Pike's ghost

António Pedro Marques · 28 Nov 2011, 17:02 · from 2011-November.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: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:02:34 +0000
Subject: (urth) Pike's ghost
In-Reply-To: <4ED3ABE8.8060807 at verizon.net>
References: <SNT123-W32DE1E1E63A572375FA831CFB20 at phx.gbl>
	<70C71EDFDC3B4AEBA0FD38FD41FB8551@Rover>
	<4ED39725.9090804 at gmail.com> <4ED3ABE8.8060807 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <4ED3BEAA.1080107 at gmail.com>

David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 15:42):
> On 11/28/2011 9:13 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>> Gerry Quinn wrote (28-11-2011 13:10):
>>> *From:* Lee Berman <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>
>>>
>>>> Yes. There is an additional bit of evidence. In the back of a
>>>> manteion, during a search for a working window, iirc, Silk
>>>> discovers a painting of "Pas" depicting him presiding over an orgy
>>>> scene of sexual debauchery. The nursing of erection(s) presents us
>>>> with a clear clue that Pas is the Typhon that Severian meets and
>>>> that the depiction of his tyrannical perversions is accurate.
>>>>
>>>> There is no glimmer of recognition in Silk. No jog of memory of
>>>> some hint in the Chrasmologic Writings or anything. Silk just
>>>> considers it utter blasphemy, destroys it on the spot and never
>>>> mentions it again (iirc).
>>>
>>> Actually this is quite incorrect. Silk recognises the painting as a
>>> ?crude mockery of Campion?s celebrated painting of Pas enthroned?.
>>> Campion?s painting was probably created at the time the Whorl was
>>> being fitted out (it shows bulldozers, referred to as taluses), and
>>> in the Whorl, which is unlikely to be as prone to viral images as our
>>> current society, would have needed some time to become famous. The
>>> obscene parody, then, was presumably created much later.
>>
>> Either way, what is meant by 'recognition'? If it's that Silk doesn't
>> recognise Typhon, there's no reason he should, he's never met him. If
>> it's that Silk doesn't recognise himself, well, one more hint that he
>> doesn't look like Pas (who probably looks like Typhon, and if he
>> doesn't it's at best neutral data, not evidence for anything).
>
> There's no real reason, even if he is a clone, why Silk should look that
>  much like a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to
> glorify him.

There *is* a real reason. It may not be asbolute, but it certainly isn't absent.

However, the issue is whether Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar is
evidence for or against Silk being Typhon's clone: and the conclusion is
that while it need not be against it, it certainly isn't for it.

> How do we even know Pas looks that much like Typhon?

I'm not sure we do, but it would be logical.

> Would a reborn/genetic Jesus recognize his official portrait?

If his official portrait had been commissioned by the original Jesus, who
had a fixation with his likeness? I think so.

> Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas by Khypris)
> replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk ridden or rider?

Have none. The only certain part is that Pas's heads were Piaton and 
Typhon's, not two Typhon'ss (ELS 526-7).

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