(urth) Pike's ghost

[David Stockhoff]

On 11/28/2011 1:37 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
> 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:
>>>>> 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.

I'd put the likely resemblance as a little stronger than "a wee bit," 
but if we're talking about a minimum (potentially after surgery, scars, 
etc.) then I agree, especially since the discussion was about looking 
"exactly" like an original.

However, I think some attention to the word "parody" in the sense of 
"caricature" is in order. A caricature is the very opposite of an exact 
copy, in that it exaggerates salient features. So does propaganda.
>
>>> 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.

Please let us know when have an argument for this conclusion, or at 
least when you care to show a logical path to it, other than simply 
repeating your assertion.
>
>> 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.

No, it's that it isn't. See my argument.
>
>>>> 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.

Now, don't you know what asserting assumptions makes out of you and me?

If you frequently run into clones who look exactly like their originals, 
that would be a good answer. If you don't, then on what do you base your 
assumption?
>
>>>> 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.

Um, okay. But someone mentioned parody, which usually suggests careful 
exaggeration as a technique. See above.
>
>> 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.)

You said Typhon commissioned the portrait with two heads; you said he 
was fixated on people seeing his original face. If you see no tension 
there, forget it.

For all we know, Typhon did NOT commission either painting. He may not 
have had total control of it, or "died" before the Whorl was launched. 
It was a huge project.
>
>>>> 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?

You are continuing to assume that Blond and Silk are totally identical. 
Given that assumption, you're right: the sentence should read either 
"Both were Silk's" or "One was Silk's."

But given the assumption that Silk does NOT exactly resemble Typhon, the 
sentence should read either "One was Silk's" or "One was Silk's."

So we can rule out only that Silk replaced Piaton AND he and Typhon are 
identical. Both seem implausible to me; there are too many 
identifications of Silk with Typhon and too little evidence that Silk 
looks exactly like Typhon.

We are after all talking about a text written by Wolfe. If he had wanted 
to be clearer he would have said "The lighter one was..." or "The darker 
one was now..."