(urth) Pike's ghost

[David Stockhoff]

On 11/28/2011 3:56 PM, António Marques wrote:
> 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.

Yes, and?
>
>>>>> 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.

No, I read all of it. You didn't present an argument.
>
>>>> 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%'.

Neither of which is anything you or I wrote.
>
>>>>>> 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'.

Tinker schminker. The critical difference is between genotype and phenotype.
>
> Moreover, this was on whether Pas, not Silk, looked like Typhon.

Right. Pas doesn't need to look like Typhon, since no one on the Whorl 
knows or cares what Typhon looks like. Silk doesn't need to look like 
Typhon, since no one on the Whorl knows or cares what Typhon looks like. 
But Silk should look roughly like Pas, whom no one has seen in a 
generation, if he is a clone of Typhon for Pas to possess. Does he? I 
propose that yes, he looks *roughly* like these two faces few people 
have seen in a generation or more (remember that their magic windows 
don't work). Not enough for anyone to comment on it, but possibly enough 
for Silk to note and NOT comment on it. We'll never know.
>
>>>>>> 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.

None of them. What I object to is your straitjacketing the discussion 
into false categories by ignoring the word *exactly*. Pas probably looks 
roughly like Typhon; Silk probably looks roughly like Typhon; Silk 
probably looks roughly like Pas. What they don't do is look *exactly* 
like each other.

As for your last assertion---so what? Who has argued that? Rather, I 
have stated that it's a matter of the narrative commenting or not 
commenting. It is NOT a simple matter of whether Silk recognizes 
himself. _Silk not looking like Pas is NOT evidence that Silk is NOT 
Typhon's clone_. It's neutral. That's what we're disagreeing on, remember?
>
>>>> 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.

Where did Silk see Typhon when he knew it was Typhon and not Pas?
>
>>>>>> 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'.

I must have missed the "if not" parts.
>
>> 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.

Good!
>
>> 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.

Right, because you ignore the difference between genotype and phenotype.
>
>> 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.

Whatever that means. I will leave it for you to argue.