(urth) "Principlesofgovernaaance"GeneWolfe's Politics

Thu Apr 2 11:05:08 PDT 2009

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
>