(urth) Pike's ghost

[António Pedro Marques]

David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 17:57):
> On 11/28/2011 12:02 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>> David Stockhoff wrote (28-11-2011 15:42):
>>> On 11/28/2011 9:13 AM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>>>> Gerry Quinn wrote (28-11-2011 13:10):
>>>>> *From:* Lee Berman <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. There is an additional bit of evidence. In the back of a
>>>>>> manteion, during a search for a working window, iirc, Silk
>>>>>> discovers a painting of "Pas" depicting him presiding over an orgy
>>>>>> scene of sexual debauchery. The nursing of erection(s) presents us
>>>>>> with a clear clue that Pas is the Typhon that Severian meets and
>>>>>> that the depiction of his tyrannical perversions is accurate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no glimmer of recognition in Silk. No jog of memory of
>>>>>> some hint in the Chrasmologic Writings or anything. Silk just
>>>>>> considers it utter blasphemy, destroys it on the spot and never
>>>>>> mentions it again (iirc).
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually this is quite incorrect. Silk recognises the painting as a
>>>>> “crude mockery of Campion’s celebrated painting of Pas enthroned”.
>>>>> Campion’s painting was probably created at the time the Whorl was
>>>>> being fitted out (it shows bulldozers, referred to as taluses), and
>>>>> in the Whorl, which is unlikely to be as prone to viral images as our
>>>>> current society, would have needed some time to become famous. The
>>>>> obscene parody, then, was presumably created much later.
>>>>
>>>> Either way, what is meant by 'recognition'? If it's that Silk doesn't
>>>> recognise Typhon, there's no reason he should, he's never met him. If
>>>> it's that Silk doesn't recognise himself, well, one more hint that he
>>>> doesn't look like Pas (who probably looks like Typhon, and if he
>>>> doesn't it's at best neutral data, not evidence for anything).
>>>
>>> There's no real reason, even if he is a clone, why Silk should look that
>>> much like a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to
>>> glorify him.
>>
>> There *is* a real reason. It may not be asbolute, but it certainly isn't
>> absent.
>
> If you think there is a real reason why "why Silk should look that much like
> a parody of a painting of Pas that probably was meant to glorify him" but
> you don't know what it is, would you at least care to say why you think this
> is true?

Clones usually look like the original and parodies usually look like the 
original, so there is just a wee possibility that a clone of someone should 
look a wee bit like a parody of that someone.

>> However, the issue is whether Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar is
>> evidence for or against Silk being Typhon's clone: and the conclusion is
>> that while it need not be against it, it certainly isn't for it.
>
> I think it is completely neutral in both directions.

It is neither neutral nor otherwise. It may or may not be against it; it may 
not be for it.

> But remember, the
> evidence in question is not "Silk not finding Pas's likeness familiar" but
> rather Silk not commenting on it (i.e., Horn not commenting, which really
> means only that Silk didn't tell Horn).
>
> Since Silk would hardly have commented on such a thing to anyone ("By the
> way, Horn, I'm Pas," said Silk ... not!), it can't be evidence of anything
> at all.

It isn't it can't, it's it needn't.

>>> How do we even know Pas looks that much like Typhon?
>>
>> I'm not sure we do, but it would be logical.
>
> Why? Where does this assumption come from?

Where does any assumption ever come from? If Pas was created from Typhon, 
any difference between them would need a rationale. Not having an obvious 
one, it isn't impossible, but it's the less likely option.

>>> Would a reborn/genetic Jesus recognize his official portrait?
>>
>> If his official portrait had been commissioned by the original Jesus, who
>> had a fixation with his likeness? I think so.
>
> Is there any room in your theory for basic propaganda? You mean the "actual
> Jesus who would do such a thing" would want an exactly correct portrait,
> nothing exaggerated?

When did we begin talking about exageration? I don't think a propaganda 
portrait of Stalin that made him look like Piłsudski would be effective.

> I grant that it's probably not Typhon's pimply skin or weak chin that gives
> him his charisma, but if you think such portraits are always extremely
> accurate I've got a bridge to sell you.
>
> Note also that he had himself shown with two heads. So much for the theory
> that he just wanted his BLONDE face preserved forever, eh?

(I don't follow this one.)

>>> Any ideas on whether Silk's head (when shown to Silk as Pas by Khypris)
>>> replaced Piaton's or Typhon's head? is Silk ridden or rider?
>>
>> Have none. The only certain part is that Pas's heads were Piaton and
>> Typhon's, not two Typhon'ss (ELS 526-7).
>
> Up until then, yes. But the only certain information about his depiction
> including Silk is this:
>
> The face lovelier than any mortal woman's dispersed like smoke.
> In its place stood a bronze-limbed man with rippling muscles and
> two heads.
> One was Silk's.
>
> No mention of any distinction between heads whatsoever.

Aside from the fact that

- if Silk replaced Piaton and there weren't a distinction between Silk and 
Blond, they wouldn't say 'one' was Silk's, as both would be Silk/Blond

- if Silk replaced Blond and there weren't a distinction between Silk and 
Blond, why would they say it was Silk's now, since it had always been?