Faterh Inire Theory

Gerry Quinn · 13 Dec 2010, 19:41 · 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 19:41:59 -0000
Subject: (urth) Faterh Inire Theory
References: <SNT123-W55EE323F36BFE178F662B7CF120 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <677B6C8A47594AE199C33DAE58F28857@jill>

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>>Gerry Quinn- Do you also find your audiences respond well to 
>>patronisation?
>
> I always mirror my audiences in tone. Speaking in their language is the 
> best,
> sometimes only way, to achieve communication.

I do not believe I have patronised you.  If I had avoided criticising your 
interpretations of BotNS and just ignored them, that would have been 
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
>
> And all I am saying is that there is a good chance Gene Wolfe gathered 
> with
> his family each week in the late 60's for episodes of Star Trek as so many 
> American
> families did, including my own. You seem to suggest the show was beneath 
> him and you.
> And the same for me and my family. We have the recent evidence of Ryan 
> saying
> Gene Wolfe's only exposure to a classic legend was a Disney movie. As I 
> was saying,
> in regard to patronisation, I mirror my audience.

I haven't suggested that Star Trek or Pinnochio are beneath anyone. I've 
watched plenty of them.  I do think it somewhat unlikely that the 1991 Star 
Trek movie you mentioned is an influence on BotNS.  But yes, some Star Trek 
episodes from the '60s did indeed feature aliens who looked like, copied or 
emulated Greek gods, for reasons which may have owed as much to wardrobe 
costs as to philosophical inspiration.  Maybe that's where Wolfe got some of 
his ideas, who knows?

>>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.)
>
> Are there? Within the acknowledged evolutionary framework we were 
> discussing,
> what other criterion is there? Are fish and whales close? they look alike, 
> have
> some similar adaptations..but I don't see how that is relevant to our 
> discussion.

We are discussing both evolution and culture.  Obviously genetic distance is 
one obvious criterion from the evolutionary side of things, but its 
relationship to culture seems less obvious.  Furthermore, it could be that a 
lot of the genetic distance between apes and humans relates to brain 
development, while that between mice and rats may have less difference here. 
So it is not obvious that simplistic measurements of genetic difference are 
appropriate here even in their own terms.

>>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.
>
> You seem to discount intuition and gestalt understanding in here. I can't 
> speak to
> your attitude else where. You are descending to rhetorical snottiness 
> rather than
> your true observations. If I was really averse to using the tools of 
> rationality and
> logic then my cheese would be riposted by the hyperbolic perigee of 
> pinballs and gum.

I have stated quite clearly above that I do not discount such tools, but 
*value* them.  I do not think you are valuing logic and rationality enough 
as criteria.  I think that undervaluing logic and rationality leads to 
elephant theories. I don't see any "rhetorical snottiness" in what I said.

>>I am 51, so it would appear that a generational difference may be 
>>discounted
> as a possibility.
>
> Agreed. I asked because there was a time period in my life when I thought 
> and spoke as you
> do now.

Again with the patronisation.  Grow up little Gerry and you will understand 
the true wisdom behind my theory that Typhon is Severian's sister.

>  I think we will have to just agree that we think differently and leave it 
> at that.
> I will defer any last words to you.

What would be the point?  You have almost invariably placed words in my 
mouth rather than deal with those I have already spoken.

- Gerry Quinn

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