do the Hierogrammates care about the megatherians?

Jerry Friedman · 25 May 2011, 14:21 · from 2011-May.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: jerry_friedman at yahoo.com (Jerry Friedman)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 07:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: (urth) do the Hierogrammates *care* about the megatherians?
In-Reply-To: <4DD9CC75.1080209 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W220B7E3214FF82B9BAC2DDCF710 at phx.gbl>
	<AE83B76DDD3A4DCCB4C28DABF86BA1B5@jill>
	<4DD6C327.5090406 at gmail.com>
	<535089.18349.qm at web114704.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<4DD6EBE4.5000407 at gmail.com>
	<630092.30979.qm at web114707.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<4DD74F67.8000504 at gmail.com>
	<299575.42228.qm at web114711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<4DD9CC75.1080209 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <614653.8440.qm at web114714.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

> From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>

> 
> > Jerry Friedman:
> > Okay, is there an objection to the idea that  the "megatherian" human rulers 
>were
> > early rulers of Ascia? We don't know  why 17, but if there are 17 sea 
>creatures, we don't know why that
> > number  either.  (Other than the reference to the Politburo in either case,  
>or
> > the speculations in my previous post.)
> > 
> > It's true  that the relation of the present "Group of 17" to these 
>hypothetical
> > 17  founders is vague, but so is the relation of the present "Group of 17" to  
>the
> > hypothetical 17 sea creatures.
> 
> Well, my objection is  this.
> 
> It seems to me we agree that the term "megatherian" is *related* to  the giant 
>alien powers--because Abaia is called a "Great Beast". The only doubt  is 
>whether the term refers _directly_ to the alien powers.
> 
> The "17  stones" and "the Group of 17" are enumerated by human choice. Someone 
>decided  they should be that number. That leaves only the "17 megatherians" 
>_possibly_  NOT being humanly enumerated. So unless the number 17 is derived 
>from some  source unnamed in the book, it seems most likely that the 17 
>Megatherians is the  source of the other two.
> 
> True, it could be that 17 Megatherians and the  Group of 17 are somehow 
>equivalent (getting their name from an association with  the alien powers). But 
>that just adds a level of complication. You have to  suppose why the group of 17 
>got that name, how the government of the Ascians led  to a tradition in the 
>Commonwealth, and any additional issues of  speculation.
> 
> On the other hand, if one accepts that alien powers number  17 and are called 
>Megatherians because they are "like great beasts", then the  selection of the 
>number 17 elsewhere is self-explanatory.
> 
> It is  marginally easier (given the reference to Abaia as a Great Beast) to 
>decide the  alien powers are the Megatherians.
...

Thanks for the reply.  I think we'll have to disagree on what is simpler and 
what is more complicated, what is self-explanatory and what is a puzzle.  But we 
seem to agree that the difference between these two speculations isn't great.

On a related subject, thanks to Nick Gevers for bringing up the "Group of 
Seventeen" that ran the Dutch East India Company.

Jerry Friedman

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