(urth) Pike's ghost

[Gerry Quinn]

From: David Stockhoff 
> On 11/29/2011 1:04 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > *From:* David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
> > > On 11/29/2011 12:14 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > > > *From:* David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
> > > > > On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> > > > > > I guess that Silk’s head would replace Piaton’s, then. But I still
> > > > > > think that his intended position will not be the equivalent of
> > > > > > Piaton’s. The two-headed aspect of the god Pas has become real.
> >
> > > > > And ... drum roll ... WHY do you think that? WHY do you guess 
> > > >> > that? WHY?
> > > > Lots of reasons. Presumably Kypris doesn’t show Silk his own head
> > > > gasping. And I don;t think she’s trying to trick him either. Also, in
> > > > RttW he seems to play a role in Pas/Silk that is greater than 
> > > > Piaton’s
> > > > role in Typhon/Piaton. And it fits with the concept of the evolution
> > > > of our idea of god which Wolfe seems to imply in the text.
>
> > > Thanks for reminding me why I decided to stop talking to you.
> > Your response puzzles me. Perhaps the “drum roll” interjection is 
> > intended to represent some sort of victory screech, but I cannot see 
> > in what argument you are victorious or even guess in what argument you 
> > think you are.

> And I cannot guess where you get the idea that I think I'm victorious, 
> or why you think "victory" is the central point.

So what was the point you were making, then?  Do you disagree with my reasoning regarding the role of Silk in Pas/Silk?

> Much of the difficulty in talking to you is on full display here. You 
> come up with half-processed semi-random stuff out of nowhere and relate 
> it to nothing, with no stated assumptions and no attempt at conclusions. 
> You don't bother to follow a logical flow of /if/ and /then/. You don't 
> define your terms. And then you get personal.

This is so weird.  An aspect of the storyline was mentioned (the relationship of Silk to Pas/Silk) and I said what I think about it.  You asked me why and I told you the reasons.  I didn’t think too hard about them, but they hardly qualify as “half-processed semi-random stuff” – they are pretty specific points that support the conclusion that Silk in Pas/Silk is not a new Piaton.  Or do you disagree?

I don’t think I produce semi-random stuff, either half-processed or over-processed. 

> Your answers are worse than meaningless because it takes a week to 
> extract from you what you meant in the first place, if you meant 
> anything.

I answered within minutes, and the thing we are discussing is pretty specific, even if we don’t learn too much in the text.  (I have still to re-read RttW, in which the Pas/silk relationship is probably best defined, and perhaps I will have more detailed thoughts on the subject then.)  But, as I said, the reasons I gave seem to imply that Silk-in-Pas does not become Piaton.

> It is wearying. You never just answer a question about your 
> own thoughts with a straight answer. Are you trying to be the Wizard of 
> Oz or the little man behind the curtain?

You think I have *secret* reasons for believing what I do about Silk-in-Pas?  I don’t.  Those things I mentioned are the things that seem relevant to me at this time.  I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, if someone brings up more evidence.  I had completely forgotten one of the heads of the reconstituted Pas was gasping, which could indicate a Pas closer to his origins than I had thought.  But that alone is not enough for me to change my mind on the subject.

- Gerry Quinn


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111129/532f96cd/attachment-0004.htm>