TBOTSS and colonialism

Jerry Friedman · 30 May 2002, 19:27 · from urth-v0205.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: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <urth-v0205-1143 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0205/1143.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--- Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adam Stephanides" <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
> > on 5/28/02 3:08 PM, Andy Robertson at andywrobertson at clara.co.uk
> wrote:
> >
> > >> Yes, but I'm not sure the inhumi nature is necessarily more of an
> obstacle
> > >> to becoming virtuous persons than human nature.  Neither group
> comes
> off
> > >> very well in the SS books.
> > >>
> > > Right.   I think I agree with you here.
> >
> > How does this square with your original argument that the inhumi's
> tragedy
> > was that they were incapable by nature of being other than evil, and
> that
> if
> > they were just "humans in drag" this tragedy would be meaningless?
>=20
>=20
> The ghost-soul in the inhumi may attain to a sort of human virtue.  The
> flesh remains evil.   Of course the question is whether "evil" in this
> context means anything other than "evil to humans".
>=20
> It depends on what you mean by "nature", "good" and "evil".

Definitely!

> Also by what "they" refers to when you are talking of the inhumi.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> And the whole point of the inhumi is to put these concepts to the
> Question.
> To Excruciation

In fact, as people have been saying, the distinction between humans
and inhumi seems to be one of degree rather than kind.  I would hate
to share a bedroom with an inhumus, but I'd also hate to share a
prison cell with a human being if we were fed, say, 2000 calories a
day for the two of us.  In both cases the biological imperatives
are going to lead to severe harm to me--it's just that humans have
worked out "modi vivendi" [?] that allow us with our biological
imperatives to co-exist.  So if you're going to call inhumi flesh
evil, I think you have to say the same about human flesh (and you
wouldn't be the first)--ours is just less evil.

And going along with Wolfe's belief in souls, I hardly see that it
matters whether one's soul is unique and acquired at or before one's
birth, or a copy of an existing soul acquired at or before one's
hatching.

Jerry Friedman

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

--=20

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