Faterh Inire Theory

Gerry Quinn · 13 Dec 2010, 16:50 · from 2010-December.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: gerryq at indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:50:03 -0000
Subject: (urth) Faterh Inire Theory
References: <SNT123-W17F6BA3B7F06F81F719B5CF120 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1A220AD459F147C0BD23F02E8BE0DB61@jill>

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>
>>Gerry Quinn- There are mailing lists devoted to Star Trek.  This one, 
>>however, is concerned
>>with the works of Gene Wolfe  I find the latter considerably more 
>>interesting.
>
> Now that's a snotty comment, heh! But an honest opinion I'm sure. Please 
> consider that I am
> not writing with you only as an audience. I don't know if you have any 
> background in public
> speaking or performance as I do but if ever called to the task I recommend 
> occasional
> humorous departures from your main subject as a way to avoid being a total 
> bore to your audience.

For a fact I do try to include an occasional touch of humour.  Perhaps my 
witticisms are missing the target.

Do you also find your audiences respond well to patronisation?

As for Star Trek, it certainly has its merits, but its medium, format and 
audience militate against the subtle themes and expressions we look for in 
Wolfe's books.  That is all I am saying.  That it can do some things better 
than Wolfe's books is also certainly true; I just do not think they are 
mostly the same things we discuss here.

> Actually, this whole thread about Gerry's worldview is probably off-topic 
> enough to warrant a
> reprimand from Ranjit. (sorry R. I'll try to wrap it up quickly!).
>
> Do you believe in evolution?
>
>>That question is easier.  Of course I do.
>
> I ask because you seem to have a somewhat (or perhaps totally) religious 
> attachment to rationality
> and logic as tools for understanding the universe. I see no signs that you 
> question their supremacy
> or brook any competition from other forms of interpretation and 
> understanding. So, within an evolutionary
> framework,  I am wondering how you think such ultimate universal tools 
> came to reside in the brains of
> creatures closer to our ape cousins than mice are to rats.

Are we closer to apes than mice are to rats?  Mice and rats would certainly 
think so. I guess it would depend on your criteria.  (Genetic distance is 
one possible criterion, but there are others.)

As for tools other than rationality and logic, I do not in the least 
discount them.  I assert that the best understanding comes when we use all 
our tools, not just some.  From my perspective, you seem averse to using the 
tools of rationality and logic, lest they show you something you do not 
like.

> Do you have a sense of 2001: A.S.O. stuff going on where something like 
> black rectangles from space
> uplifted us from animals lookng for bananas to divine masters of 
> perception?
>
> Or is it based on the evolutionary principle of diversity and range. Some 
> (surely most) human beings use
> their limited rational and logical abilities simply to chase resources and 
> sex and comfort. While some
> human beings are endowed with an extra-large dose of these abilities (like 
> having a longer tail) and only
> these few superior humans can use their gifts to plumb the deepest 
> mysteries of the universe (which includes
> Gene Wolfe books.

I do not think the distinction between the abilities of individuals is as 
strong as you indicate above (most people can learn to read and enjoy it, 
IMO) - nor do I think that the ability to appreciate Gene Wolfe is a special 
mark of superiority, although it is probably less common than the ability to 
appreciate Star Trek.  And I think we all attempt to plumb the mysteries of 
the universe, in our different ways.

I don't see the "diversity and range"  principle as especially relevant 
here.  For whatever reasons, we appear to have evolved not just rationality 
and logic, but an an ability to create and appreciate art, be it Wolfe, Star 
Trek, or other forms, low or high.  This is an ability shared by every 
human, and used by every human, although perhaps not to the same degree in 
all.  What vestiges of such abilities are detectible in the behaviour of 
apes is something I am not qualified to judge.  Certainly there is some 
common mental ground between ourselves and apes (or other creatures).

> Or is there another explanation you have? I am really interested Gerry. 
> You are a case in study as your flow
> of thinking is so different than my current flow. Actually I would be 
> interested in your age also. (I am 49).

I am 51, so it would appear that a generational difference may be discounted 
as a possibility.  However, I do not believe my thinking is quite so unusual 
or anomalous as you imagine.  You are focused on me because I have 
challenged your theories, but I suspect many others would have questions 
along the some lines as those I have put forward.

- Gerry Quinn

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