S&S vs. SF in BotNS

Lee Berman · 22 Dec 2011, 18:57 · 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: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:57:13 -0500
Subject: (urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS
Message-ID: <SNT123-W158D23F725A0FE6FCE6E76CFAA0 at phx.gbl>

>Dan'l Danehy-Oakes:  Well, except in that "science=real" allows for imaginary science like,
>well, hyperdrives and psionics. Perhaps, more nuanced, and I do not mean to speak for Gerry, 
>but here's what I _think_ he might say: Science involves a realistic _process_, and 
>magic/spirituality do not; thus, brushing hyperdrives and psionics with the brush of that 
>process imbues them, at least for the duration of a story, with a certain plausibility.

I really feel that Wolfe is trying to send a diffferent message. What the ancients called
magic, we call science and we tend to denigrate magic to fakery. But 10,000 years hence won't 
some people snicker at the ridiculous belief in "science" we have; laughing at such folly as
neurology and sub-atomic physics as we snicker at thunderbolts from Zeus and witches riding
brooms?

There is a Wolfe story about his correspondence with someone who (iirc) wanted to convince him
there was no such thing as cheese because it was really just denatured, re-organized lactose and 
proteins, etc. And wolfe saying, no he was eating a sandwich at the moment and it had cheese
on it (not a scientific reductionist explanation for cheese). In another quote, Wolfe notes 
that some people don't believe in witches but he could produce one, if asked.  There is 
so-called "objective reality" and there is "experiential reality" and neither is sufficent by
itself to understand the world.

>Dan'l: 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.)

I have had discussions myself with Gerry on layers of meaning so I hate to interfere in the current
productive (imho) conversation. But I would like to ask Dan'l if, when he is discussing missing
layers of meaning if he means only in the context of Wolfe literature or also in the realm of our
lives and the universe.

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