe story in the materialistic, logical manner in\nwhich you understand your own life. But I think you step out of bounds when you claim that others who find \nsignificance in the mythology of Wolfe stories are making a mistake; saying they are doing something which needs to \nbe corrected. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<170469.38811.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-02-11T16:05:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just a note that there are quite a variety of \"materialisms\" out there. Perhaps \none that would be interesting to think of in relation to Wolfe would be Milton.\n\nMilton was a materialist. But he was also, obviously, not an atheist. For \nMilton, matter and spirit were on the same continuum, and spirit was just \n\"refined\" matter. Technically, Milton gets categorized as a \"monist\" meaning \nthere's only one substance, rather than a dualist who says that mind/soul and \nbody are two different \"things.\"\n\nIn his theological writings, Milton says this right out, but you can also get a \nmuch more beautiful version in Paradise Lost (5. 469-490) when Rafael explains \nit to Adam. I'll quote it below, but I'd point out that this kind of \n\"materialism\" might be interesting to think about, particularly in relation to \nthe notion that, with Wolfe, mimicking something can help you become that thing. \nPerhaps, like Milton, Wolfe is saying something along the lines of: \"lowly \nmatter gets refined into a more spiritual state when it behaves like something \nmore pure/moral/spiritual/whatever.\"\n\nRafael to Adam:\n\n\nO Adam, one Almighty is, from whom\nAll things proceed, and up to him return,\nIf not deprav?d from good, created all\nSuch to perfection, one first matter all,\nIndu?d with various forms, various degrees\nOf substance, and in things that live, of life;\nBut more refin?d, more spirituous, and pure,\nAs nearer to him plac?t or nearer tending\nEach in thir several active Spheres assign?d,\nTill body up to spirit work, in bounds\nProportion?d to each kind. So from the root\nSprings lighter the green stalk, from thence the leaves\nMore aery, last the bright consummate flow?r\nSpirits odorous breathes: flow?rs and thir fruit\nMan’s nourishment, by gradual scale sublim?d\nTo vital spirits aspire, to animal,\nTo intellectual, give both life and sense,\nFancy and understanding, whence the Soul\nReason receives, and reason is her being,\nDiscursive, or Intuitive; discourse\nIs oftest yours, the latter most is ours,\nDiffering but in degree, of kind the same.\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lane Haygood", "address": "lhaygood at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-02-11T16:17:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "<170469.38811.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The modern usage of materialist as ontological naturalist/physicalist is an\nunfortunate hangover of a terminology shift. Two hundred years ago people\nthat believed only in physical things would be called materialists because\nwe did not have any idea about atomic science. Now we call them\nphysicalists because \"matter\" seems so inadequate, however they mean the\nsame thing (unless one talks to Jaegwon Kim, who is really a dualist but too\nscared to admit it).\n\nI wouldn't even call Milton's position materialism, as it sounds much more\nlike Spinoza's version of modal monism, or even something like Leibniz'\nmonadology.\n\nWe could, of course, be approaching this from the wrong side, starting with\nmatter, when we should be starting with spirit. A pure and eternal\nunchanging essence (eidolon, spirit, universal soul) is a common\ntop-of-the-ontological-pyramid feature of a lot of the mythic/philosophical\nsystems Wolfe pirated for BOTNS, as well as a defining feature of the\nontologies of the early church fathers.\n\nThat pure Spirit substance is then filtered or refracted or corrupted as it\nleaves the Ain Soph Dei or whatever and gets down the lowly earth-world of\nimperfect, temporary and flawed beings such as us, where it is now\ninstantiated not as eternal and unchanging spirit but now base matter.\n\nThe sense of redemption or of reconciliation of matter with spirit is then a\nheroic process that runs counter to the natural inclinations of things.\n\nLH" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nJust a note that there are quite a variety of \"materialisms\" out there.\nPerhaps\none that would be interesting to think of in relation to Wolfe would be\nMilton.\n\nMilton was a materialist. But he was also, obviously, not an atheist. For\nMilton, matter and spirit were on the same continuum, and spirit was just\n\"refined\" matter. Technically, Milton gets categorized as a \"monist\"\nmeaning\nthere's only one substance, rather than a dualist who says that mind/soul\nand\nbody are two different \"things.\"\n\nIn his theological writings, Milton says this right out, but you can also\nget a\nmuch more beautiful version in Paradise Lost (5. 469-490) when Rafael\nexplains\nit to Adam. I'll quote it below, but I'd point out that this kind of\n\"materialism\" might be interesting to think about, particularly in relation\nto\nthe notion that, with Wolfe, mimicking something can help you become that\nthing.\nPerhaps, like Milton, Wolfe is saying something along the lines of: \"lowly\nmatter gets refined into a more spiritual state when it behaves like\nsomething\nmore pure/moral/spiritual/whatever.\"\n\nRafael to Adam:\n\n\nO Adam, one Almighty is, from whom\nAll things proceed, and up to him return,\nIf not deprav?d from good, created all\nSuch to perfection, one first matter all,\nIndu?d with various forms, various degrees\nOf substance, and in things that live, of life;\nBut more refin?d, more spirituous, and pure,\nAs nearer to him plac?t or nearer tending\nEach in thir several active Spheres assign?d,\nTill body up to spirit work, in bounds\nProportion?d to each kind. So from the root\nSprings lighter the green stalk, from thence the leaves\nMore aery, last the bright consummate flow?r\nSpirits odorous breathes: flow?rs and thir fruit\nMan’s nourishment, by gradual scale sublim?d\nTo vital spirits aspire, to animal,\nTo intellectual, give both life and sense,\nFancy and understanding, whence the Soul\nReason receives, and reason is her being,\nDiscursive, or Intuitive; discourse\nIs oftest yours, the latter most is ours,\nDiffering but in degree, of kind the same.\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<511300.99558.qm@web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-02-11T16:30:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OFF LIST Re: Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Lane,\n\nI'll write off line so as not to bore the rest with non-Wolfe stuff. But I \nalmost wrote my dissertation on the relationship between Spinoza and Milton's \nmaterialism, with a lot of reference to other early modern materialists. But I \nfound out that a couple of others were doing the same thing. There's a \nfascinating book by one of my advisors, though, about Milton's philosophical \nrelation to other \"materialist\" debates of the time: Stephen Fallon's _Milton \nAmong the Philosophers: Poetry and Materialism in 17th Century England.\n\nAnd, years ago, I had to teach a course on Philosophy of Mind. I had the same \nsuspicions about Kim as you said. And speaking of Phil of Mind, there's no \nbetter book to enrage undergraduates than Ryle's _Concept of Mind_. It provides \nsuch a succinct conceptual and argumentative structure for responding to any and \nevery objection that it drives them crazy when they can't get out of its circle. \nBeen awhile since I've thought about that book, so thanks for making me free \nassociate a bit!\n\nOn Wolfe, though, I love this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The sense of redemption or of reconciliation of matter with spirit is then a \nheroic process that runs counter to the natural inclinations of things." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That actually makes a fair bit of sense and is worth rethinking what's going on \nin New Sun, I think. It's also very Miltonic, so automatically like it. :)\n\nThanks for the great post!\n\nCraig\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D556676.5010108@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-02-11T16:40:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OFF LIST Re: Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "<511300.99558.qm@web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oops! Wrong direction, Craig.\n\nAlthough, that Concept of the Mind sounds interesting, so I'm just lucky \nthat way I guess." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 2/11/2011 10:30 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nLane,\n\nI'll write off line so as not to bore the rest with non-Wolfe stuff. \nBut I almost wrote my dissertation on the relationship between Spinoza \nand Milton's materialism, with a lot of reference to other early \nmodern materialists. But I found out that a couple of others were \ndoing the same thing. There's a fascinating book by one of my \nadvisors, though, about Milton's philosophical relation to other \n\"materialist\" debates of the time: Stephen Fallon's _Milton Among the \nPhilosophers: Poetry and Materialism in 17th Century England.\n\nAnd, years ago, I had to teach a course on Philosophy of Mind. I had \nthe same suspicions about Kim as you said. And speaking of Phil of \nMind, there's no better book to enrage undergraduates than Ryle's \n_Concept of Mind_. It provides such a succinct conceptual and \nargumentative structure for responding to any and every objection that \nit drives them crazy when they can't get out of its circle. Been \nawhile since I've thought about that book, so thanks for making me \nfree associate a bit!\n\nOn Wolfe, though, I love this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The sense of redemption or of reconciliation of matter with spirit \nis then a heroic process that runs counter to the natural inclinations \nof things." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That actually makes a fair bit of sense and is worth rethinking what's \ngoing on in New Sun, I think. It's also very Miltonic, so \nautomatically like it. :)\n\nThanks for the great post!\n\nCraig\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n*From:* Lane Haygood \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Fri, February 11, 2011 10:17:38 AM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Wolfe and Materialism\n\nThe modern usage of materialist as ontological naturalist/physicalist \nis an unfortunate hangover of a terminology shift. Two hundred years \nago people that believed only in physical things would be called \nmaterialists because we did not have any idea about atomic science. \nNow we call them physicalists because \"matter\" seems so inadequate, \nhowever they mean the same thing (unless one talks to Jaegwon Kim, who \nis really a dualist but too scared to admit it).\nI wouldn't even call Milton's position materialism, as it sounds much \nmore like Spinoza's version of modal monism, or even something like \nLeibniz' monadology.\nWe could, of course, be approaching this from the wrong side, starting \nwith matter, when we should be starting with spirit. A pure and \neternal unchanging essence (eidolon, spirit, universal soul) is a \ncommon top-of-the-ontological-pyramid feature of a lot of the \nmythic/philosophical systems Wolfe pirated for BOTNS, as well as a \ndefining feature of the ontologies of the early church fathers.\nThat pure Spirit substance is then filtered or refracted or corrupted \nas it leaves the Ain Soph Dei or whatever and gets down the lowly \nearth-world of imperfect, temporary and flawed beings such as us, \nwhere it is now instantiated not as eternal and unchanging spirit but \nnow base matter.\nThe sense of redemption or of reconciliation of matter with spirit is \nthen a heroic process that runs counter to the natural inclinations of \nthings.\nLH\n\nOn Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Craig Brewer > wrote:\n\n Just a note that there are quite a variety of \"materialisms\" out\n there. Perhaps\n one that would be interesting to think of in relation to Wolfe\n would be Milton.\n\n Milton was a materialist. But he was also, obviously, not an\n atheist. For\n Milton, matter and spirit were on the same continuum, and spirit\n was just\n \"refined\" matter. Technically, Milton gets categorized as a\n \"monist\" meaning\n there's only one substance, rather than a dualist who says that\n mind/soul and\n body are two different \"things.\"\n\n In his theological writings, Milton says this right out, but you\n can also get a\n much more beautiful version in Paradise Lost (5. 469-490) when\n Rafael explains\n it to Adam. I'll quote it below, but I'd point out that this kind of\n \"materialism\" might be interesting to think about, particularly in\n relation to\n the notion that, with Wolfe, mimicking something can help you\n become that thing.\n Perhaps, like Milton, Wolfe is saying something along the lines\n of: \"lowly\n matter gets refined into a more spiritual state when it behaves\n like something\n more pure/moral/spiritual/whatever.\"\n\n Rafael to Adam:\n\n\n O Adam, one Almighty is, from whom\n All things proceed, and up to him return,\n If not deprav?d from good, created all\n Such to perfection, one first matter all,\n Indu?d with various forms, various degrees\n Of substance, and in things that live, of life;\n But more refin?d, more spirituous, and pure,\n As nearer to him plac?t or nearer tending\n Each in thir several active Spheres assign?d,\n Till body up to spirit work, in bounds\n Proportion?d to each kind. So from the root\n Springs lighter the green stalk, from thence the leaves\n More aery, last the bright consummate flow?r\n Spirits odorous breathes: flow?rs and thir fruit\n Man’s nourishment, by gradual scale sublim?d\n To vital spirits aspire, to animal,\n To intellectual, give both life and sense,\n Fancy and understanding, whence the Soul\n Reason receives, and reason is her being,\n Discursive, or Intuitive; discourse\n Is oftest yours, the latter most is ours,\n Differing but in degree, of kind the same.\n\n\n\n _______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<268626.45176.qm@web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-02-11T16:42:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OFF LIST Re: Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "<511300.99558.qm@web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Whoops. I obviously forgot to change the address line. My apologies.\n\nI'll add something substantive, then:\n\nThe interesting thing about approaching Wolfe from the direction that Lane \noutlines below is that the \"spiritual\" meanings of what can otherwise be seen as \nmerely physical phenomena in Wolfe can be seen as at once physically real AND \nspiritually meaningful. And we can do that without just saying that they are \nmetaphorically or symbolically meaningful.\n\nFor example, when Sev brings the New Sun, it could, physically, just be a \ncomplicated Hiero/grammate plot to travel backwards in time and ensure that they \nwere created by whatever humans eventually evolved into (or whichever version of \nthat \"alien conspiracy\" story we currently believe). But that evolution could \nalso be literally spiritual, even if it isn't quite up the level of actual \nsalvation.\n\nMy difficulty with finding real spiritual/supernatural events in the plot of New \nSun has always been that I could figure out ways that what happens is \nmetaphorically full of religious meaning...but it so often seemed possible to \nreduce it to some other physicalist/materialist/Hiero conspiracy explanation. \nWith Lane's model, though, when Sev brings about Urth's evolution/salvation, it \ncan be at once a mere physical event but also a step on the ladder of, as he \nsays, \"reconciling spirit with matter.\"\n\nIt would take me some work to find textual evidence that this is what Wolfe \nthinks is what's going on, but I think it's an idea worth sticking with for a \nbit.\n\nCraig\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLane,\n\nI'll write off line so as not to bore the rest with non-Wolfe stuff. But I \nalmost wrote my dissertation on the relationship between Spinoza and Milton's \nmaterialism, with a lot of reference to other early modern materialists. But I \nfound out that a couple of others were doing the same thing. There's a \nfascinating book by one of my advisors, though, about Milton's philosophical \nrelation to other \"materialist\" debates of the time: Stephen Fallon's _Milton \nAmong the Philosophers: Poetry and Materialism in 17th Century England.\n\nAnd, years ago, I had to teach a course on Philosophy of Mind. I had the same \nsuspicions about Kim as you said. And speaking of Phil of Mind, there's no \nbetter book to enrage undergraduates than Ryle's _Concept of Mind_. It provides \nsuch a succinct conceptual and argumentative structure for responding to any \nand every objection that it drives them crazy when they can't get out of its \ncircle. Been awhile since I've thought about that book, so thanks for making me \nfree associate a bit!\n\nOn Wolfe, though, I love this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The sense of redemption or of reconciliation of matter with spirit is then a \nheroic process that runs counter to the natural inclinations of things." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That actually makes a fair bit of sense and is worth rethinking what's going on \nin New Sun, I think. It's also very Miltonic, so automatically like it. :)\n\nThanks for the great post!\n\nCraig\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<3137CC340B2B44F0AD30C7E2D057E691@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-02-11T16:52:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn: The mistake some people make is to believe that some \nmythological resonance\nthey find in elements of the story can serve as an alternative to 'nuts \nand bolts' explanations." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry I get the impression you consider yourself a man of math, logic and \nscience and that for you,\nthese explanatory philosophies are always superior to spiritual, religious \nor mystical explanations." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I didn't say that at all. What I'm saying is that a 'nuts and bolts' \nexplanation - the Ploughman's explanation, if you like - needs to be there. \nOccasionally an author may throw a vagary and include events which are \ndeliberately contradictory or inexplicable - but in books written to be \nunderstood, this tends to be rare.\n\nNow in literature, if not necessarily in life, there is at least one other \nexplanation as well - this is true of all authors, not just Wolfe. Few \nthings in literatuire are random, so events tend to have at least two \nexplanations, a rational explanation, and one or more explanations that are \nto do with the author's purpose. But these other explanations cannot \n*substitute* for the rational \"nuts and bolts\" explanation. They are in \naddition to it, not an alternative to it.\n\nSo if we come up with some fancy theory based on mythological allusions or \nwhatever, it is no good as an *explanation* if it is incompatible with the \nlogic of the storyline. If the theory is really spelled out by the author \nand can't work, it's probably a flaw in the story, a blunder by the author \nMore often than not, though, the evidence on which such speculations are \nbased is pretty thin. If so, when they don't fit rationally with the story, \nthey are wrong - it's that simple.\n\nIt's not about one sort of explanation being superior, it's about the \ndomains of different theories/explanations. If the mythological explanation \nis taken as determining nuts and bolts events, it must be compatible with \nthem on a nuts and bolts level. If it can't stretch this far, it's simply \nnot an explanation, although it may still be an allusion, a resonance, a \nresemblance, a counterpoint.\n\nThe rest of what you write is based on your misapprehension of what I am \nsaying.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-02-11T17:00:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "<3137CC340B2B44F0AD30C7E2D057E691@jill>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nI didn't say that at all. ?What I'm saying is that a 'nuts and bolts'\nexplanation - the Ploughman's explanation, if you like - needs to be there.\nOccasionally an author may throw a vagary and include events which are\ndeliberately contradictory or inexplicable - but in books written to be\nunderstood, this tends to be rare." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The question then for me is this:\n\nCan this nuts'n'bolts explanation be \"it is a miracle\" within the\ncontext of the book, if the book has an explicitly religious\ndimension?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-02-11T17:19:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \nGerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I didn't say that at all. What I'm saying is that a 'nuts and bolts'\nexplanation - the Ploughman's explanation, if you like - needs to be \nthere.\nOccasionally an author may throw a vagary and include events which are\ndeliberately contradictory or inexplicable - but in books written to be\nunderstood, this tends to be rare." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The question then for me is this:\n\nCan this nuts'n'bolts explanation be \"it is a miracle\" within the\ncontext of the book, if the book has an explicitly religious\ndimension?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "By all means, if in the context of the book it is rational to believe in \nmiracles, however defined. For example, I think that in BotLS Silk is \nenlightened by the Outsider, and Crane's theory about a mini-stroke is wrong\n\n\"Materialism\" is Lee's mischaracterisation of what I am saying. Miracles \ncan easily be 'nuts and bolts' explanations in Wolfe's works. What I'm \ncriticising is where somebody sees some kind of pattern, maybe a \nmythological reference of some kind or maybe something else, and proffers it \nas some kind of explanation of the work even when numerous events in the \nstoryline have to be ignored, or other events inserted, to accomodate it, \nand the things it supposedly explains have perfectly good explanations \nwithout it.\n\n- Gerry Quinn " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D557249.7030703@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-02-11T17:30:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "<3137CC340B2B44F0AD30C7E2D057E691@jill>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn-\nI didn't say that at all. What I'm saying is that a 'nuts and bolts' \nexplanation - the Ploughman's explanation, if you like - needs to be \nthere. Occasionally an author may throw a vagary and include events \nwhich are deliberately contradictory or inexplicable - but in books \nwritten to be understood, this tends to be rare. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I suggest to you Michael Andre-Driussi's \"What Wolfe Expects of His \nReaders\".\nhttp://www.irosf.com/q/zine/article/10536\n\nInitially, Wolfe did not intend to write \"Urth of the New Sun\" and \nfought against the idea.\nNow, do you believe it was really possible to come to an unequivocal \nconclusion from the four volumes of 'The Book of the New Sun' that \n\"Severian would travel through time to become both the Conciliator and \nApu Punchau, rather than being a reincarnation, avatar, or descendant. \nAnd that the world would drown with the coming of the New Sun\"? Yes, \nafter \"UotNS\" one can see that the clues were there. But would anyone \nhave chosen those conclusions over all the other possibilities? Would \nthose conclusions have passed the bar you have continuously set on this \nlist that \"books are written to be understood\" and, therefore, I must \nfeel that _I_ --with whatever background I carry to the book-- must be \nable to understand it. I submit regarding some important points of plot \nin The Book of the New Sun, this is self-evidently not the case.\n\nWolfe novels are works of high literature. They impart information \nthrough a variety of levels, not just through plot and exposition. \nSometimes, they even impart meaning in what has been mysterious left \nout. One has to believe that if one chooses to believe Wolfe intended \ntBotNS to be fully comprehended at all.\n\nu+16b9" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D5572A7.6090600@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-02-11T17:32:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OFF LIST Re: Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "<268626.45176.qm@web37607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dude! You should post this." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 2/11/2011 10:42 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nWhoops. I obviously forgot to change the address line. My apologies.\n\nI'll add something substantive, then:\n\nThe interesting thing about approaching Wolfe from the direction that \nLane outlines below is that the \"spiritual\" meanings of what can \notherwise be seen as merely physical phenomena in Wolfe can be seen as \nat once physically real AND spiritually meaningful. And we can do that \nwithout just saying that they are metaphorically or symbolically \nmeaningful.\n\nFor example, when Sev brings the New Sun, it could, physically, just \nbe a complicated Hiero/grammate plot to travel backwards in time and \nensure that they were created by whatever humans eventually evolved \ninto (or whichever version of that \"alien conspiracy\" story we \ncurrently believe). But that evolution could also be literally \nspiritual, even if it isn't quite up the level of actual salvation.\n\nMy difficulty with finding real spiritual/supernatural events in the \nplot of New Sun has always been that I could figure out ways that what \nhappens is metaphorically full of religious meaning...but it so often \nseemed possible to reduce it to some other \nphysicalist/materialist/Hiero conspiracy explanation. With Lane's \nmodel, though, when Sev brings about Urth's evolution/salvation, it \ncan be at once a mere physical event but also a step on the ladder of, \nas he says, \"reconciling spirit with matter.\"\n\nIt would take me some work to find textual evidence that this is what \nWolfe thinks is what's going on, but I think it's an idea worth \nsticking with for a bit.\n\nCraig\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n*From:* Craig Brewer \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Fri, February 11, 2011 10:30:09 AM\n*Subject:* (urth) OFF LIST Re: Wolfe and Materialism\n\nLane,\n\nI'll write off line so as not to bore the rest with non-Wolfe stuff. \nBut I almost wrote my dissertation on the relationship between Spinoza \nand Milton's materialism, with a lot of reference to other early \nmodern materialists. But I found out that a couple of others were \ndoing the same thing. There's a fascinating book by one of my \nadvisors, though, about Milton's philosophical relation to other \n\"materialist\" debates of the time: Stephen Fallon's _Milton Among the \nPhilosophers: Poetry and Materialism in 17th Century England.\n\nAnd, years ago, I had to teach a course on Philosophy of Mind. I had \nthe same suspicions about Kim as you said. And speaking of Phil of \nMind, there's no better book to enrage undergraduates than Ryle's \n_Concept of Mind_. It provides such a succinct conceptual and \nargumentative structure for responding to any and every objection that \nit drives them crazy when they can't get out of its circle. Been \nawhile since I've thought about that book, so thanks for making me \nfree associate a bit!\n\nOn Wolfe, though, I love this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The sense of redemption or of reconciliation of matter with spirit \nis then a heroic process that runs counter to the natural inclinations \nof things." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That actually makes a fair bit of sense and is worth rethinking what's \ngoing on in New Sun, I think. It's also very Miltonic, so \nautomatically like it. :)\n\nThanks for the great post!\n\nCraig\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n*From:* Lane Haygood \n*To:* The Urth Mailing List \n*Sent:* Fri, February 11, 2011 10:17:38 AM\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) Wolfe and Materialism\n\nThe modern usage of materialist as ontological naturalist/physicalist \nis an unfortunate hangover of a terminology shift. Two hundred years \nago people that believed only in physical things would be called \nmaterialists because we did not have any idea about atomic science. \nNow we call them physicalists because \"matter\" seems so inadequate, \nhowever they mean the same thing (unless one talks to Jaegwon Kim, who \nis really a dualist but too scared to admit it).\nI wouldn't even call Milton's position materialism, as it sounds much \nmore like Spinoza's version of modal monism, or even something like \nLeibniz' monadology.\nWe could, of course, be approaching this from the wrong side, starting \nwith matter, when we should be starting with spirit. A pure and \neternal unchanging essence (eidolon, spirit, universal soul) is a \ncommon top-of-the-ontological-pyramid feature of a lot of the \nmythic/philosophical systems Wolfe pirated for BOTNS, as well as a \ndefining feature of the ontologies of the early church fathers.\nThat pure Spirit substance is then filtered or refracted or corrupted \nas it leaves the Ain Soph Dei or whatever and gets down the lowly \nearth-world of imperfect, temporary and flawed beings such as us, \nwhere it is now instantiated not as eternal and unchanging spirit but \nnow base matter.\nThe sense of redemption or of reconciliation of matter with spirit is \nthen a heroic process that runs counter to the natural inclinations of \nthings.\nLH\n\nOn Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Craig Brewer > wrote:\n\n Just a note that there are quite a variety of \"materialisms\" out\n there. Perhaps\n one that would be interesting to think of in relation to Wolfe\n would be Milton.\n\n Milton was a materialist. But he was also, obviously, not an\n atheist. For\n Milton, matter and spirit were on the same continuum, and spirit\n was just\n \"refined\" matter. Technically, Milton gets categorized as a\n \"monist\" meaning\n there's only one substance, rather than a dualist who says that\n mind/soul and\n body are two different \"things.\"\n\n In his theological writings, Milton says this right out, but you\n can also get a\n much more beautiful version in Paradise Lost (5. 469-490) when\n Rafael explains\n it to Adam. I'll quote it below, but I'd point out that this kind of\n \"materialism\" might be interesting to think about, particularly in\n relation to\n the notion that, with Wolfe, mimicking something can help you\n become that thing.\n Perhaps, like Milton, Wolfe is saying something along the lines\n of: \"lowly\n matter gets refined into a more spiritual state when it behaves\n like something\n more pure/moral/spiritual/whatever.\"\n\n Rafael to Adam:\n\n\n O Adam, one Almighty is, from whom\n All things proceed, and up to him return,\n If not deprav?d from good, created all\n Such to perfection, one first matter all,\n Indu?d with various forms, various degrees\n Of substance, and in things that live, of life;\n But more refin?d, more spirituous, and pure,\n As nearer to him plac?t or nearer tending\n Each in thir several active Spheres assign?d,\n Till body up to spirit work, in bounds\n Proportion?d to each kind. So from the root\n Springs lighter the green stalk, from thence the leaves\n More aery, last the bright consummate flow?r\n Spirits odorous breathes: flow?rs and thir fruit\n Man’s nourishment, by gradual scale sublim?d\n To vital spirits aspire, to animal,\n To intellectual, give both life and sense,\n Fancy and understanding, whence the Soul\n Reason receives, and reason is her being,\n Discursive, or Intuitive; discourse\n Is oftest yours, the latter most is ours,\n Differing but in degree, of kind the same.\n\n\n\n _______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-02-11T17:54:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OFF LIST Re: Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "<4D5572A7.6090600@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Craig Brewer: My difficulty with finding real spiritual/supernatural events in the plot of New \nSun has always been that I could figure out ways that what happens is \nmetaphorically full of religious meaning...but it so often seemed possible to \nreduce it to some other physicalist/materialist/Hiero conspiracy explanation. \nWith Lane's model, though, when Sev brings about Urth's evolution/salvation, it \ncan be at once a mere physical event but also a step on the ladder of, as he \nsays, \"reconciling spirit with matter.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nFirst, I enjoyed your conversation on materialism with Lane. Thanks.\n \nI think what you wrote above is in the spirit with which Wolfe is writing. Any object or event\nexists simultaneously at several levels. Borrowing from the Wolfe interview I recently cited, \npaper is not reduced by considering that it is made of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are elevated\nbecause they serve a useful purpose for a human being. Paper is elevated when it is put to the\npurpose of discussing and expanding understanding of God. God is elevated when the hydrocarbons \nhe created are used at every level for every purpose. Elevation eventually leads from \"highest\"\nback down to \"lowest\". Circularity. Which is the most important, defining portion of a circle?\n \nI think that's the principle. That we needn't choose one level as superior or subservient to\nanother. They exist simultaneously, and all elements in a Wolfe story can be interpreted in this\nsimultaneous, multi-level way. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-02-11T18:15:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "<4D557249.7030703@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn: Initially, Wolfe did not intend to write \"Urth of the New Sun\" \nand fought against the idea." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now, do you believe it was really possible to come to an unequivocal \nconclusion from the four volumes of 'The Book of the New Sun' that \n\"Severian would travel through time to become both the Conciliator and \nApu Punchau, rather than being a reincarnation, avatar, or descendant. \nAnd that the world would drown with the coming of the New Sun\"? Yes, \nafter \"UotNS\" one can see that the clues were there. But would anyone \nhave chosen those conclusions over all the other possibilities?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nJames makes an extremely good point. UotNS may be as close to a \"test\"\nor \"experiment\" as we'll get with WOlfe literature. We know he never \nmeant to write UotNS so we can go back to the first four books and\nfind the places Wolfe expected us to find clues to solve the mysteries.\n \nI'd say those places primarily are: 1.Dr. Talos' incomprehensible play; \n2. the cosmic ramblings of Malrubius; 3. Random one offs and self-musings by\nSeverian scattered all through the text in ways difficult to connect." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: For example, I think that in BotLS Silk is \nenlightened by the Outsider, and Crane's theory about a mini-stroke is wrong" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nWhile I think that Crane's theory about a mini-stroke is correct. AND Silk\nwas enlightened by the Outsider. Both levels are correct. The mini-stroke \nallowed the rearrangement of neural patterns which led to the enlightenment.\n \nIs it silly to think that the deity may have a purpose in what we consider\nsimply a health problem? Dr Crane is a very competent doctor. Where he\nmakes a mistake (in Wolfe's eyes) is in thinking a mini-stroke can ONLY be\na blood vessel breaking and nothing more.\n \n(hm...weer had a stroke. Was he enlightened? Or perhaps were we?)\n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-02-11T18:26:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:\nIs it silly to think that the deity may have a purpose in what we consider\nsimply a health problem?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Heat rises so that the cathedral will fly. It is both natural and a miracle." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D5587FA.5040902@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-02-11T19:03:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Is it silly to think that the deity may have a purpose in what we consider\nsimply a health problem?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Heat rises so that the cathedral will fly. It is both natural and a miracle" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Like a new born baby it just happens every day\"\n~ The Rolling Stones, Paint It Black" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-02-12T14:38:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "<4D557249.7030703@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: \"James Wynn\" \nGerry Quinn-" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I didn't say that at all. What I'm saying is that a 'nuts and bolts' \nexplanation - the Ploughman's explanation, if you like - needs to be \nthere. Occasionally an author may throw a vagary and include events which \nare deliberately contradictory or inexplicable - but in books written to \nbe understood, this tends to be rare." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now, do you believe it was really possible to come to an unequivocal \nconclusion from the four volumes of 'The Book of the New Sun' that \n\"Severian would travel through time to become both the Conciliator and Apu \nPunchau, rather than being a reincarnation, avatar, or descendant. And \nthat the world would drown with the coming of the New Sun\"? Yes, after \n\"UotNS\" one can see that the clues were there. But would anyone have \nchosen those conclusions over all the other possibilities? Would those \nconclusions have passed the bar you have continuously set on this list \nthat \"books are written to be understood\" and, therefore, I must feel that \n_I_ --with whatever background I carry to the book-- must be able to \nunderstand it. I submit regarding some important points of plot in The \nBook of the New Sun, this is self-evidently not the case." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Those are not events which are contradictory or inexplicable. They are \nevents for which it is not clear which of two possibilities is the case - a \ncompletely different situation.\n\nCertainly in such cases we can use allusive hints to determine *which* 'nuts \nand bolts' explanation best fits the story. But it does not alter the fact \nthat we can never validly use them as substitutes for such explanations. At \nleast in books that can usefully be analysed, which is what I meant by \n\"written to be understood\". I did not mean by it that every last detail is \nexplained.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-02-12T14:59:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" \nGerry Quinn:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "For example, I think that in BotLS Silk is\nenlightened by the Outsider, and Crane's theory about a mini-stroke is \nwrong" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "While I think that Crane's theory about a mini-stroke is correct. AND Silk\nwas enlightened by the Outsider. Both levels are correct. The mini-stroke\nallowed the rearrangement of neural patterns which led to the \nenlightenment.\n\nIs it silly to think that the deity may have a purpose in what we consider\nsimply a health problem? Dr Crane is a very competent doctor. Where he\nmakes a mistake (in Wolfe's eyes) is in thinking a mini-stroke can ONLY be\na blood vessel breaking and nothing more." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That could be valid in a universe in which the Outsider for some reason \nchooses always to send visions by way of minor neurological catastrophes. \nHowever I don't think we have any evidence to suppose this is the case in \nBotLS. If it isn't, Crane is wrong about both cause and event.\n\nIn another book, the author might well choose to leave ambiguous the \nquestion of whether such an event was caused by a random mini-stroke or an \nintervention by a deity. But I don't think Wolfe leaves the existence of an \nactive deity ambiguous in his books; we are to believe the enlightenment \ncame from the Outsider, by whatever means.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-02-13T01:59:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry QUinn: Certainly in such cases we can use allusive hints to determine *which* \n'nuts and bolts' explanation best fits the story. But it does not alter the fact \nthat we can never validly use them as substitutes for such explanations. At \nleast in books that can usefully be analysed, which is what I meant by \n\"written to be understood\". I did not mean by it that every last detail is \nexplained." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gerry who told you that all works of art must have a \"nuts and bolts\" meaning which\nsupersedes all allegorical meanings? Seriously, I am having trouble understanding where\nthis idea is coming from. I actually think Ireland has produced some of the most notable \nauthors for whom one must essentially ignore the nuts and bolts meaning of the text to be \nable to discern the true meaning.\n \nI guess there would be some truth if you changed your post to \"it does not alter the fact that \n*I* can never validly use them [allusions] as substitutes for such [nuts and bolts] explanations\".\n \nIf you can't do something, that's fine. An open admission is admirable. But how can you speak for \nevery other reader in the history of literature with such assertions? Do you really believe\nyou are the most gifted and authoritative reader ever to walk the earth?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That could be valid in a universe in which the Outsider for some reason \nchooses always to send visions by way of minor neurological catastrophes. \nHowever I don't think we have any evidence to suppose this is the case in \nBotLS. If it isn't, Crane is wrong about both cause and event." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nYou are missing the point. What you (and Dr. Crane) call a \"minor neurological\ncatastrophe\" might be a major re-routing which leads to exponential new \nawareness and insight. Why do you feel compelled to choose one result or another\nwhen it can be both, simultaneously?\n \n(FWIW, I'm sure you are aware that the brain capacity for Neanderthals was greater than it is for\nmodern H. sapiens. Sometimes less is more. Sometimes turning portions of the brain off can produce\ngreater clarity than leaving them all on ;- ))\n \n\n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-02-13T15:53:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Lee Berman\" \nGerry QUinn:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Certainly in such cases we can use allusive hints to determine *which*\n'nuts and bolts' explanation best fits the story. But it does not alter \nthe fact\nthat we can never validly use them as substitutes for such explanations. \nAt\nleast in books that can usefully be analysed, which is what I meant by\n\"written to be understood\". I did not mean by it that every last detail \nis\nexplained." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry who told you that all works of art must have a \"nuts and bolts\" \nmeaning which\nsupersedes all allegorical meanings? Seriously, I am having trouble \nunderstanding where\nthis idea is coming from. I actually think Ireland has produced some of \nthe most notable\nauthors for whom one must essentially ignore the nuts and bolts meaning of \nthe text to be\nable to discern the true meaning." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, now you see the source of my ill-humour. I am surrounded by fey folks \ndancing around talking about their conversations with fairies, and all I can \ndo it sit in a corner scowling over a pint of Guinness and muttering that \nthe gods of materialism will soon come to sweep all this nonsense away ;-)\n\nDid I say all works of art? I think I confined by theory to \"books that can \nusefully be analysed\"! Whether you want to include Finnegans Wake in this \ncategory isn't of great moment to me. What Wolfe writes isn't Finnegans \nWake. Also, I most emphatically did *not* say \"supersedes\". Once again you \nare putting words in my mouth. I said that allusions, allegorical means \netc. are not *substitutes* for the functions performed by nuts and bolts \nmeanings. Allusive interpretations are important but they have their own \nfunction to perform; to put them in the place of physical interpretations \nis simply a category error. Particularly in science fiction / science \nfantasy novels.\n\nImagine we find a passage in BotLS in which Silk dreams that the Whorl is a \nwalnut. I don't know of such a passage, but it's not a particularly \nimplausible concept. Perhaps we see signs that this motif is important; for \nexample it is repeated elsewhere. We can easily find \"meanings\" for this - \nthe Whorl is a small shell floating in infinite space (something Wolfe has \nin fact conveyed by some other means). We might or might not find our \nreading experienced enhanced by some reference to Hamlet. But they are \nstill allusions, not nuts and bolts explanations of anything.\n\nNow suppose somebody starts reading too much into the walnut allegory - \nstarts making that category error I was talking about. Suddenly there's a \nlong thread in which people are insisting that the Whorl really is a walnut. \nSomebody finds a mention of a walnut tree in BotNS, and suddenly there's no \nstopping it. If the walnut tree belongs to Father Inire it's a slam dunk, \nbut if not - hey, it could be Father Inire in disguisel. People chime in on \nall sides - the walnut, or some nut, was special to Dionysus or some other \nGreek god. Some woman in Viron is named after a plant related to the \nwalnut. Silk is really half man, half walnut tree. It's all rubbish, \nbecause the Whorl is an asteroid, not a walnut. The physical asteroid \nexplanation dominates the walnut explanation. The walnut explanation simply \ncannot validly substitute for the asteroid explanation. That's what I mean \nby saying that allusions cannot substitute for nuts and bolts explanations. \nWhen they are made to do so, it leads to nonsense." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "That could be valid in a universe in which the Outsider for some reason\nchooses always to send visions by way of minor neurological catastrophes.\nHowever I don't think we have any evidence to suppose this is the case in\nBotLS. If it isn't, Crane is wrong about both cause and event." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You are missing the point. What you (and Dr. Crane) call a \"minor \nneurological\ncatastrophe\" might be a major re-routing which leads to exponential new\nawareness and insight. Why do you feel compelled to choose one result or \nanother\nwhen it can be both, simultaneously?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The point you're not getting is that Crane has not examined Silk's brain. \nHe is pointing out that mini-strokes in a certain area of the brain can \ncause religious experiences. He is postulating a cause for Silk's \nexperience, and he is (at least by my reading) incorrect. And unless the \nOutsider always chooses to enlighten by way of such means (which is possible \nbut not demonstrated) he is wrong in his implicit prediction that if he were \nto examine Silk's brain he would find evidence of a burst artery in the \ncorrect location." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(FWIW, I'm sure you are aware that the brain capacity for Neanderthals was \ngreater than it is for\nmodern H. sapiens. Sometimes less is more. Sometimes turning portions of \nthe brain off can produce\ngreater clarity than leaving them all on ;- ))" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is speculation on my part, but it may be that the influx of Neanderthal \ngenes is in part responsible for the variations in average brain size \nbetween modern human populations, which correlate to some extent with \nmeasures of intelligence.\n\nThere's no reason to believe that the larger brain size of Neanderthals was \na disadvantage to them; some factors must have brought about their \nextinction, but large brains on the face of it are not the most probable. \nConversely, it may be that Homo sapiens found some way to improve the \nefficiency of smaller brains, so we don't know which species was more \nintelligent - even by Homo sapiens standards, which may be biased.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<744594.44602.qm@web161809.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-02-13T19:17:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe and Materialism", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay, just a quick note. Sure, the Outsider is the cause of the Enlightenment, but there usually is a mechanistic explanation in Wolfe to match the symbolic one. The tent of the Pelerines: hot air producing a ghostly castle in the sky, its still a sign, but it has a physical cause, because the increate is there, in every physical cause and effect, if I read the beach scene correctly.\n\nI just think in Long Sun this is inverted, Pas planted that little scene with Kypris a long time ago in Silk, but it actually served the plan of the Outsider, too, so that it was a physical enlightenment set about by Typhon that was like a blood vessel exploding and also a real enlightenment, just like the tent scene. In support of this I can only say that at one point, Silk is very very sad because he realizes his enlightenment was just a vessel breaking as Crane posited, much later in the text, and this seems like a strange denial of the Outsider coming from him, unless it is true, but at the same time NOT true, if you know what I mean.\n\n\n " } ] } ] }