Hierogrammates, Briah and Yesod

James Wynn · 13 Aug 2010, 14:02 · 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: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:02:11 -0500
Subject: (urth) Hierogrammates, Briah and Yesod
In-Reply-To: <4C647FF5.7020104 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W42A5FAD6E9232923981AECCF970 at phx.gbl>
	<4C647FF5.7020104 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C655063.6080704 at gmail.com>

> Lee to Tony - You probably do not intend it, but your assertions on 
> how your hyoptheses have support do not sit well with many. It's not 
> the hypotheses themselves, it's both your insistence that they have 
> textual support - where most view at bestest a tiny possibility that 
> they aren't outright excluded, i.e., they may be possible readings, 
> but not certainly the 'supported' ones - and your occasional dropping 
> of wild interpretations as if they were obvious and universally 
> accepted. Then you don't really like it when you're called on that. 
> That's what comes across - at best - as sanctimonius.

Lee,

As someone who has faced IMO not-always-fair-play from objectors to his 
exegeses, this is just the way it is. Those most likely to give your 
models and explanations the most careful consideration are also those 
most likely to *hate* your models and explanations at a visceral as well 
as rational level. Which comes first, the visceral or the rational? I 
think I know when _I_ face these objectors, so there's that.

Here's bottom line: If you propose a new explanation regarding the 
*facts* in a Wolfe story, the SOP is that the first people you will hear 
from are those that want to vomit at the very thought of it and have a 
list as long as your arm why. You just have to take it. It's okay to 
show when someone is just sniping from the bushes or not playing fair in 
their arguments. But to impugn their motives for making the arguments is 
not helpful.

It is really unlikely that you will hear much from anyone who finds your 
explanation appealing. Either they thought the same themselves already 
and have nothing to add, or they don't really know enough details to 
help.  I think it is pretty plain that Patera Incus is female. But I've 
only had one person remark on that assertion approving. And that, 
off-list and years after I explained it. I don't expect your mileage to 
vary much.

For the record, I _do_ find your Yesod theory to be viscerally 
appealing. I think the concept of "The Conservation of Justice" would be 
more coherent under your model. I think the New Sun sub-creation would 
be less airy-fairy if it were true. However, at a rational level, I just 
don't see how --taking the text as a whole-- I can get there.

u+16b9

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