wright's book

Interesting. After searching through the archives of this list, it seems to me that it's been a while since anyone talked much about the thesis of Peter Wright's "God-games" articles (though I suspect it is in the background). Of course, I'm still quite new to all this--and, at the moment, interrupting all sorts of other things--but I figured I'd ask: any new thoughts about it? I, as would many others, appreciate many of the things Wright says, but what bothers me in the Foundation articles (and I presume, the book) is the idea that he is somehow demythologizing Urth, Severian, etc. It seems to me that this is largely a good thing to do (removing masks, etc.), but the problem is that there appears to be the assumption (still) that, having done all this deconstructing, we have finally arrived and can understand that all the mythic, religious metaphor was only artifice. And that seems to me fundamentally opposed to the assumptions of the very method used to remove these masks in the first place--there is no end to interpretation, "nothing" (hello Derrida) "outside the text," which means that though Wright might have removed one layer of mythology, he has only succeeded in replacing it with another (his own?). Remember, in relation to all of that, Master Ash's statement about religion and science. snk