Pike's ghost

António Marques · 28 Nov 2011, 20:56 · 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?QW50w7NuaW8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:56:27 +0000
Subject: (urth) Pike's ghost
In-Reply-To: <4ED3DFF2.8050208 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>
	<4ED3D4DC.3000409 at gmail.com> <4ED3DFF2.8050208 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <4ED3F57B.8050104 at gmail.com>

David Stockhoff wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 1:37 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>>> 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.
>
> I'd put the likely resemblance as a little stronger than "a wee bit,"
>  but if we're talking about a minimum (potentially after surgery,
> scars, etc.) then I agree, especially since the discussion was about
> looking "exactly" like an original.
>
> However, I think some attention to the word "parody" in the sense of
>  "caricature" is in order. A caricature is the very opposite of an
> exact copy, in that it exaggerates salient features. So does
> propaganda.

It does, but recognisability, which is the issue, is a desired feature.

>>>> 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.
>
> Please let us know when have an argument for this conclusion, or at
> least when you care to show a logical path to it, other than simply
> repeating your assertion.

The argument for the conclusion was in the paragraphs above the
conclusion, which you skipped.

>>> 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.
>
> No, it's that it isn't. See my argument.

Your argument, while tenable, only addresses a part of the issue, and 
there is a world of difference between 'this isn't 100% certain' and 
'the likelihood of this is 50%'.

>>>>> 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.
>
> Now, don't you know what asserting assumptions makes out of you and
> me?
>
> If you frequently run into clones who look exactly like their
> originals, that would be a good answer. If you don't, then on what do
> you base your assumption?

Where do you run into clones that do not look almost exactly like their 
originals? (I'm anticipating something about FHC, but for the sake of 
being a discussion of any usefulness, we should be spared the 
FHC-specific bits.) A 'clone' is what we call someone whose DNA came 
from another one. Given the same, or roughly the same, DNA, you end up 
with very similar, if not identical, organisms. I suppose you can tinker 
with the DNA, but there comes a point when it's no longer meaningful to 
refer to the resulting individual as a 'clone'.

Moreover, this was on whether Pas, not Silk, looked like Typhon.

>>>>> 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.
>
> Um, okay. But someone mentioned parody, which usually suggests
> careful exaggeration as a technique. See above.

But one it comes to that, I don't know what you're arguing. I've clearly 
said:

- Pas probably looks like Typhon, but one can argue otherwise
- If Silk is Typhon's clone he probably looks like Typhon, but one can 
argue otherwise
- Therefore if Silk is Typhon's clone he probably looks like Pas, but 
one can argue otherwise
- What one cannot argue is that Silk not looking like Pas is evidence 
that Silk is Typhon's clone

I wonder which of the four you find objection with.

>>> 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.)
>
> You said Typhon commissioned the portrait with two heads; you said he
>  was fixated on people seeing his original face. If you see no
> tension there, forget it.
>
> For all we know, Typhon did NOT commission either painting. He may
> not have had total control of it, or "died" before the Whorl was
> launched. It was a huge project.

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said the odds were that the 
portrait would be reasonably faithful _but it might as well not be_. 
That's what qualifying the possibilities with 'probably' means.

The _original_ argument was that Pas didn't look like Typhon because, 
otherwise, Silk would have recognised Pas as Typhon and shows no hint of 
doing so. I merely pointed out the problems in that reasoning.

>>>>> 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?
>
> You are continuing to assume that Blond and Silk are totally
> identical. Given that assumption, you're right: the sentence should
> read either "Both were Silk's" or "One was Silk's."

The issue is that I'm not assuming. I said 'if'.

> But given the assumption that Silk does NOT exactly resemble Typhon,
> the sentence should read either "One was Silk's" or "One was
> Silk's."
>
> So we can rule out only that Silk replaced Piaton AND he and Typhon
> are identical.

I think we can rule out any one in which Silk and Typhon are strikingly 
similar.

> Both seem implausible to me; there are too many
> identifications of Silk with Typhon and too little evidence that Silk
>  looks exactly like Typhon.

And that is why the clone (as opposed to some other blood relationship) 
theory is unsatisfying for most.

> We are after all talking about a text written by Wolfe. If he had
> wanted to be clearer he would have said "The lighter one was..." or
> "The darker one was now..."

Like that couldn't be argued away.
An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net