"Principlesofgovernaaance"GeneWolllfe's Politics

brunians at brunians.org · 02 Apr 2009, 19:11 · from 2009-April.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: brunians at brunians.org (brunians at brunians.org)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:11:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: (urth) "Principlesofgovernaaance"GeneWolllfe's       Politics
In-Reply-To: <W9926023345269371238699310@webmail56>
References: <W9926023345269371238699310@webmail56>
Message-ID: <6417.67.142.130.34.1238699460.squirrel at brunians.org>

You'll thank me even more after you read them, and also embarrass yourself
less when you choose to discuss these matters.





.



> Thanks for your help there, Brunians. priceless.
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: brunians at brunians.org [mailto:brunians at brunians.org]
>>Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:05 AM
>>To: 'The Urth Mailing List'
>>Subject: Re: (urth) "Principlesofgovernaaance"GeneWolfe's    Politics
>>
>>OK, reread it and read the other three.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>.
>>
>>
>>> I read The Prince a LONG time ago...
>>>
>>> ~witz
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: brunians at brunians.org [mailto:brunians at brunians.org]
>>>>Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:48 AM
>>>>To: 'The Urth Mailing List'
>>>>Subject: Re: (urth) "Principlesofgovernaaance"Gene Wolfe's Politics
>>>>
>>>>Witz: go read Plato's "Republic", Aristotle's "Politics" and Niccolo
>>>>Machiavelli's two works "Discourses On The First Ten Books Of Titus
>>>>Livius" and "The Prince".
>>>>
>>>>This will give you the vocabulary that you currently lack for
>>>> discussing
>>>>this kind of thing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> refresher quote, questions below:
>>>>>
>>>>> SHADOW XXXII Five Legs:
>>>>> """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>>>>> "Severian. Name for me the seven principles of governance."
>>>>> It was an effort for me to speak, but I managed (in my dream, if it
>>>>> was
>>>>> a
>>>>> dream)to say, "I do not recall that we have studied such a thing,
>>>>> Master."
>>>>> "You were always the most careless of my boys," he told me, and fell
>>>>> silent.
>>>>> A foreboding grew on me; I sensed that if I did not reply, some
>>>>> tragedy
>>>>> would
>>>>> occur. At last I began weakly, "Anarchy . . ."
>>>>> "That is not governance, but the lack of it. I taught you that it
>>>>> precedes
>>>>> all governance. Now list the seven sorts."
>>>>> "Attachment to the person of the monarch. Attachment to a bloodline
>>>>> or
>>>>> other
>>>>> sequence of succession. Attachment to the royal state. Attachment to
>>>>> a
>>>>> code
>>>>> legitimizing the governing state. Attachment to the law only.
>>>>> Attachment
>>>>> to a
>>>>> greater or lesser board of electors, as framers of the law.
>>>>> Attachment
>>>>> to
>>>>> an
>>>>> abstraction conceived as including the body of electors, other bodies
>>>>> giving
>>>>> rise to them, and numerous other elements, largely ideal."
>>>>> "Tolerable. Of these, which is the earliest form, and which the
>>>>> highest?"
>>>>> "The development is in the order given, Master," I said. "But I do
>>>>> not
>>>>> recall
>>>>> that you ever asked before which was highest?'
>>>>> Master Malrubius leaned forward, his eyes burning brighter than the
>>>>> coals
>>>>> of the
>>>>> fire. "Which is highest, Severian?"
>>>>> "The last, Master?"
>>>>> "You mean attachment to an abstraction conceived as including the
>>>>> body
>>>>> of
>>>>> electors, other bodies giving rise to them, and numerous other
>>>>> elements,
>>>>> largely ideal?"
>>>>> "Yes, Master."
>>>>> "Of what kind, Severian, is your own attachment to the Divine
>>>>> Entity?"
>>>>> I said nothing. It may have been that I was thinking; but if so, my
>>>>> mind
>>>>> was too much filled with sleep to be conscious of its thought.
>>>>> Instead,
>>>>> I
>>>>> became
>>>>> profoundly aware of my physical surroundings. The sky above my face
>>>>> in
>>>>> all
>>>>> its
>>>>> grandeur seemed to have been made solely for my benefit, and to be
>>>>> presented for my inspection now. I lay upon the ground as upon a
>>>>> woman,
>>>>> and the very air that surrounded me seemed a thing as admirable as
>>>>> crystal
>>>>> and as fluid as wine.
>>>>> "Answer me, Severian."
>>>>> "The first, if I have any."
>>>>> "To the person of the monarch?"
>>>>> "Yes, because there is no succession."
>>>>> "The animal that rests beside you now would die for you. Of what kind
>>>>> is
>>>>> his
>>>>> attachment to you?"
>>>>> "The first?"
>>>>> """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>>>>>
>>>>> ok, is the last one meant to be a joke about our current situation?
>>>>> Abstraction, largely ideal.
>>>>>
>>>>> maybe some conservatives can help me out here.
>>>>> "Attachment to the person of the monarch"
>>>>>
>>>>> On one hand, I don't understand how "Attachment to" is governance.
>>>>> Are
>>>>> the people attached, or is the governance attached?
>>>>>
>>>>> Another question this brings up for me.  This notion of a Divine
>>>>> Ruler...
>>>>> You get it in the Grail myths, and I suppose in the Jesus Myth, this
>>>>> idea
>>>>> of bringing back the Divine King. I'm not sure if that's right, but
>>>>> it's
>>>>> something that seems to come up in various traditions.  Anyway, While
>>>>> anyone could sort of get behind letting God's Vicar rule, if it could
>>>>> be
>>>>> proven. Yet we've had plenty of crappy rulers claiming God's mandate.
>>>>> anyway, How can this idea of a Monarch that is the best system jibe
>>>>> with
>>>>> reality lacking an unambiguous 'seal of approval' from God?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me rephrase?  This seems like a sort of religious right position
>>>>> (maybe I'm totally wrong)  So, would anyone toss away democracy in
>>>>> favor
>>>>> of a monarch? How can this notion not be "largely ideal"  when it
>>>>> hinges
>>>>> upon the character of a single person?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if I'm making this clear. I'm trying to understand how
>>>>> this
>>>>> can be considered the highest state of governance in a practical,
>>>>> non-ideal world.
>>>>>
>>>>> just asking...
>>>>>
>>>>> ~Witz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Urth Mailing List
>>>>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>>>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Urth Mailing List
>>>>To post, write urth at urth.net
>>>>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Urth Mailing List
>>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Urth Mailing List
>>To post, write urth at urth.net
>>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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