(urth) Oannes

[David Stockhoff]

On 3/20/2012 12:45 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
>
>> David Stockhoff: I agree. I don't see how an evolving deity could be
>> anything but an evolving perception of that deity. Plainly, that has
>> always fascinated Wolfe.
> I agree about the fascination. And Wolfe's use of a first person narrator
> throughout the Sun Series ensures we understand that all we are hearing is
> filtered through human perception and writing.
>
> Such a premise is based on an assumption. One assumption is atheistic:
> that there is no real God.  God consists only of what human minds think
> about him.  Before the first humans there was no God and he will disappear
> when there are no longer any humans around to think about him.  Is Wolfe
> suggesting this scenario?

No.
>
> Another assumption is that there is a one true God who is perfect and
> choiceless and unchanging. As you suggest, any perceived changes or
> personification of such a God (including calling it "He") are false. They
> are simply projections of human imperfection on a perfect God. But this
> means all religions are equally valid and/or equally false. Hindus, Christians
> and animists are all equally human and thus equally right and wrong about the
> unknowable perfection of the "real" God. How could one group of humans have
> a better grasp of the infinite than another?
Yes.
>
> Well, I'm frustrated at the digression. What I'm saying is this: In Long/Short Sun we have a pantheon of false electronic gods who are shuffled like cards and replaced in new forms, becoming closer and perhaps a part of The Outsider in the  process. In BotNS we have a pantheon of sea (and earth) gods who are similarly replaced. Was this shuffling important to The Increate/Outsider? Did it have an  impact on Him? If not, why even tell the stories?
Because they have an impact on the characters.
> (my impression of The Increate from BotNS is that he might best be described AS a universal story, which is being  played out). Ah never mind. I don't know what I'm saying.
I think what you may have run into here is that, while there is 
certainly /conflict, /there may or may not be /development /in the 
characters' perceptions of the true god. So to rephrase your question: 
why tell stories of gods revealing their changing "natures" to 
characters if the characters' idea of these gods does not change? Fair 
question. I think Silk's does, as has been discussed. Severian ... who 
knows. He's seen enough to blow several people's minds.