(urth) Fish and Caves

[Gerry Quinn]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>


>>>Gerry Quinn: You seem to think that the Solar Cycle has some secret 
>>>history that is its
>>fundamental theme, that is everywhere obscured by misdirection and hidden
>>away in allusions.  I don't subscribe to that. I don't consider it a 
>>negative action to
>>point out problems with proposed explanations.
>
> You are on the right track Gerry, but veer off with the idea of what is 
> "fundamental".
>
> In SotT, Severian and Dorcas discuss the "keys to the universe". In 
> fiction, as has been
> discussed, "universe" is equivalent to "story". I think we are wise to 
> consider the key
> they discuss in relation to the stories in the brown book:
>
>>"...everthing, whatever happens, has three meanings. The first is its 
>>practical meaning...
>>'the thing the plowman sees'. The cow has taken a mouthful of grass and it 
>>is real grass,
>>and a real cow--that meaning is as important and as true as either of the 
>>others.
[--]
> Gerry, your emphasis on the first meaning, the plowman's viewpoint is 
> understandable. You are
> a mathematician and find little value in soothsayers and the 
> transubstantial. You want proof
> and grounding in the physical reality of the universe in everything you 
> think about, be it
> physics, farming or god. This material reality is a very important part of 
> a story and it cannot
> be ignored.
>
> However, you might consider being a good chap and respect the discussion 
> by others regarding
> symbolism and mythology and religion and other such rubbish as is being 
> purported as hidden
> within the words of the story. You do have the author's word that such 
> meanings are of equal
> importance to what you consider to be of sole importance.

I fully accept that there are different levels of meanings to be found. (The 
concept is analogous to and may be derived from Aristotle's theory of 
causes.)  What I do not accept is the idea that every proposed such meaning 
is valid, even if it contradicts the text.

Just as there can be wrong theories regarding the practical meaning, there 
can be wrong theories regarding the soothsayer's meaning or the 
transubstantial meaning.  You seem to consider it disrespectful and a sign 
of smallmindedness when anyone points out a problem with any such proposed 
meaning - or even dares to make a general observation that proposed meanings 
could in principle be wrong!

- Gerry Quinn