(urth) Pike's ghost

[António Marques]

David Stockhoff wrote:
> 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.

It does, but recognisability, which is the issue, is a desired feature.

>>>> 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.

The argument for the conclusion was in the paragraphs above the
conclusion, which you skipped.

>>> 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.

Your argument, while tenable, only addresses a part of the issue, and 
there is a world of difference between 'this isn't 100% certain' and 
'the likelihood of this is 50%'.

>>>>> 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?

Where do you run into clones that do not look almost exactly like their 
originals? (I'm anticipating something about FHC, but for the sake of 
being a discussion of any usefulness, we should be spared the 
FHC-specific bits.) A 'clone' is what we call someone whose DNA came 
from another one. Given the same, or roughly the same, DNA, you end up 
with very similar, if not identical, organisms. I suppose you can tinker 
with the DNA, but there comes a point when it's no longer meaningful to 
refer to the resulting individual as a 'clone'.

Moreover, this was on whether Pas, not Silk, looked like Typhon.

>>>>> 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.

But one it comes to that, I don't know what you're arguing. I've clearly 
said:

- Pas probably looks like Typhon, but one can argue otherwise
- If Silk is Typhon's clone he probably looks like Typhon, but one can 
argue otherwise
- Therefore if Silk is Typhon's clone he probably looks like Pas, but 
one can argue otherwise
- What one cannot argue is that Silk not looking like Pas is evidence 
that Silk is Typhon's clone

I wonder which of the four you find objection with.

>>> 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.

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said the odds were that the 
portrait would be reasonably faithful _but it might as well not be_. 
That's what qualifying the possibilities with 'probably' means.

The _original_ argument was that Pas didn't look like Typhon because, 
otherwise, Silk would have recognised Pas as Typhon and shows no hint of 
doing so. I merely pointed out the problems in that reasoning.

>>>>> 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."

The issue is that I'm not assuming. I said 'if'.

> 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.

I think we can rule out any one in which Silk and Typhon are strikingly 
similar.

> Both seem implausible to me; there are too many
> identifications of Silk with Typhon and too little evidence that Silk
>  looks exactly like Typhon.

And that is why the clone (as opposed to some other blood relationship) 
theory is unsatisfying for most.

> 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..."

Like that couldn't be argued away.