(urth) Pike's ghost

[David Stockhoff]

Down the rabbit hole again ...

On 11/29/2011 1:49 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> *From:* David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
> > 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?

To ask you "why."
> Do you disagree with my reasoning regarding the role of Silk in Pas/Silk?

Gerry, I have no idea! How can I? What "reasoning"?
>
> > 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?

Not quite. The point raised was whether anyone had any ideas about which 
head Silk replaced (and by inference what that might mean if anything). 
You answered so I played along. Here we are. You still haven't given any 
coherent reasons---you've made statements with no hints as to how they 
are reasons.
> I don’t think I produce semi-random stuff, either half-processed or 
> over-processed.

I am sure of that.
>
> > 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.

You've said that, but you haven't said why.
> > 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.

No, I don't think you have secret reasons for your opinion. They simply 
have not been clearly expressed. I couldn't begin to try to change your 
mind, if I cared to do so, without knowing your reasons for your opinions.