(urth) Hunter of the East

[Gerry Quinn]

From: Jeff Wilson 

On 11/13/2011 8:48 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> >  > The sky is not a reflection. You are imagining a mirror, and a
> > refection, all your own.
> >  > You are creating your own poem here.
> > The ‘noose of light’ around the turret is reflected sunlight. It’s not
> > exactly a conventional mirror, but when you see it you *are* seeing the
> > Sun.

> I think you are reaching here, Gerry, and if it's to make a point that 
> point is eluding me.
Two different issues here.  The first is what the poet means by “noose of light” and the second is the question of whether the Sun is actually present, or to what degree its presence and relevance are implied.


> There might be a reflected image of the sun visible *in* the surface of 
> a turret, but I don't see how the reflection could surround the turret 
> without some further, smooth background object to cast the reflection. 

You are correct in that the ‘noose’ cannot really stretch all the way around the tower.  But don’t forget that the viewer can only see 180 degrees, and can imagine the rest.

I had a quick glance at Google images – the large skyscraper at centre right in the image below is close to the sort of image I was thinking of, even though the ‘noose’ is incomplete.  But maybe the hunter is pulling from the right and the noose does not contact the beast’s neck there! 
 http://photholic.com/sky/tokyo-tower-at-dawn/

I thought of this imagery right away for ‘noose of light’.  Maybe I’m getting what the poet meant, or maybe I’m more idiosyncratic than I supposed.


Okay, now the question of seeing the Sun:

> If the sunlight need only be reflected by anything to count as letting 
> the observer see the sun, then *everything* not self-luminous shows us 
> the sun, and the distinction of the noose is meaningless.

There’s been a fair amount of philosophical discussion regarding the epistemology of what it means to see someone or something.  Let’s not go there!  I think, however, most would agree that to see something means, in general, to be reliably informed of that thing’s presence by a visual signal emanating from it.  [Of course there can be a billion nuances.]

I used the example of a mirror as a case where no light from something impinges on our eyes, and yet almost everyone would agree that we see the thing, almost as if we saw it head on.  A periscope would be another example.  In one sense the soldier in the trench cannot see the enemy; in another sense he can see them very well using his periscope.  What if he can only see their uniforms, and cannot see the skin of an actual enemy?  We start to decide whether he can see the enemy in terms of the *reliability* of the connection of what he sees to the presence and location of the enemy.  We are worried that they may have placed their uniforms on sticks and are quietly approaching the trench from another direction.  In this case, the soldier is not actually seeing the enemy at all – he only thinks he is.   And that would apply also if he could use his eyes directly – though the enemy might be less likely to get away with it.

Similar considerations apply to all the senses.  Does the mouse hear the cat when he hears its bell?

Okay, back to the Sun and the light it shines on the Sultan’s Turret.  My argument is that the light is of a colour and configuration that is characteristic of the rising Sun and of nothing else (okay, it could be a nuclear detonation in the desert, or an elaborate light-show contrived to fool us, but such things are unlikely).  We see it and we reliably and specifically know the exact direction of the Sun, and it’s condition and actions (it is about to rise).  

One can debate, I suppose, about whether we ‘see’ the Sun here.  But the question originally asked was “where is the rising sun in the poem”.  I say it is just there, over the horizon in that direction.  We will see it in a moment and its effects already dominate everything we see, from the pale morning sky that has replaced the bowl of night with its stars, to the light shining around the tops of towers, which the over-imaginative may see as a noose.  The Sun is unequivocally *present* in the poem; it is everywhere in it.

And I do not believe that is the case with Orion.  Certainly he is known to be among the vanquished stars, and the astronomically inclined can probable point in a particular direction, depending on the time of year.  But is he a presence, any more than (say) Sagittarius or the Milky Way?  I don’t think so, and I don’t think the mere use of the word ‘Hunter’ is enough to bring him into the picture.  I guess one reason I feel so strongly about that is that I think I ‘get’ the ‘noose of light’ imagery, and once one accepts that the noose of light is cast by the Sun, it makes even less sense to me to be thinking about Orion since ‘Hunter’ is completely explained.


> Perhaps the noose is the circular limb of the solar disc itself, or the 
> refractory halo in the atmosphere, with the suiltan's turret silhouetted 
> against it. Some representative photos:
> 
> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111112.html
> 
> http://www.upiu.com/other/2011/03/19/Ecuador-atmospheric-phenomena-seen-around-the-sun/UPIU-301300519322/

These don’t really work well for me.  The first one isn’t really a noose, and apart from that it could be around anything, not especially the high tower implied by “Sultan’s Turret”.  In fact, we would expect it to be, at least at first, around a low object.

The second is more of a noose, but the Sun does not often have such a halo, and it’s even suggested in the link that you would expect to see it at midday rather than dawn.

- Gerry Quinn






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111114/a6e71a90/attachment-0004.htm>