Dionysus, the Mausoleum

Son of Witz · 21 Dec 2010, 17:44 · 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: Sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org (Son of Witz)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 09:44:16 -0800
Subject: (urth) Dionysus, the Mausoleum
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W37CC4D5274D38D0FFC02DBCF1A0 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W37CC4D5274D38D0FFC02DBCF1A0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <803A1688-FE2C-41A6-95B3-9A9947A43062 at butcherbaker.org>



Lee, Gerry's point is valid. There IS a better description of the elephant.
He does NOT put himself in the shoes of this "Sighted Man".

I see it more like:

Lee: (holding the tail) "This tail is far out, I think this must be a Hermaphrodon, the beast with both genders!"
And, Gerry, who has made an exhaustive search up that leg says, "no, no no, I've got a firm GRASP on this beast's sex. It is NOT a Hermaphrodon."

None of us has the whole map, but if we share and dispute, we might come to an accurate description of the Elephant in the Book.

~Witz

On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>> What I think we have is like the parable of the elephant and the six blind men describing it 
>> by parts (it's like a "hose", "spear", "fan",  "wall" "tree trunk","rope").
> 
> 
>> Gerry Quinn- If we are to take the parable seriously, there *is* a good description "an 
>> elephant" which reconciles these varying partial explanations.
> 
> No, you miss the point of the analogy here. There is only a "good" description of the
> entirety of the elephant if there is a sighted man present. Each blind man "sees" with
> his hands and can never "see" the entirety of something as large as an elephant. A sighted
> man can step back and see the whole animal.
> 
> Gerry, by setting yourself up as a valid judge of rightness or validity, you are suggesting
> you are the only sighted man in a roomful of blind guys and their theories. Are you Gene Wolfe?
> 
> If we are attempting to discern Gene Wolfe's intentions (as I am) I would say only Gene Wolfe can
> be said to be a sighted man, and he ain't talking (much). So, seriously Gerry, are you him?
> 
> If we are all not-Gene Wolfe here I think we are all equally blind men and our only hope is to
> rely on each other. I see every other contributor here as sane, intelligent and familiar with 
> Gene Wolfe. If I tell them their ideas are wrong I'm suggesting they are either stupid, unfamiliar
> with Wolfe or mentally ill.
> 
> I am suggesting that if you have made a detailed study of the elephant's leg and know each wrinkle, hair
> and toenail, I'm not going to dismiss your ideas because they don't fit in with my study of the trunk. I
> think we should all admit that none of us have the capacity to grasp the elephant as a whole.
> 
> I am also hesitant to dismiss the loon who is wandering about, not even touching the elephant. His discovery 
> of gaps in the nearby foliage might make his "hedge trimmer" theory at least as relevant to understand the
> elephant as the theory of the guy studying the tail.
> 
>                           
> _______________________________________________
> 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