Pike's ghost

António Pedro Marques · 28 Nov 2011, 18:37 · 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 18:37:16 +0000
Subject: (urth) Pike's ghost
In-Reply-To: <4ED3CB92.40502 at verizon.net>
References: <SNT123-W32DE1E1E63A572375FA831CFB20 at phx.gbl>
	<70C71EDFDC3B4AEBA0FD38FD41FB8551@Rover>	<4ED39725.9090804 at gmail.com>
	<4ED3ABE8.8060807 at verizon.net> <4ED3BEAA.1080107 at gmail.com>
	<4ED3CB92.40502 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <4ED3D4DC.3000409 at gmail.com>

David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 17:57):
> On 11/28/2011 12:02 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>> 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.
>
> If you think there is a real reason why "why Silk should look that much like
> a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to glorify him" but
> you don't know what it is, would you at least care to say why you think this
> is true?

Clones usually look like the original and parodies usually look like the 
original, so there is just a wee possibility that a clone of someone should 
look a wee bit like a parody of that someone.

>> 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.
>
> I think it is completely neutral in both directions.

It is neither neutral nor otherwise. It may or may not be against it; it may 
not be for it.

> But remember, the
> evidence in question is not "Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar" but
> rather Silk not commenting on it (i.e., Horn not commenting, which really
> means only that Silk didn't tell Horn).
>
> Since Silk would hardly have commented on such a thing to anyone ("By the
> way, Horn, I'm Pas," said Silk ... not!), it can't be evidence of anything
> at all.

It isn't it can't, it's it needn't.

>>> How do we even know Pas looks that much like Typhon?
>>
>> I'm not sure we do, but it would be logical.
>
> Why? Where does this assumption come from?

Where does any assumption ever come from? If Pas was created from Typhon, 
any difference between them would need a rationale. Not having an obvious 
one, it isn't impossible, but it's the less likely option.

>>> 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.
>
> Is there any room in your theory for basic propaganda? You mean the "actual
> Jesus who would do such a thing" would want an exactly correct portrait,
> nothing exaggerated?

When did we begin talking about exageration? I don't think a propaganda 
portrait of Stalin that made him look like Pi?sudski would be effective.

> I grant that it's probably not Typhon's pimply skin or weak chin that gives
> him his charisma, but if you think such portraits are always extremely
> accurate I've got a bridge to sell you.
>
> Note also that he had himself shown with two heads. So much for the theory
> that he just wanted his BLONDE face preserved forever, eh?

(I don't follow this one.)

>>> 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).
>
> Up until then, yes. But the only certain information about his depiction
> including Silk is this:
>
> The face lovelier than any mortal woman's dispersed like smoke.
> In its place stood a bronze-limbed man with rippling muscles and
> two heads.
> One was Silk's.
>
> No mention of any distinction between heads whatsoever.

Aside from the fact that

- if Silk replaced Piaton and there weren't a distinction between Silk and 
Blond, they wouldn't say 'one' was Silk's, as both would be Silk/Blond

- if Silk replaced Blond and there weren't a distinction between Silk and 
Blond, why would they say it was Silk's now, since it had always been?

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