What's So Great About Ushas?

John Watkins · 20 Jul 2008, 20:51 · from 2008-July.txt.gz
This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.
From: john.watkins04 at gmail.com (John Watkins)
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:51:26 -0400
Subject: (urth) What's So Great About Ushas?
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-W30FE57508D9A4CA0559190D78B0 at phx.gbl>
References: <BAY103-W30FE57508D9A4CA0559190D78B0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <93d4039f0807201351k44f0a010wb901a263eda02824 at mail.gmail.com>

It's interesting that you accuse me of arguing in bad faith.  You seem
to believe that I have an agenda--namely, to show that Gene Wolfe is
some kind of "secular humanist."  I can assure you that this is far
from the truth.  My agenda, insofar as I have one, is to reconcile
what I consider to be the sine qua non of the New Sun books--that
Severian has a special destiny in the mind of the Increate--with what
I see as overwhelming evidence that the Hierogrammates are false
angels enacting a program of genocide.

I don't think that the source you linked does what you think it does.
It refers to Tzadkiel as an angel of mercy, not of justice.  The fact
that Tzadkiel also has a role in the angelic army doesn't make him an
angel of justice--it makes him an angel who fought against Satan.  I
don't think that fighting the Devil is morally equivalent to genocide
in any moral system I can think of.

Your point about the Biblical angels is half-right--the Biblical
angels do not work independently of God, but He of course may and does
work independently of them.  The Hierogrammates, however, most
certainly work independently of the Increate, or I'm at a loss as to
what the Cock, the Angel, and the Eagle tale means.  My point about
the Flood (which, again, Wolfe almost certainly does not believe in)
and other acts of divine punishment is merely that a presumption of
morality may be extended to the First Principle that is not extended
to intermediaries who admittedly are infinitely removed from Him and
may only guess at His will.  The Biblical angels have no such
restriction.--another point that militates against reading the
Hierogrammates as literal angels.

If you're unable to distinguish between world-wide genocide and acts
of warfare, then I'm afraid it's you, not me, that's struggling to
understand  Judeo-Christian ethics.  Likewise, the notion that the
Hebrews are "a race contaminated" in absolutely antithetical to the
contemporary Catholic Church, and the notion that the Hebrews are "a
race contaminated" due to the actions the God of the Old Testament is
a notion that has ALWAYS been condemned by orthodox Christianity.  The
Gnostic heretics may have viewed the Old Testament deity as an evil
demiurge, but the orthodox Christian faiths do not and never have.
This doesn't mean that Wolfe didn't use the idea of a demiurge, of
course, and the question of whether that's exactly what Tzadkiel is is
a worthy one.  Pas certainly takes that role.

Here's another way to put my point.  When a group of beings claim to
be angels, shouldn't the burden of proof be on them?  Especially when
they concede that:

1)  They are artificial lifeforms created/bred by humans
2)  They are not in direct contact with God
3)  They are not eternal
4)  They appear to exercise free will
5)  They, in fact, appear to possess none of the qualities accorded to
angels by Roman Catholic theologians (check out Thomas Aquinas on the
topic) except time-travel, a degree of immortality, and a mysterious
agenda.

In fact, if I called Dan Simmons's character, the Shrike, a name
ending in "-el" it would be just as good a match for an angel as
Tzadkiel.  And Simmons is Roman Catholic, so, by your argument, that
fact that the Shrike spends most of the first Hyperion book butchering
people isn't a sign that he's not an angel.  I like this new theory.
It puts Hyperion in a fun and entertaining new light.  The Shrike
Church is ctually doing the will of God.

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:27 AM, b sharp <bsharporflat at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> John Watkins:
>
> a nice and clever rebuttal to my post! Still, because of key omissions, I sense it is
> a rebuttal, that is a debate tactic, rather than part of a fact finding or insight raising
> endeavor. But I'll do my best to address your issues.
>
> Mentioning that Tzadkiel is considered an arch-angel more outside of the mainstream
> of Roman Catholic tradition was a notable point which I'm glad you mentioned. Could
> be the basis for further discussion.
>
> But you note Tzadkiel is known as an angel of mercy and omit that he/she is also
> considered an angel of justice in some texts. You note that Tzadkiel was the one
> to intervene in Moses' sacrifice of his son (no coincidence that Venant is killed I think),
> while omitting that "Zadkiel is one of two standard bearers (along with Zophiel) who
> follow directly behind Michael as the head archangel enters battle." http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Tzadkiel
>
> In my list of genocides you take pains to note the ones done by God without angelic help
> while ignoring the ones (10th plague for example) that were the specific work of angels.
> I'm unclear on the point of that argument anyway. Are you suggesting that the Biblical God
> and angels are sometimes working independently of each other? Also, I don't see how an
> invincible angel leading Hebrews in battle is much different than the flood of one of many
> human worlds in BotNS. A population of people is wiped out in both cases.
>
> But the biggest omission, I think, is an anwer to my (now rephrased) question: How are
> Hierogrammates disqualified as angel equivalents because of their immoral killing of human
> beings when the Biblical God and angels routinely practice genocide, territorial warfare and
> individual murders of humans for transgressions such as refusing to impregnate one's
> sister-in-law (Onan) and looking over one's shoulder (Lot's wife)?
>
> You've read the James Jordan interview so there is no way you can think that Gene Wolfe is a
> secular humanist who rejects the Bible and Christianity. Are you perhaps thinking that Gene
> Wolfe considers the angry, jealous, genocidal Old Testament and Cabalistic God and angels
> to be akin to evil aliens? That the Hebrews were (are?) a race contaminated by these evil
> aliens while the New Testament God and angels are something different- better and more pure?
> I don't think you are suggesting this but it is an interesting idea anyway though not particularly
> flattering to Mr. Wolfe.
>
> A much nicer interpretation is a mainstream Christian interpretation: that Gene Wolfe sees that
> genocide was a part of Biblical human history, sees that it has continued on through to the present
> day and knows that somehow it must be part of God's plan no matter how awful it appears and we
> must have faith that all is leading to a better future for humanity.
>
> -bsharp
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety.
> http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_family_safety_072008
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net