S&S vs. SF in BotNS

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 22 Dec 2011, 18:20 · from 2011-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: danldo at gmail.com (Dan'l Danehy-Oakes)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:20:20 -0800
Subject: (urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS
In-Reply-To: <3850EDE39C6542408D247D83E4BD7317@Rover>
References: <SNT123-W188091270D9F984D184E75CFAA0 at phx.gbl>
	<CAJ8=rtiiF1rc9--SXN88=i1JL-W4sK+XGexECUExDgifFr50xg at mail.gmail.com>
	<3850EDE39C6542408D247D83E4BD7317@Rover>
Message-ID: <CAJ8=rtiATymZxj-HuAJbOOD6vMdHLJrTSWKhRX-NV78FK58a8g at mail.gmail.com>

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> Yes, that is a good summary of what I think.

Thank you. I'm glad I didn't misrepresent you.

> And I treat the powers of
> Mucor, for example, as theoretically explicable in terms of such an
> imaginary realistic process.

Okay, so far as it goes. But...

> We are also told something of the process by which Whorl gods possess people
> ? it involves data transmission of the ?pattern? of the god, presumably the
> program.? And that pattern gets mixed with the mind and personality, at
> least, of the recipient.

Agreed: we are _told_ this. But...

> I don?t think Wolfe talks much about souls as such.? I?m not sure we can
> flatly state that he is postulating that they are an entirely separate thing
> from the mind and its connection to the universe.

...but I think that talking about Lupine fiction, and _especially_ the
Briah cycle, without seeing souls everywhere, is akin to Dr. Crane's
explanation of Silk's enlightenment as a cerebral accident. It is
self-contained and in its way complete, but it misses the point. To
insist that everything be "scientifically" explicable is reasonable;
to say that this is the true explanation is to cut oneself off from
entire layers of meaning.

And the sad thing is that Crane cannot even conceive of what he is
cutting himself off from. Is that true of you also?

(This is a sincere question. I am not trying to "convert" you, but to
understand where you're coming from.)

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

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