Hierogrammates, Briah and Yesod

DAVID STOCKHOFF · 12 Aug 2010, 20:35 · from 2010-August.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: dstockhoff at verizon.net (DAVID STOCKHOFF)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: (urth) Hierogrammates, Briah and Yesod
In-Reply-To: <4C645979.3030403 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <921279.6662.qm at web84108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I have neither said nor asserted any of those things.

Please don't confuse my posts with Lee's. I like his approach sometimes, but we often reach opposite conclusions.

Do you have any thoughts at all about why the Hieromakers were homologues rather than human beings, outside your interpretation of Tzadkiel's speech? 

--- On Thu, 8/12/10, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Hierogrammates, Briah and Yesod
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Date: Thursday, August 12, 2010, 4:28 PM

DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:
> Right here, giving reasons ...

Which are no more real than their contraries.

> I agree that the homologue interpretation is valid. I don't see any
> confirming reason for it outside an analysis of Tzadkiel's remarks. All
> there is, is pushing the explanation farther and farther away: well,
> there's ANOTHER universe with ANOTHER race, and THEY created YESOD, and ...

Which actually is said in the text. Of course, the text may mean otherwise.

You and Lee seem interested in not having more than two universes, Briah and Yesod. Others see little sense in that idea.

Nor do I see where does youse 'Yesod is our universe' fit, unless it's a parallel interpretation.

> I think that the homologue interpretation is unlikely and the identity
> interpretation correct for the reasons I have given, and is supported
> according to the reasons I have given.
> 
> Imagine a ghost story that ends, "The ghost was ... MYSELF!"
> 
> Now imagine one that ends, "The ghost was ... some guy I never met! Over
> there ... somewhere."
> 
> Which one does Wolfe pick, over and over?

This seems to me to fit into the 'I like this architecture better than others so it is more likely' category. Certainly you're free to think that way, but you'll have to accept it doesn't necessarily constitute evidence for anyone else. I, for one, am simply trying to make sense of the text, not of what I think the text should or aspires to be. The fact that many people don't find your reading convincing doesn't preclude it, but indicates that it is neither universal nor obvious.
_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100812/6ce1bd12/attachment.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net