(urth) "Principlesofgovernaaance"GeneWolllfe's Politics

[Son of Witz]

Thanks for your help there, Brunians. priceless.



>-----Original Message-----
>From: brunians at brunians.org [mailto:brunians at brunians.org]
>Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:05 AM
>To: 'The Urth Mailing List'
>Subject: Re: (urth) "Principlesofgovernaaance"GeneWolfe's    Politics
>
>OK, reread it and read the other three.
>
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>> I read The Prince a LONG time ago...
>>
>> ~witz
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: brunians at brunians.org [mailto:brunians at brunians.org]
>>>Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:48 AM
>>>To: 'The Urth Mailing List'
>>>Subject: Re: (urth) "Principlesofgovernaaance"Gene Wolfe's Politics
>>>
>>>Witz: go read Plato's "Republic", Aristotle's "Politics" and Niccolo
>>>Machiavelli's two works "Discourses On The First Ten Books Of Titus
>>>Livius" and "The Prince".
>>>
>>>This will give you the vocabulary that you currently lack for discussing
>>>this kind of thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>>>
>>>> refresher quote, questions below:
>>>>
>>>> SHADOW XXXII Five Legs:
>>>> """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>>>> "Severian. Name for me the seven principles of governance."
>>>> It was an effort for me to speak, but I managed (in my dream, if it was
>>>> a
>>>> dream)to say, "I do not recall that we have studied such a thing,
>>>> Master."
>>>> "You were always the most careless of my boys," he told me, and fell
>>>> silent.
>>>> A foreboding grew on me; I sensed that if I did not reply, some tragedy
>>>> would
>>>> occur. At last I began weakly, "Anarchy . . ."
>>>> "That is not governance, but the lack of it. I taught you that it
>>>> precedes
>>>> all governance. Now list the seven sorts."
>>>> "Attachment to the person of the monarch. Attachment to a bloodline or
>>>> other
>>>> sequence of succession. Attachment to the royal state. Attachment to a
>>>> code
>>>> legitimizing the governing state. Attachment to the law only.
>>>> Attachment
>>>> to a
>>>> greater or lesser board of electors, as framers of the law. Attachment
>>>> to
>>>> an
>>>> abstraction conceived as including the body of electors, other bodies
>>>> giving
>>>> rise to them, and numerous other elements, largely ideal."
>>>> "Tolerable. Of these, which is the earliest form, and which the
>>>> highest?"
>>>> "The development is in the order given, Master," I said. "But I do not
>>>> recall
>>>> that you ever asked before which was highest?'
>>>> Master Malrubius leaned forward, his eyes burning brighter than the
>>>> coals
>>>> of the
>>>> fire. "Which is highest, Severian?"
>>>> "The last, Master?"
>>>> "You mean attachment to an abstraction conceived as including the body
>>>> of
>>>> electors, other bodies giving rise to them, and numerous other
>>>> elements,
>>>> largely ideal?"
>>>> "Yes, Master."
>>>> "Of what kind, Severian, is your own attachment to the Divine Entity?"
>>>> I said nothing. It may have been that I was thinking; but if so, my
>>>> mind
>>>> was too much filled with sleep to be conscious of its thought. Instead,
>>>> I
>>>> became
>>>> profoundly aware of my physical surroundings. The sky above my face in
>>>> all
>>>> its
>>>> grandeur seemed to have been made solely for my benefit, and to be
>>>> presented for my inspection now. I lay upon the ground as upon a woman,
>>>> and the very air that surrounded me seemed a thing as admirable as
>>>> crystal
>>>> and as fluid as wine.
>>>> "Answer me, Severian."
>>>> "The first, if I have any."
>>>> "To the person of the monarch?"
>>>> "Yes, because there is no succession."
>>>> "The animal that rests beside you now would die for you. Of what kind
>>>> is
>>>> his
>>>> attachment to you?"
>>>> "The first?"
>>>> """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>>>>
>>>> ok, is the last one meant to be a joke about our current situation?
>>>> Abstraction, largely ideal.
>>>>
>>>> maybe some conservatives can help me out here.
>>>> "Attachment to the person of the monarch"
>>>>
>>>> On one hand, I don't understand how "Attachment to" is governance.  Are
>>>> the people attached, or is the governance attached?
>>>>
>>>> Another question this brings up for me.  This notion of a Divine
>>>> Ruler...
>>>> You get it in the Grail myths, and I suppose in the Jesus Myth, this
>>>> idea
>>>> of bringing back the Divine King. I'm not sure if that's right, but
>>>> it's
>>>> something that seems to come up in various traditions.  Anyway, While
>>>> anyone could sort of get behind letting God's Vicar rule, if it could
>>>> be
>>>> proven. Yet we've had plenty of crappy rulers claiming God's mandate.
>>>> anyway, How can this idea of a Monarch that is the best system jibe
>>>> with
>>>> reality lacking an unambiguous 'seal of approval' from God?
>>>>
>>>> Let me rephrase?  This seems like a sort of religious right position
>>>> (maybe I'm totally wrong)  So, would anyone toss away democracy in
>>>> favor
>>>> of a monarch? How can this notion not be "largely ideal"  when it
>>>> hinges
>>>> upon the character of a single person?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if I'm making this clear. I'm trying to understand how
>>>> this
>>>> can be considered the highest state of governance in a practical,
>>>> non-ideal world.
>>>>
>>>> just asking...
>>>>
>>>> ~Witz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Urth Mailing List
>>>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Urth Mailing List
>>>To post, write urth at urth.net
>>>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Urth Mailing List
>To post, write urth at urth.net
>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>