{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/whorl/255", "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": "whorl", "thread": { "id": 255, "subject": "Quibbles \"R\" Us", "messages": 2, "voices": 2, "first": "1997-04-04T00:08:00+00:00", "last": "1997-04-04T08:09:58+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "m.driussi", "address": "m.driussi at genie.com" }, "date": "1997-04-04T00:08:00+00:00", "subject": "(whorl) Quibbles \"R\" Us", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Reply: Item #4863076 from WHORL at LISTS.BEST.COM@INTERNET#\n\nNutria,\n\n(Glad to see a message here--especially one as well informed as your\nown --it has been so quiet . . . taxes, everyone?)\n\nRe: posthistory of Urth. Right, so get cracking on your version!\n(Sometimes I wonder if I should have followed the manvantara scheme a\nlittle more closely--after all, the fourth yuga is just a tad over\none chiliad . . . in \"god years\" . . . )\n\nYes, intergalactic travel is mentioned at least one other time as\nwell; and yes, at near-light speeds this would require tremendous\namounts of objective time; and in addition it appears that Monarch\nTyphon was just able to launch the Whorl as a monumental feat of\ndaring do, yet it is also sub-light capable; however, we must not\nforget about Yesod (in its aspect of hyperspace), and at that point\nwhere we are talking about travel to other galaxies, I for one assume\nthat hyperspace must be in use by that point, if not considerably\nearlier. (And gee, in most future histories ftl is invented sometime\nnext week, except in those cases where we've already passed it by!\n Which is just to say that the development of ftl drive doesn't\nusually take millions of years in the traditions of sf--what was\nCordwainer Smith's version? Space-3? Something like that.)\n\nOf course, if my guess is true that Yesod-time flows in the opposite\ndirection that Briah-time flows, then things get =very= interesting\nat the end of those long galaxy hops! Happily, local causality is\npreserved, paradox free, since the travellers are equally distant in\nspace as well as time.\n\nRe: river city turning into fossil mountain, yes, all good points,\nbut you stopped too soon! You built it into a mountain but forgot to\nhave half of it fall away. That takes some more time . . . suggests\nthat the magma, at some point after pushing the fossilopolis up a\nleague or two (but hey, the city stratum seems to be most of a league\nthrough, doesn't it?) then ebbs (for mysterious reasons not covered\nby \"natural geological evolution as we know it,\" which for me is\nalways a cue for suspecting terraforming as the cause) to the point\nthat Severian can say that there are no volcanos on Urth (truly a\ndead world at that point--no earthquakes, perhaps no magnetic field,\nno pre-industrial greenhouse gases, etc.). So that takes time, too;\nhow long between the raising of fossilopolis and the entropic ebb of\nmagma?\n\nI'm not an archeologist, but aren't the \"tells\" of Mesopotamia the\nhill-like remains of ancient cities? That is, yes, the sands bury\nthe Sphinx in a sandy place, but in other places things seem to\nsimultaneously melt like candles and rise like cake in the oven.\n(Sometimes, no doubt, because next civilization builds a new city\ndirectly on top of the old ruins. All the versions of Troy, for\nexample. Which works out because all cities want to be on a hill,\nanyway, for defense and prestige.)\n\nI'm not an astronomer, but the reddening of the sun implies, as you\nsay, a very long time . . . billions of years, I believe, if we are\ntalking natural stellar evolution. However, in my reading of TBOTNS\nit is quite clear that the dying sun is a victim of unnatural\nevents--the introduction of a black hole into the solar core. The\ntext on this point is clear. Beyond that and into the whys and\nwherefores is all speculation (of course I have my theories! Again,\nbasically terraforming--in this case, stellaforming). But we cannot\nuse stellar evolution as a benchmark in this case, I'm afraid. (Another\nproblem: a naturally dying red sun would have already gone through a\nlong giant phase wherein it would have vaporized the inner\nworlds--talk about the History Eraser Button!)\n\nRe: scarabs, yes, I thought you would link the scarabs of Silk's\nvision to the ones Severian sees in Yesod, since your interview of\nWolfe mentions Yesod's scarabs and I'd never noticed them before.\nAnd I do think they form a strong link, fwiw. (But, just to quibble\nwith you, the Yesod scarabs merely \"clambered like ants\" [V, ch. 22,\np. 163 or last line of chapter]--they don't seem to be pushing anything,\ndung or stars. Your interpretation is a very good one, and I myself\nbelieve it and commend you for it, but when it comes down to the text,\nit isn't entirely supported . . . or maybe I'm just looking in the\nwrong place?)\n\nRe: \"Chrasmological\" as Greek for oracular speech. Of course I agree\nwith you and share your degree of nearly metaphysical certitude . . .\nI guess it boils down to transliteration of the \"epsilon\" in\nkhi-rho-epsilon-sigma-mu-omicron-sigma.\n\nRe: elements of the Outsider (and/or the enlightenment he gives Silk)\nthat seem strongly linked to Jesus Christ. In Q&D I listed (under\n\"the Outsider\") many of the ones you mentioned, but I also wonder how\nmany of them are elements of the Sacred King pattern which pre-dates\nthe life and times of Jesus (Machiavellians can say that the glass is\nempty, that Jesus manipulated the masses with old symbols from diverse\nand hoary sources; the more spiritually inclined can say that the glass is\noverflowing, that the transcendant god had been putting these symbols\nin place [and continues to do so] in preparation for the Christ).\n\nBut nevermind that--all those things are very clearly Christian. What\nI want your opinion on is the allusion to the moneylenders: Wolfe as\nHorn writes that Silk says, \"the Outsider was know to esteem [the sellers]\nlast among men already--that according to the Writings he had once (having\npossessed and enlightened a fortunate man) beaten them severly in person\"\n(I, 17).\n\nWhat strikes me about this offhand passage is first, and rather\nsuperficially, that this is a clear link to Biblical text on Jesus\nChrist; second, the more haunting/puzzling part, is what is being said\nhere: that Jesus was \"possessed and enlightened\" by the Outsider. While\nI'm not by any means a theologian, it is my understanding that this\nscenario is not acceptable to any of the main branches of modern day\nChristianity (mainly because it seems to deny the divine part of Jesus, the\n\"theo\" of theoanthropos)--it is, however, an official element of both\nGnosticism (some branches, at least [hedge]) and Islam, both of which go on\nto claim (basically) that a mortal substitute died on the cross in the\nplace of Jesus (i.e., the old tanist tradition again, but that is a\ntangent too far). And \"enlightenment\" is, of course, not really a term\ntraditionally used in Occidental religion--it is, most specifically, a\nterm used in referring to the Buddha (who was born a prince, yes; but\nnot part God). I've read a certain amount of material about the Buddha,\nbut I don't recall a part where Buddha gives merchants or moneylenders a\nbeating.\n\nSo, what do we make of this? It is in reference to the Writings.\nAre we to infer that this deviation of Christian interpretation is a\nmarker to show the reader how \"wrong\" (corrupted, twisted, perverted)\nthe Chrasmologic Writings are; or how Gnostic/Islamic (not\nnecessarily \"wrong\") they are; or \"something else again\" (which is\na close translation of the name \"Baldanders,\" according to Borges!).\n\n=mantis=\n\nQuestions or problems to whorl-owner at lists.best.com" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Fernando Q. Gouvea", "address": "fqgouvea at colby.edu" }, "date": "1997-04-04T08:09:58+00:00", "subject": "Re: (whorl) Quibbles \"R\" Us", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "**** On Fri, 4 Apr 97 00:08:00 GMT, Mantis said:\n\nM> What strikes me about this offhand passage is first, and rather\nM> superficially, that this is a clear link to Biblical text on Jesus\nM> Christ; second, the more haunting/puzzling part, is what is being said\nM> here: that Jesus was \"possessed and enlightened\" by the Outsider. While\nM> I'm not by any means a theologian, it is my understanding that this\nM> scenario is not acceptable to any of the main branches of modern day\nM> Christianity (mainly because it seems to deny the divine part of Jesus,\nM> the \"theo\" of theoanthropos)--it is, however, an official element of\nM> both Gnosticism (some branches, at least [hedge]) and Islam, both of\n\nThe hedge is correct, as far as Gnosticism. There are other words that come\nto mind too: \"adoptionism\", for example, and other kinds of \"low\nChristology\". \n\nM> which go on to claim (basically) that a mortal substitute died on the\nM> cross in the place of Jesus (i.e., the old tanist tradition again, but\nM> that is a tangent too far). \n\nYou are certainly right that (for orthodox Christians) \"possessed and\nenlightened\" is far too weak a description of the incarnation. \n(Unfortunately, there are far too many Christians who would find it \nperfectly ok, but that's another story.) But in the context of the story,\nit seems right: Silk's \"theology\" doesn't seem to be able to accomodate\nsuch a concept as a true incarnation, so how else is he to grasp the idea?\n\"Possessed\" is not a Christian concept at all, except in the negative\nsense---demons possess people, God enlightens, inspires, and in one case\nbecomes incarnate. But Silk's gods *do* possess people, in fact they seem\nto do that far more often than they enlighten them.\n\nSo my reaction is that we shouldn't read too much into this expression. It\nmakes sense to me that within Silk's context it's the closest he can get to\nthe idea of incarnation, and hence (presumably) that this is the doctrine\nhe knows. By the way, does he know about the cleansing of the temple from\nthe Writings or from his illumination? If the latter, then it's even more\nnatural that his understanding of it isn't yet complete (since this\nmention, if I remember right, is early in Nightside).\n\n(Hmmm, I suppose I've got to come up with a Vironese name... I'm Quill's\nfather, so I need something related to that. Anybody have a suggestion?)" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Fernando Q. Gouvea\t\t\t\nChair, Dept. of Math & CS\t\tEditor, MAA Online\nColby College\t\t\t\thttp://www.maa.org\nfqgouvea at colby.edu\t\t\tfqgouvea at maa.org\n==========================================================\n\nThere are certain things men must do to remain men.\n\t\t-- Kirk, \"The Ultimate Computer\", stardate 4929.4\n\n\n\nQuestions or problems to whorl-owner at lists.best.com" } ] } ] }