(urth) Babbiehorn?: Was: a sincere question mostly for roy

[António Pedro Marques]

No dia 16/11/2011, às 18:07, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> escreveu:
> --- On Wed, 11/16/11, António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: (urth) Babbiehorn?: Was: a sincere question mostly for roy
>> To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
>> Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 7:51 AM
>> Marc Aramini wrote (16-11-2011
>> 15:29):
>>> I don't know what you are saying here Antonio.
>> 
>> Isn't it clear? I'm pointing out an objective, textual way
>> to determine who is who. It's one thing to posit that a part
>> of Horn went into Babbie because that helps us make sense of
>> the story, another to find mechanistic
>> corroboration for it. It's one thing to notice Babbie
>> springs to defend
>> Hide, another to demosntrate why it can't be [just] Babbie.
>> And along with
>> that, a way to gauge how much of Horn is still present in
>> the Rajan at
>> various times later on. Does someone have the time to go
>> through all the
>> dream sequences to establish that? It might be useful to
>> know, in order to
>> understand his motivations.
>> 
>> ('Objective' doesn't mean uber-cool. It means anyone can
>> apply the same method and get the same result.)
>> ('Textual' doesn't mean superior. It means we'll be taken
>> wherever applying the method to the text takes us, not the
>> other way round.)
>> 
> 
> The mechanism is the trees,

I was talking about a mechanism to interpret the text, not the mechanism for dream travel. 

> linked over and over to the Neighbors, at the crux point where horn says good-bye at the end of OBW.  Of course a part of him is still in Silk, but it is only a fragment, as left behind by any possession.

I think there is something in James's Neighbour theory, but I don't think the Rajan is a Neighbour. 
>