The Best Introduction to the Mountains

Adam Stephanides · 09 Feb 2002, 01:41 · from urth-v0202.mbox · original

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: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) The Best Introduction to the Mountains
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 19:41:56 -0600
Message-ID: <urth-v0202-109 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0202/109.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

on 2/6/02 5:10 PM, Thomas Bitterman at tom at bitterman.net wrote:

> The RCC is pretty picky about things that are merely "teachings" but not
> dogma.  Note
> the animosity between the Pope and many American Catholics on birth
> control.  Given
> Wolfe's conservative nature it seems reasonable to believe he submits to
> most teachings.

There are plenty of conservative Catholics who believe that abolishing the
Latin mass was a mistake.

> Adam Stephanides wrote:
>=20
>> You quoted the Encyclopedia earlier as quoting Aquinas describing a "a
>> tyrannical law" as "not being according to reason."  I don't see that the
>> rulers of Dorp fall under this definition.  They're corrupt and unjust, =
but
>> probably no worse than the average medieval ruler or lord; and presumably
>> Aquinas would not give a definition of tyranny which would justify rebel=
lion
>> against most rulers.
>>=20
> That's debatable.  Church-state relationships were hardly cozy during
> the period that Aquinas
> wrote.  The fact that most (if not all) medieval rulers were unjust was
> a handy weapon for the
> Pope in those fights.

While there was rivalry between secular and ecclesiastical authority in the
middle ages, the Church had no desire to propound a theory which would give
peasants a generalized right to rebel.  Most bishops and abbots were from
the nobility, and many exercised temporal lordship in their own right
(including the Pope).

> You give good reasons.  I would view Silk, however, in the role of the
> RCC, not as an
> ordinary member of society.  As the representative of the Outsider on
> the Whorl (ie, as
> the representative of God on Earth) he holds ultimate decision-making
> power over
> whether a government is legitimate or not.  In short (in Whorl terms),
> the theory is
> that all government ultimately derives its authority from the Outsider.
> In most
> cases that authority is implicitly granted by the mere fact of the
> authoritiy's existence.
> That does not change the fact, however, that the Outsider (or a suitable
> representative)
> can de-legitimize any authority by withdrawing his support.  Hence,
> Silkhorn is not
> bound by the rules against rebellion becuase he is not rebelling.  He is
> removing the moral authority underneath the government, making it
> tyrannical by fiat, so to speak.

This is an ingenious argument, but I don't think Silkhorn is the
representative of the Outsider on the Whorl.  To be sure, Silk was
enlightened, and given a mission from the Outsider, but that doesn't make
him equivalent to the Pope (if it did, he presumably wouldn't have shut
himself up in a hut with Hyacinth for twenty years).  Nor are we intended to
take his words as divinely inspired a la an Old Testament prophet.  Silk
certainly doesn't think of himself in these terms.  A fortiori this holds
for Silkhorn.

--Adam


--=20

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