Oannes

David Stockhoff · 20 Mar 2012, 17:03 · from 2012-March.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: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:03:13 -0400
Subject: (urth) Oannes
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W412E366DE07DE6FBA5D279CF430 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W412E366DE07DE6FBA5D279CF430 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4F68B851.7000003 at verizon.net>

On 3/20/2012 12:45 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
>
>> David Stockhoff: I agree. I don't see how an evolving deity could be
>> anything but an evolving perception of that deity. Plainly, that has
>> always fascinated Wolfe.
> I agree about the fascination. And Wolfe's use of a first person narrator
> throughout the Sun Series ensures we understand that all we are hearing is
> filtered through human perception and writing.
>
> Such a premise is based on an assumption. One assumption is atheistic:
> that there is no real God.  God consists only of what human minds think
> about him.  Before the first humans there was no God and he will disappear
> when there are no longer any humans around to think about him.  Is Wolfe
> suggesting this scenario?

No.
>
> Another assumption is that there is a one true God who is perfect and
> choiceless and unchanging. As you suggest, any perceived changes or
> personification of such a God (including calling it "He") are false. They
> are simply projections of human imperfection on a perfect God. But this
> means all religions are equally valid and/or equally false. Hindus, Christians
> and animists are all equally human and thus equally right and wrong about the
> unknowable perfection of the "real" God. How could one group of humans have
> a better grasp of the infinite than another?
Yes.
>
> Well, I'm frustrated at the digression. What I'm saying is this: In Long/Short Sun we have a pantheon of false electronic gods who are shuffled like cards and replaced in new forms, becoming closer and perhaps a part of The Outsider in the  process. In BotNS we have a pantheon of sea (and earth) gods who are similarly replaced. Was this shuffling important to The Increate/Outsider? Did it have an  impact on Him? If not, why even tell the stories?
Because they have an impact on the characters.
> (my impression of The Increate from BotNS is that he might best be described AS a universal story, which is being  played out). Ah never mind. I don't know what I'm saying.
I think what you may have run into here is that, while there is 
certainly /conflict, /there may or may not be /development /in the 
characters' perceptions of the true god. So to rephrase your question: 
why tell stories of gods revealing their changing "natures" to 
characters if the characters' idea of these gods does not change? Fair 
question. I think Silk's does, as has been discussed. Severian ... who 
knows. He's seen enough to blow several people's minds.

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