(urth) Shadow, Chapter X

Thu Nov 20 14:07:40 PST 2008

I see that in my previous post, I've come late to a discussion that already covered some of the ground I mentioned. My apologies. (Also for being the second to post that quote from the Jordan interview.)

But, Son of Witz, I have a few questions: What is the significance of Severian's being a "Hypostasis of the Logos"? You said that, in your terms, Jesus was also a "Hypostasis of Logos" but that, because he was tempted, he's not a perfect instatiation. Were you arguing that Severian was a more or less perfect instantiation? To me, it seems that he's *radically* less perfect, and that is the point.

Calling him an instantiation of logos gives Severian a kind of metaphysical priority that I'm not sure I agree with. However, if anyone "good" can be said to be a "Hypostasis of Logos," then I'm with you.

I guess my real question is this: Doesn't it make the story almost infinitely less interesting if we simply discover that Severian was basically divine all along? If that's what we're getting, then, to put it bluntly, there really wasn't much of a story to tell. Everything was fine from the get go, and any doubt about Severian's success or the coming of the New Sun was just a matter of not knowing all the details. There was never anything for Severian to prove or be tested for. All of his concerns about his role as a torturer and what it means to do right in the ambiguous world in which he found himself were just fake problems. But it not only means that there wasn't any real tension in the story all along, it also means that the moral dilemmas which the story so often seemed to be about aren't really something that human beings can relate to. We would screw up because we're human. Severian does good because he's divine. There's nothing for mere humans
 to reflect on except that, shucks, it's too bad we're not divine, too.

I mean, maybe I'm wrong and that's what we're getting all along. But if it is, then what we have is a myth. We don't have a story with tangible human protagonists. Consequently, we shouldn't read the books as a novel about humans interacting with the divine. Instead, we should treat it as a tableau that simply puts images to a theology.

Again, that may be what it is. But if that's what it is, then it's an artifiact of Wolfe's own beliefs which might be of interest to some Catholics. But can it ever be meaningful for anyone else, apart from a fascinating curiosity of one man's very vivid theological imagination?

----- Original Message ----
From: Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 2:10:14 PM
Subject: Re: (urth) Shadow, Chapter X

>> "Hypostasis" is the wrong term for what I think you're
>> trying to convey.  In Christianity the term is used  of
>> Christ to refer to how He can be simultaneously  God
>> and Man.  Other humans are not God in a really  real
>> sense, but they are images of God.  They share  the
>> divine nature in the way that the painting of a  mountain
>> shares the nature of a mountain--you can learn
>> something about the mountain by looking at it,
>> but not everything.

I'm using the word in the sense of an Instance in the physical world.
IF the Logos manifests as a man, that is an instance of that energy, a hypostasis of that energy into flesh.  So, yes, Jesus is a Hypostasis of the Logos.

>>
>> Christ, Christians believe, shared the nature of God in
>> a really real sense--they are consubstantial, identical
>> in essence.

Yes, I'm not arguing against that.

>In this connection, it might be helpful to remember what Wolfe agrees to in  
>his interview with James Jordan, namely, that Severian is NOT a Christ figure, 
> but is a "Christian figure."  He is not the God-man, the incarnation of the  
>Son, but he is someone whose life (which, of course, begins in BoTNS, with  
>baptism in the chapter "Death and Resurrection") is being conformed to the  
>pattern of Christ's.
> 

I'm convinced that Wolfe is being sort of disingenuous here.
A) He's inspired by Borges, and in Tlon, Orbis and Uqbar, as Mantis wisely points us to as a template of sorts to BoTNS, we find him saying (paraphrasing) that they were devising ways to make a first person narrator who lies and omits such that VERY FEW will understand the amazing or mundane truth within.  Well, what could be more mundane or amazing that the character is an analogue of Christ.  To a huge chunk of the potential audience, this would be a MAJOR turn off. "christian metaphor, NEXT"  and to some, who suss it out and are sensitive to the Christian message, Amazing.

B) many Christians would also find the notion of an Exucutioner Christ to be beyond the pale of heresy and think this book was some sort of evil perversion.

C)I think the ONLY REAL mystery of BoTNS, having just finished the 4 books a second time, is "Is Severian the Conciliator/NewSun"  All the other labyrinthian mysteries are just decoration.  And, URTH of the New Sun answers this mystery. Yes he is.

But understand, when I say Christ or the Logos, I'm not necessarily talking about Jesus.  I don't even believe in Jesus, yet I'm convinced that the LOGOS is very real. The pope recently reminded the world that Christ IS the Logos.  
It seems people have a hard time separating the worldly instance (Jesus) from the Eternal Essence (LOGOS)

And if he's not an analogue Christ, Why is he carrying a cross around for 3 1/2 books?  No one has addressed the ideas about this that I posted in October.  
http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/2008-October/010121.html

~sonofwitz

>
>**************One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, 
>and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com 
>today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?redir=http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp
>%26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001)
>

_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net