(urth) Typhon's nature

[David Stockhoff]

On 10/11/2011 3:30 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote:
>
>>>  And Typhon, by his own account, is not one to speak
>>> indirectly. For myself, I tend to want to interpret him as neither 
>>> god nor demigod but as an example of pure hubris.
>>
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree.
>
> Typhon's got loads of hubris, but he's not all false pride; like 
> Alexander, he did accomplish things no other man approached.
>
Definitely---I don;t mean to imply falseness or failure with the Tower 
analogy. (I'm sure the Tower would have succeeded if it hadn't been 
messed with, and in fact the way it was messed with suggests that it 
would have succeeded, or else why sabotage it?)

Interestingly, Alexander was not constructed---he was clearly a "sport" 
if not exactly a mutation as the Mule explicitly was. In fact, these are 
two competing and valid models, but both require that Typhon be human, 
which was my basic point.

A third model (which I reject) might be Hercules (with whom Alexander 
was associated by his propagandists, but falsely of course), who was 
only half-human. His powers were therefore semi-divine, from Up There. 
The fourth (which I also reject) is that Typhon is some kind of Wolfean 
angelic being or god---but he's no Hiero. There's no room for more gods 
in Briah!


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 111011-0, 10/11/2011
Tested on: 10/11/2011 10:22:08 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com